 Now, this panel is called Informal Justice by Spanish Corporations and as the title suggests and probably for the relief of much of the audience, we're moving a bit away from legal technical issues, especially the questions of legal liability and litigation to questions of what you might call social responsibilities of corporations, right? We've just, and in a way it connects very nicely to the end of the last panel where we've heard about problems of legal over-regulation, which of course then poses the question, well, how about corporate self-regulation, right? And the question that we heard about sort of limitations, sort of European corporations should respect human rights within Europe yet, but then that might be appropriate perhaps for our small and medium-sized enterprise, but what about European corporations indeed that operate globally in third countries? What should their responsibilities be? And what do we, to put it concisely, what do we say as European societies expect of our corporate nationals, as they often called, when they operate in third countries? What are their social responsibilities, perhaps rather than legal responsibilities? Anything that John Roggy who designed these UN guiding principles is called the corporation's social responsibility to respect human rights. Now we'll kick off this panel with an intervention by Carlos Cordero, Carlos and myself met in Bangladesh some years back to discuss issues relating to decent work and human rights protection there, among other things in the garment factory, so I expect that Carlos will also have a lot to say on one of the cases we want to discuss in the second part of the panel, the Rana Plaza case. Carlos is the founder and managing partner of a social innovation, Sustencia, an NGO, right? No. No? It's a business. Pardon me? A business. A business with rich experience anyway in the areas of business and human rights, both in Europe and in Latin America. After Carlos' intervention we'll have the opportunity, as already indicated, to discuss two cases, the Inditex case and the Rana Plaza case that illustrates some of the issues at stake in sort of non-legal approaches to corporate responsibilities. And for the panel discussion we are joined by Alberto Muñoz, and I hope I pronounced your names correctly, who is a professor of law at the University of Navarra, and Maria Lopez Aposada, who works with a non-profit, private company that defends the interests of disabled persons, as I understand, yes. This is the second part, but for now I'd give the floor to Carlos. The title of his presentation is Public Policies, Public Policies and Udilligence, no, sorry. Is it Public Policies? Public Policies and Udilligence as Key Drivers Towards Effective Remedies. Yeah, more or less, yes. Sorry, my own handwriting. Well, thank you very much for the invitation. It's very interesting to me to share and to learn from all of you and share my thoughts and my experience on this field. I told you business, but in fact we are a very, very micro business, especially as in anti-corruption business and human rights and transparency and right to access to information, but it's consultancies and also professors in university, all the team. But anyway, I'm going to try, I got a PowerPoint, but I'm not going to use that because I'm going to leave to Catarina. Thank you to Globernance for the invitation, and from 2004 we started to work on business and human rights, more or less when the problem with the norms, after the problems with the norms in the United Nations and the Gofianna give the mandate to the Professor Ragi to give a solution to the common approach on business and human rights, the issue. And we have been working in projects and in missions and researches in Spain and Europe and Latin America, Asia, and with the different stakeholders, governments, businesses, business associations, trade unions, NGOs. We really have a close relationship with the ECJ and with ICAR, that's the big networks and NGOs focus on this. And I'm going to try to share with you our concerns and our perspective of the challenges of the framework and the guiding principles, the real effective implementation in that. Maybe our most interesting experience is from 2011 to until now, we have been working in Colombia, Colombia as you can imagine, it's not really easy country to work on in general on human rights, but especially in business and human rights. And we're starting with a multi-stakeholder approach focused on capacity building to improve the dialogue between different parties and with round table with four parties, government, human rights defenders and trade unions, business association and business and international community, Spanish Embassy, UK Embassy, Netherlands, United Nations programs working on that and the excuse was the guiding principles, excuse for sitting around the table and the question was what should be done in Colombia for effective implemented the recommendation and guiding principles. We're starting working on that, for surprise to us it was resolved and was a really very interesting outcomes even to documents that they are in our web in Spanish and after that the Colombian government asked for capacity building to the public sector for 65 public officers in the Ministry committee that has demanded to develop a public policy on this and after that, well, regional workshop in Cartagena, Cali Medellin and the last activity was a giving capacity building to the defensoria del pueblo that is like a human rights institutions that in the case of Colombia also have a public defenders to the victims directly. Well, the first idea from this experience is that if we would like to improve the effectiveness in the remedy we have to work at the same time in the different level but at the same time in the other two pillars because there are very close links between things in the pillar one, pillar