A/HRC/43/55 73. Some delegations requested greater clarification as to the extent of liability of legal persons (including with respect to criminal law) envisaged in articles 6 (2) and (3). Additionally, one delegation proposed merging articles 6 (3) and (4). While one delegation welcomed article 6 (5), another delegation and a business organization suggested removing it from the text. 74. Several delegations and organizations called for greater clarity and stronger wording in article 6 (6), particularly with respect to parent/subsidiary relationships. Replacing the phrase “contractual relationships” with “business relationships” would help in that regard. However, some delegations and business organizations voiced the concern that, as it was currently worded, article 6 (6) could be interpreted as unfairly placing liability on companies for failing to prevent harm committed by distant third parties. 75. Most of the debate centred on article 6 (7) and its many provisions. Many delegations and organizations welcomed the list of crimes to which criminal, civil or administrative liability were to attach, although there were many calls for clarification as to whether the list was meant to be exhaustive. Most argued that the list should be open-ended, as it was likely that important offences had been omitted and flexibility in the article could ensure that it captured future legal developments. Several delegations supported the proposal that the words “inter alia” be added before the phrase “for the following criminal offences”. Additionally, there were several proposals, which received relatively broad support, for other crimes to be included, such as environmental crimes and crimes relating to economic, social and cultural rights, corruption, privacy and financing of terrorism. One non-governmental organization also requested the deletion of the reference to domestic law at the beginning of article 6 (7). 76. However, several delegations voiced serious concerns about the article as drafted. Some questioned whether several of the article’s provisions were applicable to non-State actors. Additionally, several delegations took issue with the fact that many of the crimes listed were defined by reference to instruments that their States had not accepted. That was most evident with respect to article 6 (7) (a) and its reference to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as article 6 (7) (c) regarding the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. There was concern that the inclusion of those references would make it politically difficult to become a party to the future legally binding instrument. Several delegations also considered articles 6 (7) (h) and (k) to be too vague, and requested that they be properly defined. 77. Two delegations voiced concern over the wording of article 6 (9), as it could be read as requiring the imposition of (criminal) legal liability on legal entities. One delegation proposed adding the phrase “criminal, civil or administrative” before “legal liability” to clarify the meaning. E. Articles 7, 8 and 9 78. Introducing articles 7, 8 and 9, the Chair-Rapporteur noted that article 7 had been clarified and restructured, and the title had been changed to “Adjudicative jurisdiction” to highlight that the article dealt with the key role of courts in achieving justice for victims. The text of article 8 on statute of limitations had been bolstered and amended to expand States’ leeway with respect to determining the best means of implementation. The new text called for a “reasonable” period of time for the investigation and prosecution of violations, particularly for cases involving another State, in which processes took longer due to the need for mutual legal assistance and cooperation. Article 9 had been revised to ensure consistency with article 7 and to give courts a broader range of options when determining the appropriate law. The new wording provided for the possibility for matters of substance to be governed by the law of the State where the violations had occurred or where the victim was domiciled, so long as it was in the best interest of the victims and their rights to access to justice and effective remedy. 79. There was general appreciation for the fact that article 7 on adjudicative jurisdiction had been included, as rights holders’ claims were often rejected on jurisdictional grounds. Two delegations and at least one non-governmental organization welcomed the greater 13