A/HRC/44/32/Add.1 and laws on defamation) to find an accommodation that prevents the use of legal processes as a means of retaliation. 19. Human rights defenders will require additional legal protection due to the nature of their work. For instance, while safeguards to protect the identity of persons raising grievances may help to address the risk of retaliation in many contexts, this will not assist trade union representatives who work openly and in full view of employers and others. 20. Retaliatory behaviour (and the risks of the same) may not be obvious to law enforcement agencies, highlighting the need for greater institutional awareness of different forms that retaliation can take in practice (2.2). Institutional awareness can be enhanced through the establishment of specialist units, 21 ongoing engagement with affected stakeholders (and particularly those who may be at heightened risk of vulnerability or marginalization), risk assessments and training. Such efforts should promote a proper appreciation of the structural, sociocultural and economic issues that can underpin or exacerbate risks and the risks that arise in challenging operating contexts, such as conflictaffected areas or areas in transition from conflict. 21. Legal regimes and their enforcement (2.1), efforts to increase institutional awareness of relevant institutions (2.2) and measures to provide access to assistance and support (2.3) need to take account of the particular risks that may be faced by women and the way that entrenched social attitudes and discrimination can serve to exacerbate the physical, psychological and economic harm caused by retaliatory acts.22 The importance of engaging directly with, and drawing from the knowledge of, people who have experienced retaliation first hand as a result of their interactions with such grievance mechanisms cannot be overstated. 3. The need for realistic and readily-identifiable pathways to an effective remedy 22. In many cases, the remedies obtainable from non-State-based grievance mechanisms are only partial (for instance, because they can address only the future conduct of the company concerned, or because the mechanism has insufficient leverage over the company in question). In such cases, rights holders benefit from having the flexibility to pursue different remedies through different mechanisms, perhaps in combination, as part of a remedial strategy that best meets their needs. 23. State agencies can play a useful role in raising awareness of the availability and advantages of different courses of action to rights holders (3.1(a)). It may be relevant to highlight, for instance, the circumstances in which dialogue-based methods may yield better remedial outcomes than adjudicative processes (3.1(b)), whilst also noting the utility of adjudicative processes in cases where a more formal process, perhaps with binding outcomes, may be needed. 24. The most suitable providers of information and advice will vary depending on the legal structures and existing institutions of the State concerned; however, in many jurisdictions and contexts, national human rights institutions and other bodies with mandates expressed in human rights terms are likely to have an important role to play. Such bodies may be able to help address the imbalances in power that frequently exist between parties to grievances (3.1(c)). 25. In cases where there may be routes through which a remedial outcome might be legally enforced (e.g. by constructing it as a binding contract) rights holders should be made aware of this through the appropriate channels (3.1(d)). Similarly, in cases where a grievance (or aspects of a grievance) may be able to be referred to a State-based mechanism, rightholders should have ready access to the necessary information to be able to engage with the relevant processes as easily and efficiently as possible, and in such a way as to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort (3.1(e)). 21 22 8 See A/HRC/32/19, annex, policy objective 6. See A/HRC/41/43, paras. 11–21.