A/HRC/32/19 Policy objective 13: Private law regimes are sufficiently robust to ensure that there is both effective deterrence from and effective remedy in the event of corporate contributions to business-related human rights abuses perpetrated by third parties. 13.1 Domestic private law regimes (a) communicate clearly the different modes and degrees of contribution to the harms perpetrated by a third party that will give rise to secondary legal liability; and (b) are clear as to the extent to which the principles for assessing secondary liability are applicable to companies. 13.2 Domestic private law regimes are clear as to the principles used to attribute knowledge, intentions, actions and omissions to a company for the purposes of assessing corporate legal liability on the basis of theories of secondary liability. 13.3 Domestic private law regimes treat causes of action based on theories of secondary liability as distinct causes of action, conceptually and procedurally separate from any breaches of law committed by the primary wrongdoer, and such secondary liability is not contingent, in law or in practice, on any judicial finding of liability on the part of the primary wrongdoer. Policy objective 14: The principles for assessing corporate liability under domestic private law regimes are properly aligned with the responsibility of companies to exercise human rights due diligence across their operations. 14.1 Domestic private law regimes take appropriate account of effective measures by companies to identify, prevent and mitigate the adverse human rights impacts of their activities. 14.2 Domestic private law regimes take appropriate account of effective measures by companies to supervise their officers and employees to prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts. 14.3 Domestic private law regimes make appropriate use of strict or absolute liability as a means of encouraging greater levels of vigilance in relation to business activities that carry particularly high risks of severe human rights impacts. 14.4 Judicial bodies have access to and take proper account of robust, credible and, where appropriate, sector-specific guidance as to the technical requirements of human rights due diligence in different operating contexts. Overcoming financial obstacles to private law claims Policy objective 15: Claimants in cases arising from business-related human rights abuses have access to diversified sources of litigation funding. 15.1 States prioritize the provision of State funding to claimants who are able to show financial hardship, and ensure that such funding is available on transparent and nondiscriminatory terms, taking into account gender issues and the particular needs of individuals or groups at heightened risk of vulnerability or marginalization. 15.2 The domestic legal system permits and encourages pro bono legal services. 15.3 Rules of civil procedure provide for the possibility of collective redress mechanisms in cases arising from business-related human rights abuses, the criteria for which are clearly expressed and consistently applied. 15.4 The domestic legal system permits a range of private funding arrangements, such as funding by third party litigation funders, firms of solicitors (e.g. pursuant to contingency fee and/or “success fee” arrangements) and providers of litigation insurance. 18