A/HRC/43/55 vulnerabilities. Some delegations suggested adding reference in that paragraph to sexual orientation and gender identity and to internally displaced persons. Other delegations recommended adding an open-ended phrase to the list, such as “and others” or “and other vulnerable groups”, to make it clear that the list was non-exhaustive. 29. Several delegations approved of the inclusion in the preamble of the reference to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. 30. Some delegations questioned whether it made sense to single out the ILO Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190) in its own paragraph, given that all eight fundamental ILO Conventions were already referenced in a previous paragraph. 31. One delegation questioned the rationale for including references to international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the final preambular paragraph, when the paragraph could simply refer to international law in general. Other delegations suggested removing the reference to international humanitarian law, considering it more appropriate to focus on human rights law. However, that suggestion was challenged by two delegations and two experts. 32. Several delegations and organizations suggested including other references in the preamble, such as to 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 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals; the capacity of business to foster economic well-being, development, technological improvement and wealth; and climate change. Additionally, at least one delegation and several non-governmental organizations called for greater focus in the preamble on the gender dimension. 33. Many delegations focused on the need for clearer language in article 1, with some delegations arguing that the article unreasonably expanded the scope of the legally binding instrument beyond transnational harm. 34. Some delegations voiced doubts over the definition of “victims” in article 1 (1), questioning whether its inclusion was necessary. If the definition were to remain, some delegations and organizations called for more precision, particularly with respect to how a “victim” could be determined and the distinction between victims and alleged victims. A few delegations also stressed the need to differentiate between genuine victims and those bringing unjustifiable claims, and questioned the extent to which “victims” included immediate family members or dependents. One delegation suggested removing the phrase “individually or collectively” from the text, believing it to be redundant. Some non-governmental organizations proposed changing the term “victims” to “affected populations” or “complainants”. 35. Much of the discussion on article 1 centred on the definition in article 1 (2) on “human rights violation or abuse”. There were several calls for more precision. Some argued that the provision was far too broad, as it covered “any harm” against “any person”. Others questioned what level of harm had to be present to constitute a human rights abuse or violation. There were multiple calls for greater consideration of the distinction between “violation” and “abuse”, with a few delegations suggesting that the revised draft refer only to “abuses” throughout the document. Another delegation and a non-governmental organization suggested defining “abuse” and “violation” separately. Some delegations proposed removing the reference to the “State”, since the instrument focused on transnational corporations and other business enterprises. There were calls to clarify or remove the references to “emotional suffering” and “economic loss”. Additionally, a number of delegations proposed removing the reference to “environmental rights”, with two delegations requesting clarification of the meaning of that term. However, some non-governmental organizations insisted on retaining the reference to “environmental rights” and recommended adding an explicit reference to economic, social and cultural rights. 36. Although many delegations praised the expanded scope of the revised draft legally binding instrument, some delegations called for the definition of “business activities” in article 1 (3) to be restricted to transnational corporations. One delegation suggested reverting to the definition contained in the zero draft of “business activities of a transnational 7