second and pillar third and it's very difficult to make access to remedy if you don't modify or improve the regulation, the capacity building of the public officers or another instruments or if you don't improve the due diligence of the private sector as well. So the other thing and the other idea is that when we are talking about access to remedy, some people is thinking in judicial remedy and some people is just focused on the operational remedy but the approach of John Raggy and the guiding principles is a unique scheme with different instruments and the effective is very important because the effective of the operational one influence in the effective of judicial one and in the other way as I said. In some international debates in GNF mainly when we discuss about what should be done and why doesn't work the implementation of guiding principles, just in my opinion and no correct dilemma between to go to the we have to make the effort on the on the local approach or in the international approach. I think it should be considered that everything is linked and regarding the state of duty to protect, we found that there's a big gap between the guiding principles proposed and the current situation in the national legislation, public instruments and public policies, international agreements, capacities to prevent, investigate, punish, or redress human violation by businesses. For example, in Colombia, much of the people, there's no awareness, no, no, no, I'm not talking about a skill knowledge and awareness what exactly saying the guiding principles. So if you have to include criteria in the commercial trade in relation with preventing human right abuse of the companies that invest in your country is very interesting to know a little bit what's expecting from at least from the United Nations. Also exactly the same with the official of the justice in the justice system. For example, one of the requests that is coming from Colombia is trying to give capacity buildings to the judge and to the the fiscal to persecutors in this area, no, no in the legal approach because in most of the cases there are no legal biting in the actual legal biting but yes in the interpretation of the current law or to the public policy makers when they have to review and improve the laws, the current laws. The other conclusion from one of you is the key issues have not been addressed effectively. We have been talking about some of those key issues. One is the territorial issue, jurisdiction, but also the national public policies and the effect in the foreign countries. The issue of the responsibility of the parent companies, the liability of the parent companies on subsidiaries or supply chain, the barrier, the actual barrier of the foreign non-convenience that we have been talking about on civil law, the problems of the opportunity to improve the right to know and the access information laws to focus on human rights violations, there is this limitation in general in all human right to know laws and for example requirement, the minimal requirements on the religion expected in the businesses in some sectors in some conflict areas or things like that, there's no really clear. The other point in the state of duty to protect us should be the policy currents is not assured. So it's very difficult when I'm talking in the national level, internal policy currents but also in the international treaties, I'm really focused on international treaties because if we are going to negotiate a bilateral trade treaty or invest treaty or fiscal tax treaty whatever, if you are not considering a possible risk on human rights, that's not going to work in the duty of protect but also it's not going to incentive and due diligence in the second pillar and it's very difficult to access to remedy to the legal basis or no legal basis and the agreement mechanisms by operational. So the currents in the internal and external policy, the currents is key issue in that. The other thing is if we should, if we see the naps that has been approved this year or last year, all are very vague in their content and un-poor in ambition. So much of them is that we got four now, well obviously the Spanish is not approved yet and I don't think that it's going to be approved in this legislative period but the four is if we make, it's not really a skill analysis, you can see that it's likely put in order different measures and very poor ambition and it's very low knowledge as I told you on the business and human rights in policymakers, public officials and judicial actors. Regarding the responsibility to respect, so focus on the due diligence and the business and management, for example, one is be confucian is not clear public requirements or expectation on what should be considered due diligence. So there's a free interpretation in different sectors, in different countries and different companies. So it's very difficult to, and the naps don't give light on that as well. So naps is a national action plan on this point and also there is a very low knowledge on business and human rights in managers and employees. In general, there are specific cases that is not the case but in general is that. There's more commitments on human rights, public commitments on human rights that implemented in the management system, proof. So it's very easy to sign a declaration but it's not exactly the same easy to include in the management criteria and implemented the measures and few corporations are doing now risk and impact assessment on their operations. And the other thing is the transparency of the access disclosure and access to information still is very restrictive and poor. So it's very difficult from the transparency to improve the situation. Regarding the access to remedying, well, the first idea that this shall be urgently addressed because it's from the three pillar, this pillar is the poorest achievements. There's a false