A/HRC/32/19 23. The legal uncertainty in many jurisdictions surrounding the extent to which parent companies (and other constituent companies within a business enterprise) have legal responsibilities under domestic law regimes to identify, prevent and mitigate human rights abuses connected with that business enterprise’s operations is not only a barrier to remedy itself, but also gives rise to further barriers, including by adding to legal costs and creating delays. For those reasons, the guidance relating to both public law offences and private law claims opens with a set of suggestions relating to the development of legal regimes that respond more readily to the practicalities of organization and management of business enterprises,25 and which take into account the particular challenges arising from complex global supply chains.26 B. Challenges particular to cross-border cases and the importance of international cooperation 24. Cross-border cases27 pose particular challenges that can undermine efforts to ensure accountability and access to remedy. The prevailing lack of clarity across jurisdictions about the roles and responsibilities of different interested States in cross-border cases create a significant risk that no action will be taken, leaving victims with no prospect of remedy. Against that background, various human rights treaty bodies have recommended that home States take steps to prevent business-related human rights abuses by business enterprises domiciled in their jurisdiction. 28 25. The extent of international cooperation in cross-border cases has a crucial bearing on accountability and access to remedy in practice. States have entered into a range of bilateral and multilateral arrangements to support, facilitate and enable international cooperation with respect to legal assistance and enforcement of judgments in cross-border cases, including cases concerning business-related human rights abuses.29 Some of these include provisions concerning the desired or required use of jurisdiction in cross-border cases.30 26. Some international instruments relevant to cross-border human rights cases also include provisions designed to facilitate greater cross-border exchange of information between domestic law enforcement and judicial bodies, and provisions aimed at improving regulatory effectiveness more generally, reflecting a recognition by participating States of the benefits of greater alignment of regulatory and investigative standards and capacities as a way of strengthening and deepening cooperative responses to global regulatory challenges.31 27. Regardless of whether formal international legal arrangements are in place, State agencies can experience a range of practical challenges that can undermine effective cooperation, including a lack of information about how to make a request to agencies in other States, a lack of opportunities for cross-border consultation and coordination, differences of approach regarding issues of privacy and the protection of sensitive information, a lack of resources needed to process requests in a timely manner and a lack of awareness of investigative standards in other States. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 10 See annex, paras. 1.5 and 12.3. Ibid., paras. 1.6 and 12.4. See note 9 above. See A/HRC/32/19.Add.1, para. 33. Ibid, para. 36. Ibid., para. 34. Ibid., para. 36.