A/HRC/43/55 of proof in certain circumstances and recommended the deletion of the phrase “subject to domestic law” and the clarification of the phrase “where needed” in the provision. 6. The third expert underscored the importance of recognizing the rights contained in article 4, as there was a need to address the imbalance of power between rights holders and corporations. One important way to address this imbalance is through increased access to information, and she called for the working group to expand upon and strengthen articles 4 (6) and 4 (11) on that topic. The expert requested more clarity as to the role of non-judicial mechanisms and their potential to impede access to justice. She also welcomed article 4 (16), considering the reversal of the burden of proof particularly helpful to address challenges related to access to information. C. Article 5 7. Underlining the importance of going beyond a “comply and explain” approach, the first expert emphasized the need for companies to take proactive measures to prevent human rights harm when conducting human rights due diligence. He called for the legally binding instrument to clarify that conducting human rights due diligence will not automatically absolve a company from liability. However, the expert recommended that, when a company has established it has conducted human rights due diligence, the burden of proof should be shifted to the victim to demonstrate that the company could have implemented actions that could have prevented the harm. 8. The second expert insisted that explicit reference be made to trade unions in article 5 (3) and to the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy in the preamble. She stressed that human rights due diligence requirements should take into account freedom of association and collective bargaining. She also called for article 5 (3) (b) to reference “free, prior and informed consent” instead of “consultations” in order to bring the provision more in line with the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention. Additionally, the expert commended the inclusion in article 5 (5) of language recognizing the issue of undue corporate influence, as well as the removal in article 5 (6) of exemptions for small and medium-sized undertakings from human rights due diligence requirements. 9. The third expert highlighted recent developments in various States’ national laws with respect to human rights due diligence, particularly in the fields of child labour and modern slavery. He recognized the closer alignment of the revised draft legally binding instrument with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights with respect to human rights due diligence, though he provided several suggestions for ensuring greater complementarity. For instance, he suggested adding in an explicit mention that such diligence is supposed to be an ongoing process, and, noting limitations in the phrase “contractual relationships”, he recommended the use of the phrase “business relationships” throughout the text. Additionally, he requested the working group to consider a limited defence for companies based upon a showing of human rights due diligence. D. Article 6 10. The first expert, speaking in her personal capacity, noted that before talking about legal liability, one first has to establish the applicable law; however, in her view, it was unclear what legal standards apply, and to who, in the revised draft legally binding instrument. She argued that certain areas of international law (such as the grave breaches provisions in international humanitarian law) already apply to non-State actors, including companies, and she advocated for the legally binding instrument to clearly impose direct obligations on companies. The expert further suggested that article 6 be restructured such that there would be sections covering general principles, how acts could be attributable to companies, and on the relationship of the treaty with other areas of law. 11. The second expert considered article 6 to be a major development in setting international standards in this field. In his view, the article can be divided into three categories. The first category covers the legal liability of a business for abuses it, itself 25