A/HRC/43/55 F. Articles 10, 11 and 12 85. The Chair-Rapporteur introduced article 10 by explaining that, while the procedures and substantive preconditions for accessing mutual legal assistance remained unchanged from the previous draft, certain modifications had been made to add precision and ensure consistency with other international instruments. He noted that, beyond the reordering of clauses, article 11 was substantially the same. Certain improvements had been made to article 12 in line with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Article 12 (6) had been made less prescriptive without undermining the goal of ensuring compatibility between the legally binding instrument and other instruments, both with respect to interpretation and implementation. 86. Several delegations and non-governmental organizations recognized the importance of articles 10, 11 and 12, particularly articles 10 and 11, for the effective implementation of the future legally binding instrument. However, there were some calls for the text to be made more concise and precise. 87. With respect to article 10, several delegations requested that a clearer distinction be made between those provisions applicable to civil matters and those applicable to criminal matters. One delegation also raised administrative matters. It was noted that procedural rules and legal principles differed, sometimes substantially, depending on the type of proceeding. Thus, it would aid implementation if the legally binding instrument treated civil and criminal matters separately. If a future draft were to focus more on criminal matters, some delegations suggested including language covering extradition. There were several requests for clarification on how the legally binding instrument should be interpreted and implemented in relation to other mutual legal assistance treaties, particularly in cases involving States that were not parties to the legally binding instrument. Some delegations recalled the breadth of instruments and mechanisms already available to aid mutual legal assistance; there were calls to avoid duplication and to ensure coherence with other processes. Specifically regarding the recognition and enforcement of judgments in articles 10 (9) and 10 (10), the proposal was made that the working group seek guidance from the recently adopted text of the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, as well as the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation. 88. Several suggestions were made to amend the text of the many provisions in article 10. One delegation recommended adding a reference to “international judicial cooperation” in article 10 (1). Another proposed adding “criminal, civil or administrative” before the word “proceedings” in the same provision. As for article 10 (3), one delegation proposed removing article 10 (3) (j) since, in its view, it went beyond traditional mutual legal assistance principles. Another delegation argued for the provision to remain and to be strengthened, potentially by borrowing language from the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Some delegations proposed that more flexibility was needed in article 10 (5), requesting that the word “shall” be replaced with “may”. One delegation requested clarification as to the meaning and scope of article 10 (8), and another suggested removing the provision. Some non-governmental organizations argued that article 10 (10) should be strengthened by removing potential grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. There were calls in particular to remove article 10 (10) (c). However, some delegations considered that the provision did not provide enough flexibility to States. One delegation stated it would be unable to support the current text, and another proposed allowing State authorities to trigger the grounds found in article 10 (10) (c) in addition to defendants. 89. Several delegations and non-governmental organizations highlighted the importance of article 11 on international cooperation and called for it to be strengthened. The suggestion was made that the article include language on technical assistance. At least two delegations supported a proposal for the creation of a fund to help States with capacity-building. 90. Several delegations requested clarification as to how article 12, on consistency with international law, should be interpreted with respect to States that were not parties to the 15