A/HRC/43/55 95. Some delegations welcomed, in articles 13 (5) and 13 (6), the creation of a conference of States parties, although it was noted that the provisions were vague. One delegation asked for clarification of the role of the conference. 96. Several delegations requested much more detailed information on the international fund for victims proposed in article 13 (7), including in relation to how the fund would be established, what its scope would be, how it would be governed, how it would be funded, and the eligibility criteria for determining who would be entitled to aid. Some delegations noted that it would be difficult to form an official position on the provision until more was known. Non-governmental organizations urged States to establish the fund, since the lack of legal and financial aid was a major obstacle for those seeking access to remedy. H. Articles 14 to 22 97. Introducing articles 14 to 22, the Chair-Rapporteur recalled that there had not been significant discussion of those provisions during the fourth session. Consequently, no major changes had been made in the revised draft legally binding instrument. He drew attention to some textual improvements and reordering of the articles, including the moving of the article on commercial and vested interests and the article defining regional integration organizations to other parts of the legally binding instrument. He highlighted two new articles in the text. Article 15 had been introduced to clarify the relationship between the legally binding instrument and any additional protocols. Article 16 had been added to cover the settlement of any disputes. He noted that both of the new articles used the same models as those found in other relevant treaties. 98. Although one delegation argued it was premature to discuss articles 14 to 22 before more agreement had been reached on the content of the rest of the legally binding instrument, several delegations and non-governmental organizations made comments and suggestions on article 14, on implementation, and to a lesser extent on the remaining articles. 99. With regard to article 14 (1), one delegation called for the provision to include a reference to the creation of a central authority, whereas two other delegations proposed removing the provision. Some delegations supported a proposal for article 14 (2) to refer to an executive summary of each State’s legal and policy framework, rather than copies of their laws and regulations. However, other delegations requested clarification as to the objective and rationale behind article 14 (2), with one suggesting deleting the provision. Some delegations and several non-governmental organizations welcomed the reference in article 14 (3) to situations of conflict, although they suggested altering the text to refer to “conflictaffected areas and occupied territories”. Several non-governmental organizations noted their appreciation of the focus on gender in the provision and recommended that reference be made to gender-responsive human rights impact assessments. Appreciation was also expressed regarding the recognition in article 14 (4) of groups facing heightened risks of harm. One delegation and some non-governmental organizations recommended that the list of groups be non-exhaustive and that particular attention be paid to the intersecting forms of discrimination faced by persons belonging to more than one group. There were also calls to include peasants in the list. Another delegation proposed removing the reference to migrants. Different views were expressed regarding the desirability of retaining the reference to international humanitarian law in article 14 (5), and some delegations proposed removing the provision altogether. Additionally, many non-governmental organizations suggested inserting a provision in article 14 on corporate capture. 100. One delegation and some non-governmental organizations considered the means of dispute settlement referenced in article 16 to be inappropriate. In the delegation’s view, any dispute settlement should be done solely through consultations and negotiation. Another delegation questioned the rationale for including article 16 (3). Some delegations also questioned the necessity of including article 17 (3) and its system of voting rights for regional integration organizations. 17