A/HRC/30/35 60. Given the gravity of slavery and slavery-like practices as gross human rights violations, judicial remedies are a key form of securing accountability for business-related human rights abuses. Access to justice for victims in this context is, however, often constrained by legal rules limiting the liability of a corporation for human rights violations not directly arising from its business operations. This is a problem in global supply chains whereby the business enterprise sourcing the product is not directly implicated in the exploitation that occurs lower down the supply chain, but is complicit as a result of failing to comply with its human rights due diligence obligations. Also, vicarious liability rules prevent corporate liability for management conduct in many instances which arise in the disarticulation in the supply between the global retailer and the many small subcontractors at the lowest tier. 61. In the context of supply chains, a lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction affects access to remedies for contemporary forms of slavery and other human rights violations, which are committed outside the territory in which a business is domiciled. In this context, the United States Supreme Court held, for example, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, Co., that the presumption against the extraterritorial application of United States law applies to the Alien Tort Statute, 72 and this can only be overcome if the claim “touches and concerns” the territory of the United States “with sufficient force” to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application. G. Some challenges and gaps to ensuring the accountability of States and businesses for contemporary forms of slavery in supply chains 62. Despite notable improvements in recent years, gaps in legal and regulatory protection for the human rights of victims of contemporary forms of slavery exist in a number of countries. This has a significant impact on enforcing corporate legal liability. 73 In many cases, States also lack an integrated approach to criminal, labour and human rights laws, which impedes law enforcement and prevents effective investigation and prosecution of abuses. Where the legislative framework does exist, in some instances this is affected by lengthy legal proceedings and corruption, including bribery, which means that access to remedy is slow and victims are reluctant to come forward as a result. 63. In other cases, some legal jurisdictions are part of the problem, exacerbating the vulnerability of workers to contemporary forms of slavery. This is the case in countries where laws tie migrant workers to specific employers, preventing them from leaving without the employer’s authorization. In some countries, for example, certain categories of workers are not guaranteed their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and thus not allowed to form or join trade unions or hold office within them, which adds to their vulnerability. 64. It also remains a challenge for transnational businesses with complex supply chains to conduct human rights due diligence on all levels of their supply chains, particularly where they have no direct business relationship with subcontractors. 74 The same applies for 72 73 74 18 involvement in human rights abuses (www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/OHCHRstudyondomesticlawremedies.aspx), progress report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on legal options and practical measures to improve access to remedy for victims of business-related human rights abuses (A/HRC/29/39) and A/HRC/17/35. Available at www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/10-1491_l6gn.pdf. See International Corporate Accountability Roundtable, “Persisting Harm”. In the commentary to principle 17 of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, it is acknowledged that, where businesses have large numbers of entities in their value chains it may be