dilemma between local remedy versus international remedy, operational remedy versus judicial, non-judicial versus judicial, non-public versus public mechanisms. So the point is we have to consider that the focus on the effectiveness of the access to justice are remedied to the victims and the rest is just tools. And that's all. So it should be improved in every tool to access to remedy. Yeah, five minutes. And the, well, operational critical mechanisms cases as far as I know are very few and it's not proved that they are very effective. We are going to talk about the fan of Bangladesh collapse. And from my opinion, it's not really, it's not the best model to, but and the effective is very, very, you know, it's not really good. And there's a big confusion of the turn of remedy as well. And this is important because from the business, from the human rights, the term remedy should be associated to restorative justice. So focus on the effects and not just on the economic compensation. Obviously, economic compensation should be linked to the remedy. But the point is not just give it a contract between victims and the business. And this practical barriers, access to remedy, for example, economic awareness and capacity building. I'm going to focus in these four minutes on the practical barriers to effective remedy. I'm talking about from the experience from the community affected by violation of business and human rights. Well, the first one, and that is not by law, it's not going to be resolved by with laws. There's a lack of information and knowledge on their rights and how to seek protection of remedy, which instruments should be go to access the remedy. The other barrier are the social exclusion context on vulnerable groups. The other is the imbalance power on resources between the right holders affected and the businesses. So if we go to the judicial confrontation or the arbitration, the resources and the power of the different parties are completely different. The other point is we would like to focus on that is the need to be protected with the blowers and human right defenders because there are very security risks on that. And they are the key people to rise the problems for the community, I mean. And the other barrier is the weak independence, integrity and impartiality of judicial in some cases and no judicial system, the prohibitive cost of to the right holder on the process, the lengthy process, the very long time period, a judgment in some cases are no enforced when there's a judgment and sometimes mediation outcomes and unfulfill for the parties as well. And also, obviously, the corruption is a big barrier in these cases. And I promise that's five ideas. And mainly changing the remedy or areas that should be work. One is awareness raising and capacity buildings to the victims, right holders in society, even media for rising and the point. Support and encourage judicial independence, integrity and impartiality of the judges that could be maybe regional international network support, serious experience, expertise and judicial, judicial presidential approaches. Improve the state-based, no judicial mechanisms like national human rights institutions and national contact points of city guidelines. And the mediation that it has been increasingly used should be not applicable in gross human right abuses. And that's in that case, it should be judicial adequate. And the other two, the last idea is this all to be more effective should be engaged into international law that could be in the treaty or universal review and the strater territorial jurisdiction for greater access to remedy. Thank you very much. We have time for comments, questions from the panelists, the audience. Perhaps to just very quickly clarify our terms of reference, right? Because Carlos talked a lot about the UN framework for those of you who are not familiar with it. There's a first pillar addressed to states that is meant to restate international law, whether or not it actually does that people disagree about. A second pillar that is addressed to corporations, which is not strictly legal, most people think, but it's based on social expectations. And then a third pillar on remedies that combines aspects of law and and non legally binding aspects. One thing I'd like to hear from you, having said that, and with regard to the second pillar, which I guess in some ways is particularly relevant for our panel. I mean, what's your experience with working with corporations in Colombia? So, were they receptive? Do they welcome initiatives such as human rights due diligence and so on? If you could say something about this, I think that would be very interesting. Well, in Colombia, the point is if we are starting talking about human rights, it's very strange at the beginning of the conversation because there's a different concept of human rights. Even now, if you're talking about peace, they think that you have a political will with the word peace. So, we're starting in that context. So, and at the beginning, a business and business association that was the main actors around the table was a little bit expecting what's going on with this because, but the problem was that the government take the leadership and asking for business association and main business to sit around the table and talking about this. When we're starting to discuss about what should be the challenges to implement this, what means exactly the responsibilities of respect for businesses and what exactly mean the duty to protect of the states and what is to mean exactly mean the access to remedy and the different instruments for agreement mechanisms and things like that. We're starting to discuss point by point and what should be interpreted in Colombian context. And now, the biggest business association, we are working together with them for working with the different business network, but also a million companies