A/HRC/43/55 legally binding instrument. That was specifically raised in relation to articles 12 (3) (a) and 12 (6). One delegation questioned why article 12 (1) referenced only some of the principles from the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, and requested that all the principles be included. Another delegation proposed removing the phrase “by its domestic law” from article 12 (2), since international law was also relevant in that context; it proposed simply ending the sentence after the word “jurisdiction”. Many non-governmental organizations called for article 12 (6) to be strengthened and to assert more clearly the supremacy of human rights over trade and investment treaties. Some delegations requested more clarification as to how the provision was to be interpreted, while another delegation proposed reverting back to the text of articles 13 (6) and 13 (7) of the zero draft, arguing that they had been clearer with regard to the relationship between the legally binding instrument and trade and investment agreements. G. Article 13 91. Introducing article 13, on institutional arrangements, the Chair-Rapporteur noted that inspiration had been drawn from other human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Convention against Torture. He also noted that the recommendations mentioned in article 13 (4) should be interpreted as having the same status as those of other treaty bodies. He further noted that the provision on the international fund for victims had been moved to article 13 and that the details of its entry into force and operation had been left open, to be decided by the conference of States parties. 92. Although it was recognized that an article on institutional arrangements was needed in order to ensure proper implementation of the legally binding instrument, some delegations considered it premature to debate the specifics of the article before more progress had been made on the substantive sections of the instrument. Those delegations also suggested delaying discussion on the committee, in particular, until the outcome of the review of the treaty body system in 2020. There was concern that creating a new treaty body could be costly and it could duplicate the work of other mechanisms. Some delegations therefore urged the working group to think outside the box to determine an efficient way of leveraging systems already in place. 93. With respect to the composition of the committee, there was support for the fact that article 13 (1) called for the consideration of equitable geographic distribution and genderbalanced representation for the election of experts. Additionally, some delegations and nongovernmental organizations expressed appreciation for the inclusion of language in article 13 (1) (b) ensuring that elected experts did not have any conflict of interest, although they sought clarity regarding how that could be ensured. In that regard, one non-governmental organization proposed a ban on appointing persons who held government or business positions. At least one delegation and several non-governmental organizations recommended that the committee include members of minority groups, such as indigenous peoples, or civil society organizations. Some non-governmental organizations also called for article 13 (1) (c) to grant civil society the ability to nominate committee members. 94. Regarding the functions of the committee, one delegation sought clarification as to the role and non-binding nature of its recommendations, and another delegation voiced concern about the risk that consideration of State reports could be politicized. There were several calls, mostly from non-governmental organizations, to strengthen the powers of the committee. For instance, it was recommended that the committee be able to consider individual complaints (and otherwise permit direct access of rights holders), directly review the conduct of business, undertake country visits and provide technical assistance to States on issues beyond those referenced in article 13 (4) (c). Additionally, many non-governmental organizations called for the establishment of an international tribunal to investigate and adjudicate claims against transnational corporations and other business enterprises, and for the establishment of an international mechanism to monitor the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. 16