A/HRC/43/55 character”. Another delegation proposed expanding the definition to include “economic or other activity”. 37. Several delegations and non-governmental organizations called for careful consideration of the definition of the term “contractual relationship” in article 1 (4). In the view of some, there was a danger that the term could be interpreted narrowly, excluding certain relevant relationships (e.g., equity-based relationships). Many delegations and nongovernmental organizations recommended replacing the phrase with “business relationship”, as contained in the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, while another proposed “economic relationship”. Another delegation warned that that definition was already too broad and could inappropriately extend legal responsibility. 38. Some delegations had differing views as to whether article 1 (5) was necessary, with one asking for its removal, another asking for more clarification, and another asking for the definition to be expanded. 39. At least one delegation and one non-governmental organization recommended that article 2 be moved from the operative part of the legally binding instrument to the preamble. Other delegations welcomed article 2, but thought the language could be brought more into line with that used in Council resolution 26/9, or that the article should go beyond the scope of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights by creating positive, justiciable obligations for transnational corporations and other business enterprises. B. Articles 3 and 4 40. The Chair-Rapporteur noted that, in order to strengthen the protection of human rights throughout global supply chains, and in response to the requests of several States and other relevant stakeholders, the scope of the instrument, as covered in article 3, had been expanded to cover all business activities, including, inter alia, those of a transnational character, and all human rights. Article 4 reaffirmed and clarified victims’ minimal procedural rights and States’ existing obligations with regard to access to justice. He highlighted the fact that article 4 now included provisions on the protection of human rights defenders, gender-sensitive support services, non-judicial grievance mechanisms and the reversal of the burden of proof. 41. Delegations had differing views on the scope covered in article 3. Several argued that the scope of article 3 (1) was much too broad since it covered more than just transnational corporations. In their view, the focus of the legally binding instrument should be limited to the specific terms used in Council resolution 26/9, which referred to transnational corporations and other business enterprises that had a transnational character in their operational activities. However, several other delegations and organizations welcomed the expanded scope, with some thanking the Chair-Rapporteur for addressing one of their major concerns with the zero draft. In their view, a distinction between transnational corporations and other business enterprises would be difficult to maintain in practice. Moreover, it would create gaps in the coverage of the legally binding instrument as corporate structures could be created so as to avoid falling within the scope of the instrument. Furthermore, it was immaterial to persons affected by business activities whether the entity that had harmed them was a transnational or a domestic company. One delegation suggested removing the reference in article 3 (1) to business activities of a transnational character and another proposed emphasizing that the scope apply to business activities “regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership and structure”. However, other delegations and at least one non-governmental organization argued that it would be beneficial to retain a focus on transnational corporations even if the legally binding instrument applied to all business activities. Some delegations and organizations also requested that article 3 (1) more clearly address State-owned enterprises, development finance institutions and the role of parent companies. 42. Some delegations questioned the necessity of article 3 (2), given the expanded scope of the legally binding instrument, while others proposed moving the provision into article 1 on definitions. One delegation noted that the reference to “any contractual relationship” in article 3 (2) (b) was limiting. Another found the references in the same provision to “direction”, “control” and “designing” to be problematic. Several delegations sought 8