is working on that. Obviously, now they are thinking with a new context after the conflict context with the agreement and the peace agreement. They expecting that this year is going to be finished the peace agreement. And they consider the private sector has been in the building, the peace building a very important role. So to be honest, they are more interested in Colombian businessmen, women in this issue that in some European countries. Thank you. Other questions to Carlos at this stage? Well, maybe then just, you know, add just a little note on this notion of peace building Colombia to show again the other side because you said that, you know, you found corporations quite receptive and you, of course, worked mainly with, I assume, corporations from Colombia. But there are a number of cases, very serious allegations, court cases in which the following happened, right? That corporations coming in from the outside, both from the US and Europe in the mining business, so operating mines in Colombia, feel threatened by the guerrillas. So what do these corporations then do? They finance state military and in particularly employ paramilitaries to fight off the guerrillas. And the paramilitaries engage themselves in rather egregious human rights violations, evicting the local populations, killing people all over the country. And then these are sort of issues that where we are not talking about local corporations, but about global players, right? As I said, from the US, from Europe, they are quite well documented. And I wondered whether you have some view or some experience on these cases, too? Well, there's a big cases in Colombia. And there's a new current cases. In the last December, the person in charge in the Colombian government go to the annual forum on business and human rights, representing the Colombian government. And in some panels, there are a group of victims from Colombian regions asking for justice and action for remedy in specific cases, given data, information, specific information. So the problem is no result, obviously. And there is in the conflict, there are very close links between private companies to the war crimes, sometimes with the guerrilla and sometimes with paramilitary. For example, one is the case of the banana, no, the Chiquita, but with traffic arms. But there are other cases. For example, we have been involved in one case of electric dump in Cauca. It's a region very close to Cali, with a big conflict between community with the company that was Spanish in the former 10 years ago and was sell to the Colombian investors. But the conflict is still even in the judicial way. And there's a big, big conflict and with mining with a lot of things. So that's the, I think from my point of view, this is a wonder reason because the government is getting the guiding principles like an opportunity to put in order the house with this issue, try to make instruments to put in order and what it should be done for you, what it should be done for me, what should be done for judicial way, what it should be done with the community consultants and grievance mechanisms and things like that. It's like a plan and try to put it in order. But obviously the implementation is very weak and they are starting, they are doing now the NAP during this year, their commitment is finished during this year, the Colombian NAP and they are starting to giving capacity building to the 100 public officials. So it's very few people starting on that. Thank you. Yes, thank you. There's a question to Carlos. I have a question for you actually as a chair. The title of your case study is Informal Justice by Spanish Corporations. What do you mean by that? This is what we're getting to now. Thank you. And it's not my title, but I'll represent it anyway. So that there will be more opportunities to also ask questions to Carlos in the end. So what do we mean by that? Well, let me first introduce the case studies and say a few words about this and also involve the panelists and then I hope we'll shape it in a way. Certainly what it involves is asking ourselves what non-judicial possibilities there are to settle conflicts, especially not via litigation, but through settlements, through donor funds that provide money to victims and so on and whether this is desirable and if so in what situations. The two cases that we chose are both well known, I assume to most of you, so I'll keep that the introduction rather quick so we have time for discussions. One involves the Spanish corporation IndieTex and the other one in a way also involves IndieTex, but many other companies in the context of the recent disaster in Bangladesh. So most of you, I assume, will have come across the IndieTex case that involved the Spanish clothing corporation Zara. So we are in Brazil, where Brazilian company AHA is responsible for 90% of Zara's Brazilian production. Now the working conditions in this company are very poor to say the least and in violation of Brazilian and international law protecting human rights and labour standards. For instance, people work long over hours, 16 to 18 hours a day, Monday to Saturday and if needed also on Sundays, they are subjected to constant threats in parts physical violence to, so this is alleged, enhance the productivity of the factory to work even harder. Now charges are brought by the Brazilian government against IndieTex, the parent company of Zara. IndieTex declines responsibility as first because this local company in Brazil says IndieTex has violated its code of conduct for external manufacturers and workshops. Now the Brazilian government countered that after all this local company produced cloth for Zara, which in turn is a subsidiary of IndieTex and therefore IndieTex should be responsible for how workers are treated in its factory if you wish irrespective of the legal form. Eventually IndieTex and the Brazilian government and here we're