A/HRC/43/55 48. One delegation considered article 4 (2) to be redundant and asked for its removal, while another considered the article to lack clarity. Some delegations proposed alternative language, for instance a reference to “all recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms” instead of the current list of rights. 49. Some delegations proposed that in article 4 (3), references should be added to interim measures and the rights of children, and that the word “reprisal” should be used instead of “retaliation”. 50. While two delegations questioned the reference to “re-victimization” in article 4 (4), with one suggesting the terminology be changed to “further abuse”, two other delegations welcomed the inclusion of that provision, considering it particularly important for enhanced protection based on gender. 51. With respect to article 4 (5) (a), one non-governmental organization proposed adding apologies and reinstatement of employment to the list of remedies. Some delegations and one business organization sought more clarification regarding the appropriateness of referring to “environmental remediation and ecological restoration” in article 4 (5) (b). They questioned whether such reparation fell within the mandate of the working group, and one delegation called for references to environmental remediation to be consistent with existing international law. 52. Several non-governmental organizations suggested that the reference to the right to access to information should be strengthened in article 4 (6), with one emphasizing that it should apply explicitly to information held by private enterprises. 53. Some delegations voiced their approval of article 4 (7) on diplomatic and consular assistance and proposed changes to improve the article, for instance by making a specific reference to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and by clearly differentiating between diplomatic and consular assistance and legal assistance. However, some delegations considered the provision to be redundant and argued that its inclusion in the legally binding instrument was inappropriate. 54. Several delegations requested clarification as to which circumstances would justify one person submitting a claim on behalf of a victim without the victim’s consent, as provided for in article 4 (8). One delegation noted that the provision could be problematic within its domestic legal order, along with articles 4 (12) (e), 4 (13) and 4 (16). 55. Many non-governmental organizations welcomed the inclusion of article 4 (9), considering it important to ensure the protection of human rights defenders. 56. One delegation proposed moving articles 4 (11) and (14) to article 10 on mutual legal assistance. 57. There were multiple calls for clarification with respect to the provisions of article 4 (12). One delegation wanted to know what time frame was envisaged for making information available to victims under article 4 (12) (a). Another delegation sought clarification as to what constituted an “unnecessary” delay in article 4 (12) (c). Many delegations and business organizations voiced concern about the inflexibility in article 4 (12) (e) with respect to cost shifting. In their view, nothing in the provision protected against entirely frivolous claims. They were therefore concerned about the possibility of vexatious and unmeritorious claims placing a financial burden on defendants. 58. There were diverse views expressed with respect to the reversal of the burden of proof covered in article 4 (16). Several non-governmental organizations considered that to be a crucial provision, which should be strengthened and made obligatory. However, some delegations and organizations called for clarification regarding the circumstances under which reversing the burden of proof would be considered appropriate. In their view, depending on the situation, reversing the burden of proof could contravene the presumption of innocence or fundamental provisions of due process protected under domestic and international law. 10