A/HRC/37/67 Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the United Nations Convention against Corruption. One delegation also said that regulating the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under the treaty should not overlap with the work being undertaken at the Hague Conference on Private International Law. 114. One delegation and a business organization argued that international cooperation should be developed generally and not focus on the specific regime. There was a fear that developing new obligations on international cooperation could conflict with other processes or send contradictory messages as to United Nations standards and its broader activities. Instead, States should focus on strengthening existing international cooperation mechanisms and continue to develop national action plans. Another delegation stressed that enhancing international cooperation could also benefit businesses. Furthermore, efforts should be taken to increase peer pressure among States to strengthen implementation of the Guiding Principles. 115. A regional organization stressed its advocacy for increased mutual legal assistance, including for cross-border investigation. It noted that the provisions under that chapter were interesting; however, it mentioned that already much was being done, for instance the work of the OHCHR accountability and remedy project on cross-border cooperation. It also questioned how the provisions in that section would allow for implementation given the current constraints, such as the lack of resources of prosecutors’ offices to investigate cases involving transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Some delegations and a panellist suggested that provisions on technical assistance could be included to address some of those challenges. 116. Delegations called for greater specificity in the provisions of that section, taking into account that different levels of cooperation were required. There were multiple suggestions to differentiate the section based on whether cooperation was needed for civil, criminal or administrative matters, and to include more precise provisions on the means of cooperation needed for these different types of regimes. Additionally, there were calls for more detail into what processes should be required, in particular for evidence collection and sharing, and reciprocal recognition of civil judgments. It was also noted that a provision should be included to ensure reciprocity among States. I. Panel IX. Mechanisms for promotion, implementation and monitoring 117. The first panellist suggested that drafters focus on four principles in that section. First, accountability, lessons on which could be drawn from processes regulating business conduct outside of the human rights context, such as the World Bank Inspection Panel. Second, transparency, given the importance of access to information. Third, participation, although caution should be exercised regarding abuse by the private sector. Fourth, cooperation, which should be ensured at the national, regional and international levels. 118. The second panellist discussed cases in which victims were unable to access justice through existing institutions. She argued for the creation of an international court for affected individuals and communities to hold transnational corporations accountable. While supportive of the creation of an ombudsman, as proposed in the elements, she claimed that that would not be an adequate substitute for an international judicial body. 119. The third panellist welcomed that section in the elements document and noted that international mechanisms were needed. Implementation lay foremost with national jurisdictions, but a complementary, properly resourced international court should exist when national jurisdictions fail. The treaty body proposed in the elements would also be welcome and should be endowed with the ability to make recommendations, as well as referrals to the international court. 19