A/HRC/37/67 aid. Additionally, the panellist noted the importance of recognition and enforcement of judgments. 94. The third panellist discussed how important it would be for victims to have access to courts in the home States of transnational corporations. To better confront problems such as piercing the corporate veil, he recommended reversing the burden of proof and improving victims’ access to disclosure. He also suggested that damages should be based on home State calculations, the abolishment of the “loser pays” principle, and inclusion of proper cost-recovery mechanisms to encourage legal representation. 95. Delegations and NGOs welcomed the inclusion of that section in the document, noting that it was crucial to address gaps in legal protection and that doing so would constitute important added value in a future instrument. In particular, efforts to remove practical and legal barriers to effective access to justice were appreciated; however, some NGOs warned that by listing specific barriers, it could be excluding those not mentioned. It was suggested that the section should clearly state the right of everyone to have access to remedy regardless of the perpetrator. 96. A regional organization indicated that the assessment in the chapeau seemed acceptable but questioned whether the provisions mostly restated existing obligations. Another delegation suggested the complete removal of the section, arguing that a more holistic approach was warranted and that the current approach would force States to adopt a system that could be inappropriate in local circumstances. A business organization noted that the root problem regarding access to justice was a lack of the rule of law, and the instrument would need to find ways of incentivizing States to implement existing obligations. 97. States and many NGOs appreciated the inclusion of a provision emphasizing the need for access to justice for vulnerable groups; however, it was suggested that more empowering and positive language should be employed. Some NGOs recommended the inclusion of language about the need for gender-sensitive access to justice and remedies. An NGO also suggested that language from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be included, in particular to recognize the different legal systems and customs of certain communities. One delegation was concerned that specific groups were being recognized at all, indicating that there would be unfair and special treatment for those listed. A panellist disagreed, arguing that fairness dictated that different groups be treated differently. 98. Clarification was requested regarding the provision concerning non-judicial mechanisms not being a substitute for judicial mechanisms. It was mentioned that recourse to non-judicial mechanisms could be in the interest of victims, as they were sometimes faster and more appropriate. One panellist agreed that non-judicial mechanisms had a role to play, but argued that they were complementary, noting that judicial mechanisms should always be available. 99. Several NGOs appreciated the provision on reducing regulatory, procedural and financial obstacles in access to remedy, in particular mentioning the importance of ensuring class actions, access to information and limiting forum non conveniens. Many welcomed the inclusion of a provision concerning the reversal of the burden of proof; however, one business organization argued that that provision would upset the fair balance among the parties and potentially violate due process. Panellists disagreed, noting that, in some cases, raising a displaceable presumption would be appropriate, and that reversing the burden of proof existed in some national systems. 100. Several delegations and NGOs welcomed a provision addressing the need to guarantee the security of victims, witnesses and human rights defenders, although it was questioned whether the provision went beyond what States were already obliged to do. 16