A/HRC/34/47 84. The sixth panellist presented the health and environmental impacts of shipbreaking in Bangladesh to demonstrate issues related to liability and how corporations escaped accountability as a result of the lack of a binding standard. 85. Delegations stressed the need for clear regulations to prevent corporations from committing abuse and to hold corporations accountable for any abuse, since administrative liability and sanctions did not provide victims with redress. While civil liability could be a possible avenue to secure accountability, it often involved complex, lengthy and costly procedures, particularly when transnational corporations were domiciled in third countries. Regarding criminal liability, a binding instrument could correct a historical failure by making legal persons liable, as was expected for article 25 of the Rome Statute, and by attributing criminal responsibility to corporations. 86. Questions were raised in relation to the identification of the competent court; the definition of liability standards, including the criteria for establishing liability; and the implications for the principles of universality, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights. Also raised were questions on how to address damage that affected an entire population or several generations and on the elements of criminal liability that would apply to the company itself and possibly its managers. 87. One delegation mentioned the 2016 report of the International Law Commission, which included a section in which the Commission’s Special Rapporteur on crimes against humanity outlined arguments to support the international criminal liability of legal entities. 88. Given that corporations operated increasingly in conflict-affected areas, another delegation raised the issue of corporate liability for breaches of international humanitarian law and the need to incorporate into the legally binding instrument references to international humanitarian law as part of the corporate due diligence in such areas. 89. Some delegations were of the view that transnational corporations also had positive obligations to take active steps to realize human rights for all, including by contributing to the mobilization of resources for the realization of the right to development and economic, social and cultural rights globally, with a view to ending poverty. 90. One delegation reiterated that, in addition to liability standards, the treaty should include references to international cooperation for investigations and enforcement, as was the case in the Convention against Corruption. 91. Some NGOs recalled the legal obstacles to establishing the civil liability of transnational corporations at the national level. Self-regulation and regulation without monitoring by a third party did not work, thus there had to be a binding instrument and a court to enforce it. Other proposals for elements to be covered by a treaty included the compulsory disclosure of, inter alia, the compositions, subsidiaries and supply chains of companies. 92. One participant noted that the OECD guidelines and national contact points had been essential in establishing what expectations States have of companies, and had helped to change behaviour regarding human rights, facilitating faster access to justice through mediation, as opposed to litigation. It was also asserted that there had been progress by companies in integrating the Guiding Principles throughout their activities and operations; the principles should be the basis of the working group’s work. 15