 I would like to invite now Nicola to give us an overview to summarize a bit of our discussions and put it into a broader context. Okay, thank you. Okay, hello, my name is Nicola Nicola-Jeges, I'm a professor of international human rights law at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. I'm also a commissioner at the National Human Rights Institute at the Netherlands. And I'm one of the researchers involved in the project that Katharina Jannebus explained more about this morning. Well, thank you to the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for organizing such a thought-provoking day. I think it's been extremely interesting and I was asked to summarize today's discussions and that's impossible. I'm not even going to attempt to do that. Because I think we've had rich discussions and so many things have been raised that I wouldn't do justice trying to just summarize it all. Moreover, I'm very much aware that I'm the only thing standing between you and a well-deserved cup of coffee. So I'm going to try to be as brief as possible. There are just a few things I'd like to highlight. Well, the discussions today show that there is a lot going on, a tremendous lot going on in the field of access to remedy. However, the access to remedy, the third pillar of the protect, respect and remedy framework, has yet to achieve the traction on a larger scale. There has been a lot of commitment expressed by policymakers. The European Union has time and again expressed their commitments to UN guiding principles and especially to access to remedy issues. We have the historic statement by the G7 in June of this year, also expressing support for the UN guiding principles and stating that complaint mechanisms need to be strengthened. So there is a lot of expressed commitment out there. However, it's also very clear that a lot of challenges remain. I think that's a fair conclusion we can draw from today's panels. If you look at the UN guiding principles, you can see that access to a judicial remedy is at the core of the system. The first panel we discussed, we addressed the many challenges that victims that want to bring a case before national courts face and how we can overcome these challenges. In that light, I would like to just briefly refer to a case it was already mentioned a few times that is currently pending in the Netherlands. You probably have heard of it, the case is against Shell for all pollution in Nigeria. It concerns all villages in several Nigerian villages and five Nigerian farmers together with friends of the earth bought a case before the Dutch courts in The Hague against the parent company but also against the Nigerian subsidiary. In January 2013, the courts threw out four of the claims but one claim was upheld and Shell was ordered to pay compensation to one of the farmers, Agpam. This case was appealed by both parties and we are awaiting this appeal decision where a few preliminary legal issues are going to be addressed and this Friday, I was just informed that this Friday the appeal decision will actually be handed down, it's been postponed several times but this coming Friday it's a case to watch because one of the important issues that the Dutch court is going to have to address is the question of jurisdiction. Is this case supposed to be before a Dutch court, especially the case against SPDC, the Nigerian subsidiary? So this is a very important case for many reasons, it's extremely important of course for the victims involved but also for the lawyers, for the litigators because this might open the door to more litigation in Dutch courts but also it might stimulate the increasing number of cases that we see in European courts. As has been pointed out a few times today, the Supreme Court decisions by the US Supreme Court and Daimler and Kiebel haven't completely firmly closed the door but they have restricted and maybe made the US a less preferred venue for victims seeking access to justice and have turned the spotlight more to the possibilities within Europe. And so we see these cases in Europe, the Shell case, kick in Germany, the Unilever, Verdantac cases, I mean there are increasing number of these cases but I think we shouldn't forget that notwithstanding the importance of these cases, the examples are still few and far between and they are a drop in the ocean. It's been pointed out that it leads to questions of fairness and that in this case, in the Shell case for example, it's this one farmer, Akpam, that if the case proceeds, if the decision is favorable to the victims, this coming Friday the case will proceed in the Netherlands but we're only at a very early stage, it will go on for many years. So in general, I think we can conclude that domestic judicial remedies to date are still very patchy, they're unpredictable, they're often ineffective and it's still very fragile so it's a development that is in need of a lot of strengthening and a lot of concrete proposals have been discussed today, how we can reform the law, improve the procedures to make access to courts within the European Union more of a reality. The second panel, we turned to the issue of non-judicial remedies and especially company grievance mechanisms. I think it was made very clear in the discussions following this second panel that company grievance mechanisms do have a lot of potential, especially in an early stage. I think it was called an early warning system and I think that's crucial, I think a lot of these conflicts need to be de-legalized. Courts are an option of last resort, once you end up in a court everything else has been lost so it's a last resort and it's not going to help the large number of victims out there. So where it is possible to de-legalize conflicts and to address them before we actually end up in long protected legal proceedings, this is very useful. So company grievance mechanisms as early warning systems I think are very important but they do suffer from limitations which were pointed out, they're not that suitable for serious very severe human rights violations and not really capable of addressing the most systemic problems. And there's this danger which time and again has occurred in our discussions today, non-legal mechanisms should not crowd out the judicial remedies. So this brings me to, I was asked to point out a few outstanding issues and I just want to point out three areas that clearly need further research and which our project is up to a point also contributing to I hope. Firstly of course we need to discuss the interplay between non-judicial grievance mechanisms and litigation. I thought it was interesting what Jonathan said, the actual threat of litigation will help, will assist in improving grievance mechanisms if I understood you correctly. So I mean this interplay is important and grievance mechanisms are as Karen said still very much a black box so we need more research on what makes a grievance mechanism effective and what does effectiveness actually mean in this context, something that might be great on paper might not be considered effective from the perspective of a victim. Then clearly there's a lot of work, research work that needs to be done on how we can improve the law, how we can ensure that there is better access to the courts and there have been many proposals which were discussed today, the reversal of the burden of proof, the importance of group complaints and so on and so forth. I'm not going to repeat them all today but there's a lot that needs to be further researched. And then this one issue I just wanted to highlight because it hasn't been discussed today and in any other business and human rights meeting I go to it is always discussed so I was quite surprised that it didn't pop up today because when we're looking at judicial remedies and access to domestic courts I do wonder whether we're not asking too much when we expect a domestic court to become sort of a global beacon in an issue which is burdened with such complexities and competing interests. So shouldn't we be looking at an instrument or something that could address the issues at a more systemic level. And I think an interesting question that's still very open is whether the proposed treaty that's being negotiated at the UN level could in any way assist in improving access to remedy for victims. The United Nations last year adopted the resolution and established an open-ended working group which is now in the process of drafting a treaty in the field of business and human rights and it's extremely controversial it's very political and it's very unclear where it's going but maybe it is an instrument if it ever comes into being that might help and improve access to remedy for victims. Something we might want to consider in the time to come. I wrote an editorial for the Netherlands Human Rights Quarterly in September where I expressed I said access to remedy for victims reminds me very much of the traditional Echternacht procession in Luxembourg where participants take two steps forward and one step back. So the process is extremely slow but it is moving forward and now I think we all deserve a cup of coffee thank you.