A/HRC/40/48 claims should be excluded from the provision. In the same vein, some delegations mentioned the importance of including language to ensure protection from vexatious litigation. Such language could be included in article 8 (5) (d) or elsewhere (in article 8 (6) or a new, standalone provision, for instance). 44. Much discussion centred on the potential establishment of an international fund for victims (art. 8 (7)). Several delegations welcomed the idea in principle, with many seeking greater clarity as to the modalities of the fund, its funding and management. Several were also of the view that the establishment of the fund merited a separate article. However, other delegations, concerned that States might be expected to pay for the harm caused by companies, expressed reservations. 45. Two delegations also voiced concern about the potentially broad scope of articles 8 (8) and 8 (9). Those articles, they said, should be brought into closer alignment with existing international law and relevant cases. 46. In addition, several delegations and NGOs requested numerous additions to article 8 – for instance, a more pronounced gender perspective, protections for human rights defenders and the inclusion of groups as victims. One delegation also suggested that the differing capacities of States be taken into account, particularly in articles 8 (5) and (6). B. Articles 6, 7 and 13 47. Noting that short statutes of limitation often hampered victims’ ability to bring claims, the Chair-Rapporteur stressed the importance of including article 6 in the future instrument. He discussed how article 7 acknowledged that human rights standards could vary across jurisdictions and emphasized that victims should be given the option to decide which human rights standards applied. The aim of article 13 was to harmonize the interpretation of, and ensure the consistency of the treaty with, international law. 48. Delegations had differing views of article 6. Some expressed support for an article regarding statutes of limitation, although at least one suggested that the article be removed, and many others pointed out issues with the text. With respect to the first sentence of article 6 (1), many delegations and a business organization sought clarification of the meaning of “crimes under international law”. In the absence of an agreed-upon and exhaustive definition of the concept, there could be implementation issues, as States would have divergent views. Several delegations expressed the view that if “crimes under international law” meant the core crimes covered in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (namely, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression), international law was already clear that no statutes of limitation applied, so it would be unnecessary to state that statutes of limitations would not apply to crimes under international law in the future instrument. It was also not clear to all whether the phrase also covered crimes having an international character, such as piracy, trafficking and terrorism. Some delegations suggested addressing issues involving the definition of terms by focusing on gross human rights violations or all international human rights violations instead of crimes under international law. 49. Some delegations and an NGO expressed concern about the vague language in the second sentence of article 6 (1), in particular the references to “unduly restrictive” and “adequate period of time”. In their view, the provision would need to be clearer for it to be effective. One delegation suggested using the words “unnecessarily restrictive” rather than “unduly restrictive”. Two delegations raised the issue of variations in domestic law regarding statutes of limitation, with one insisting that the instrument should not interfere with national law in that regard. 50. There was a range of views regarding article 7. Some delegations and NGOs viewed the article as crucial, arguing that it should be expanded to include references to competent regional courts and indigenous peoples’ laws and customs. Other delegations supported the article but requested more precise language. Also requested was a clarification of what was meant by “competent” courts and “involved persons”. There were calls to ensure that the article was consistent with existing standards of private international law. In that respect, one 9