A/HRC/43/55 clarification of the meaning of the term “substantial effect” in article 3 (2) (c). Some delegations also recommended additions to article 3 (2), for instance in relation to projects on transboundary natural resources and activities undertaken by electronic means. 43. Many delegations and some organizations voiced concern over the reference in article 3 (3) to “all human rights”. The delegations argued that the formulation was overly broad and vague. That could lead to implementation challenges, since the formulation might not comply with the principle of legality, and different States could interpret it in different ways, causing different standards to apply among the States parties to the instrument. Several alternative formulations were proposed, such as “international human rights law”, “internationally recognized human rights” and “all human rights obligations undertaken by the States parties”. References could also be made to “fundamental freedoms” and/or “international humanitarian law”. Some delegations suggested aligning the text with other instruments, such as the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Council resolution 26/9. One delegation proposed deleting the provision altogether, arguing that it added little value, while others argued it was a key provision that should remain. 44. Two delegations and business organizations considered article 4 to be generally problematic. In the view of some, the article was redundant given that the rights of victims were already adequately provided for in international and domestic law. One delegation argued that a detailed article in that context could have the consequence of giving victims harmed by transnational corporations greater rights than those harmed by States. However, some States and non-governmental organizations considered article 4 to be one of the most important articles in the instrument, and critical to ensuring that those harmed had effective access to justice. In their view, the article should be retained and any particular issues could be addressed on a case-by-case basis. 45. Two delegations and a non-governmental organization called on the working group to consider amending the title of the article. One delegation noted that, as the article covered both the rights of victims and the obligations of States, the current title (“Rights of victims”) should be amended to make it more accurate, and the provisions should be more clearly categorized. Another delegation and a non-governmental organization thought it would be more appropriate for the title of the article to focus on “Access to remedy” or “Access to justice”, since that was the focus of the article. It was suggested that, given the focus on access to remedy, it would be more logical for the article to be moved to after article 5, on prevention, and article 6, on legal liability. Some delegations proposed ways of reformulating the article in a clearer way. For instance, one delegation suggested categorizing all of the provisions under three headings: (a) substantive rights of victims; (b) procedural rights of victims; and (c) State obligations to protect the rights of victims. Another delegation suggested that the article categorize the rights and obligations according to type of proceeding (e.g., criminal, civil or non-judicial). 46. Several delegations and non-governmental organizations made specific textual suggestions. For instance, it was suggested that each provision refer only to “abuses”, or to “violations and abuses”, as there was some inconsistency in the terminology used in that article and the terminology used in the rest of the revised draft legally binding instrument. One delegation recommended replacing all instances of “victims shall” with reference to victims’ rights, with “States shall” with reference to guaranteeing or protecting the rights of victims. There were also several calls to make additions to the text, for instance by inserting references to victims of conflict situations, international humanitarian law, parts of the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, the State duty to protect and global justice mechanisms. 47. One delegation suggested that article 4 (1) was unnecessary, although it did not oppose retaining the provision. The same comment was made in relation to articles 4 (2) and 4 (3). One business organization called for the text to be clearer, particularly with respect to the definition of “psychological well-being”. One delegation proposed adding a reference to fundamental freedoms, and several non-governmental organizations called for the article to reference gender-responsive assistance to victims. 9