A/HRC/32/19 1.9 The State regularly reviews b whether its domestic public law regimes provide the necessary coverage and the appropriate range of approaches with respect to business-related human rights impacts in the light of evolving circumstances and the State’s obligations under international human rights treaties and takes the necessary legislative and/or policy steps to correct any deficiencies in coverage or approach. Policy objective 2: Domestic public law regimes are sufficiently robust to ensure that there is both effective deterrence from and remedy in the event of corporate contributions to business-related human rights abuses perpetrated by third parties. 2.1 Domestic public law regimes (a) communicate clearly the different modes and degrees of contribution to harms perpetrated by a third party that will give rise to secondary legal liability; and (b) are clear about the extent to which the principles for assessing secondary liability are applicable to companies. 2.2 Domestic public 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. 2.3 Domestic public law regimes treat offences based on theories of secondary liability (a) with the same level of seriousness as the relevant primary offence; and (b) as distinct offences, conceptually and procedurally separate from any primary offences committed by the main perpetrator. As such, a finding of secondary liability is not contingent, in law or in practice, on any judicial determination of liability on the part of the main perpetrator. Policy objective 3: The principles for assessing corporate liability under domestic public law regimes are properly aligned with the responsibility of companies to exercise human rights due diligence across their operations. 3.1 Domestic public law regimes take appropriate account of effective measures by companies to identify, prevent and mitigate the adverse human rights impacts of their activities. 3.2 Domestic public law regimes take appropriate account of effective measures by companies to supervise their officers and employees to prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts. 3.3 Domestic public 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. 3.4 Enforcement agencies and 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. Supporting the work of State agencies responsible for investigation and enforcement Policy objective 4: State agencies responsible for investigating allegations of businessrelated human rights abuses and enforcement of domestic legal regimes (“enforcement agencies”) have a clear mandate and political support. 4.1 The State effectively supports its enforcement agencies in protecting against business-related human rights abuses. b See A/HRC/32/19.Add.1, para. 5. 13