A/HRC/43/55 169). That delegation stated that it was not in a position to endorse non-consensual language regarding consultations with indigenous communities. Several delegations and many nongovernmental organizations argued that the reference to “free, prior and informed consultations” was not in line with accepted international law and was not protective enough. Instead, there should be a clear, mandatory reference to the need to obtain “free, prior and informed consent”. Additionally, there were calls to expand the list of protected groups found in article 5 (3) (b) in order to protect against sexual harassment and gender-based violence, as well as to protect peasants and farmers. However, one delegation proposed referring generally to the protection of groups in situations of vulnerability instead of listing specific groups. 67. At least one delegation and several non-governmental organizations welcomed the reference in article 5 (3) (e) to the need for enhanced human rights due diligence in occupied or conflict-affected areas, although they called for that to be expressed in stronger language. 68. At least one delegation and several non-governmental organizations welcomed the inclusion of article 5 (5) on corporate capture, asking for it to be included and strengthened in future drafts. D. Article 6 69. The Chair-Rapporteur noted that article 6 of the revised draft legally binding instrument, on legal liability, had undergone significant changes since the previous draft, and now explicitly included the obligation of States to ensure that their domestic laws provided for a comprehensive and adequate system of legal liability. In the revised draft, liability was more clearly based on the notion of control or supervision over business activities that caused foreseeable harm, and there was an obligation to adopt sanctions and reparations in cases of abuse. He highlighted some new elements, such as article 6 (5), on financial guarantees, and article 6 (7), which required States to ensure that their domestic law provided for criminal, civil or administrative liability for a non-exhaustive list of offences. 70. Many delegations and non-governmental organizations considered the article on legal liability to be a core element of the legally binding instrument, and it was noted that article 6 was an improvement on the version of the article on legal liability in the zero draft. However, some delegations considered the current version of the article to be overly prescriptive and inflexible, limiting States’ freedom to determine how best to implement the legally binding instrument. Any language suggesting a need to establish criminal liability of legal entities was considered particularly problematic, since such liability was not possible in the legal systems of several States. One delegation called for the development of an approach to the article that would be sufficiently robust, while allowing States flexibility in terms of implementation. Several delegations and organizations considered the article to be too ambiguous and broad, advocating for greater conceptual and terminological clarity. Additionally, a few delegations called for the article to be better aligned with Council resolution 26/9 and for there to be a greater focus on transnational corporations. 71. There were many additions suggested to the article. As in the discussion on article 5, some delegations and non-governmental organizations requested that an explicit link be made between articles 5 and 6. A business organization requested a provision recognizing those companies that took meaningful steps to prevent abuse within their supply chains. Additionally, there were calls for an increased gender perspective and a child-specific approach, and provisions covering, among other things, economic, social and cultural rights, compensation levels, legal barriers, and the direct obligations of transnational corporations. 72. Two delegations requested clarification of the meaning of the phrase “comprehensive and adequate system of legal liability” in article 6 (1), with one noting that it could agree with the provision as long as it did not imply that States would be required to adopt new, specialized legislation. Other delegations requested that that and other provisions of article 6 refer to transnational corporations and other business enterprises in accordance with Council resolution 26/9. A request was made to delete the words “violations or” from the phrase “human rights violations or abuses” in the article. 12