A/HRC/14/29 obscures the real source of the negative impacts. Lastly, the State may have a conflict of interest in some contexts, for example when it is a partner in the industry, or may abandon people to deal with and seek remedy from the company failing to comply with its duty to protect. Ms. Gaughran proposed that the Special Representative give detailed guidance to States and companies to address the systemic obstacles to effective remedies by tackling the issue of access to information and by recommending that some elements of human rights due diligence should be required by law. 49. Martyn Day (Senior Partner, Leigh Day Solicitors) gave an overview of the main obstacles communities face when looking for redress. He pointed out that the lack of local legal representation pushes the communities to seek remedy internationally through lawyers from the home State. Mr. Day stressed that there should be a system whereby justice can be brought forth simply and quickly. He added that another obstacle, in the case of multinationals, is the unclear relationship between parent company and subsidiaries. In order to facilitate access to remedy, the parent company should be considered liable for the activities of its subsidiaries. Finally, Mr. Day suggested that companies should be proactive and solve conflicts as they arise to avoid legal action and a lengthy court battle. 50. Salvador Quishpe (Saraguro Community, Ecuador) presented the difficulties that the indigenous people whom he represents face in Ecuador in seeking redress for corporate abuses. He stressed that defending the land is an integral part of defending indigenous peoples’ rights and identity. Mr. Quishpe stressed that in cases involving extraction of natural resources, communities have had to approach the companies involved directly and ask them to respect human rights and engage with the community. He noted that companies often have greater political influence with the State than the State’s own citizens. This was evident when the community asked the State for protection but the State agreed to open the dialogue only when, during demonstrations, a death occurred. He concluded by saying that free, prior and informed consent should be a condition for companies’ operations. 51. Jan Eijsbouts (Former General Counsel of multinational Akzo Nobel, International Mediator) submitted that litigation (particularly extraterritorial) is an unsatisfactory tool for conflict resolution and that mediation, being mutual-interests based, is the best way forward. He pointed out that proactive conflict-management policies, including mediation, are an essential risk-management tool for responsible corporate governance, also where (potential) human rights issues are at stake. He supported the Special Representative’s stated view that companies should offer stakeholders a consensual, de-escalating and neutrally led professional conflict resolution method. Summary of discussion 52. Some participants stated that negotiating human rights is not possible, given their very nature, and that mediation might not always be the best way forward. Others stressed that international cooperation should support rule of law, good governance and the development of lawyers in host States who could legally represent victims and seek redress on their behalf. 53. One participant brought to the general attention an example of aerial spraying of banana plantations in the Philippines as a case where the access to judicial remedy was particularly difficult. In this case, the plantation workers were provided with protection while the residents in nearby communities have been left unshielded. The legal and procedural barriers were enormous and communities could not afford the necessary legal and technical support to bring their case. Moreover, civil society participants stressed that compensation does not prevent further harm to communities and that a study on preventive measures should be conducted. GE.10-12935 13