A/HRC/43/55 commits. Article 6 (1) fits in this category, and the expert called for more guidance on what was meant by the provision’s reference to a “comprehensive and adequate system of legal liability”. The second category covers the liability of a business for its contribution or participation in an abuse committed by another entity. Article 6 (6) fits in here. Finally, the third category (covered by article 6 (7)) establishes liability for a business’ commission of certain crimes defined under international law. 12. The third expert emphasized the importance of effective access to remedy, noting that while the easiest target for civil redress is the local operating company that directly caused the harm, there are significant barriers preventing remedy in many host States. He argued article 6 (5) could be useful to ensure companies will be able to afford covering the costs of their harms. Article 6 (6) can be key to holding companies liable for the harms of their subsidiaries; however, in the expert’s view, the current wording of the provision (particularly the use of the phrase “contractual relationship”) is problematic. Finally, the expert highlighted that, in practice, legal liability will succeed only if barriers to accessing remedy are reduced, such as those relating to access to information, class actions, the protection of witnesses and legal costs. E. Articles 7, 8 and 9 13. The first expert argued that article 7 should permit jurisdiction wherever a corporation has an operational presence, either prohibit or significantly restrict the use of forum non conveniens, and include a provision covering forum necessitatis. With respect to article 8 on statutes of limitation, the expert expressed concern at the notion of “reasonable time” and suggested that statutes of limitation should not start until victims become aware of any harm. Stressing the importance of applicable law, the expert took the view that victims should be entitled to choose which laws should apply to their claims. 14. The second expert welcomed the improved article 7 in the revised draft legally binding instrument, which now referred to “Adjudicative jurisdiction”. He suggested that it be made clear that the article applies only to civil jurisdiction and should not be construed as limiting criminal jurisdiction (including universal jurisdiction). He also recommended that article 8 on statutes of limitation also clearly differentiate between civil and criminal cases. Further, the expert called for article 9 to be more aligned with private international law, and he considered it would be more logical if article 9 appeared before the article on statutes of limitation in the legally binding instrument. 15. Noting the various options for asserting jurisdiction in article 7, the third expert questioned who would decide which jurisdiction would be appropriate. If the decision were left to courts, there was a risk of perpetuating forum non conveniens; in his view, this doctrine should be expressly prohibited. The third expert also questioned how article 7 should be reconciled with existing laws such as the Brussels I Regulation. With respect to article 8, he emphasized that victims of human rights abuses involving multinational companies generally need significant time to institute legal proceedings due to various factors, for instance because it takes time for harm to materialize, to identify witnesses, and to secure legal representation. Given this, he recommended that the statute of limitations should not run until the victim has obtained knowledge of the harm, its cause and the responsible wrongdoer. 16. The fourth expert supported the views expressed by the other experts on these articles and focused her remarks on a few key points. First, she suggested that the legally binding instrument make clear references to access to justice, including access to appeals and enforceable justice. She further stressed the importance of differentiating between the criteria for civil and criminal jurisdiction. With respect to article 9, she noted that the criteria for selecting the applicable law was unclear and suggested including the place where the harm was committed in article 9 (2). F. Articles 10, 11 and 12 17. The first expert, speaking in his personal capacity, identified the lack of mutual legal assistance as a major barrier to access to justice. Thus, he argued for article 10 to clarify that 26