getting to the informal region agreement according to which IndieTex would make a voluntary contribution that's something you will often find voluntary why because there's no admission of legal liability in these cases, a voluntary contribution of 1.4 million to compensate the workers. Brazil had initially claimed 10 million euro. Facts of the first case. Second case as I indicated already probably even better known the Rana Plaza garment factory in Bangladesh that collapsed and killed 1138 people left more than 2,000 injured. Now here it should be stressed I think that the poor health and safety conditions and problems with the construction that went instrumental in the accident have long been known right and also accidents of this kind but of a smaller kind like especially fires in these factories are the order of the day. They happen all the time they have happened always and they still happen. Only it seemed that it took in this case a major incident with a significantly high number of casualties to trigger sufficient international attention to get the industry in particular going to do something about this. At least this is one way to tell the story let's say. Now what happened again is that this conflict wasn't solved mainly through litigation or primarily through litigation but rather there was a donor fund established the Rana Plaza Donors Fund to collect again voluntary contributions from implicated companies to vindicate the victims. Now we know who contributed again among others Inditex and the Femango but we don't know how much they contributed because the participants agreed on confidentiality. Moreover more than after the tragic accident more than 150 firms signed up to a Bangladesh court and fire and building safety that now tries to take measures to improve the safety of the garment factories in the country. So much for the introduction of the cases as I said what we're interested in is that these conflicts are not resolved and damages are not rewarded through traditional judicial means or state enforcement but we are seeing here alternative ways for approaching these problems voluntary contribution donor funds companies signing up to various initiatives to improve labor conditions and so on. I leave it at that as an introduction and what perhaps first asked my panelists and Carlos whether they want to comment on either of the aspects that I raised. Okay first of all thank you for the globalans for the invitation to come here. I work in Uriak and Uriak is a company which work with people for people with disabilities. We provide work for them and we try to make them to find them in another companies. I just want to make a brief reflection of these two cases how can be possible the responsibility and the liability of these two cases no. In the the Brazilian government claim more than 10 million euro and on the end of the history in the text only pay one million from 10 and in the other case also they estimate like 29 million need to compensate the injured parties and on the end we even know I don't know if it's one million or I was speaking with my colleague before and he told me he think it was one million the only the only money they they required in this fund no and in relation with this I was thinking to comment our particular case no in our companies or in in our world of the people with disabilities. It's supposed all personnel equal before and under the Loba the reality even if the law establish many things and it's a quite developed in 2006 they they sign the convention of the right of the person with disabilities and Spain ratifying 20 in 2007 but nowadays the reality is that the people with disability the employment rate is 40% in the vast country and for the people they are unemployment unemployed long-term employment there is they are 33% and there is some law even international in european even in the national government and for example for the work the state all the companies a private and public companies for more over 50 workers compulsory they need to have the 2% of the workers they need to be people with disabilities and they also there are also some alternative measures you can comply like contract people with disability or different don't make a donation or different alternative but the most of the there is many companies nowadays they don't comply with this also they think the sanction they are ridiculous they are 600 from they go from 600 euro to 6 000 euro so on the end there is many companies they say for me it's more easy to pay the the sanction than than to contract disability people so we think the right of the disabled people nowadays we need to we need to advance in this right no and another another point I was thinking to to comment is the accessibility it's regulate also but there is many at least in Spain there are many buildings without the accessibility done no if you go with the wheels there are many places you can never go in the private house and not only physical adaptation only the intellectual adaptation no we have we maybe we are more sensible with this thing and in our company for example we make one course to prevent the harassment and instead to give the leaflet or how to explain to everybody they give us one course to absolutely every person of the company from from down to the all the directives and they are different course to the directive maybe they give you the leaflet and they explain you in eight hours the people they have very low capacity they need to give some one course of 20 hours with only with picture playing so you need to adapt we think we need you need to the adaptation they need to be for for all kind of of person even intellectual people and I don't know and in this way also to say we think to to remediate this to try to arrive to the equal to the quality we should work with the awareness rising with the society and in this way we think we everybody should promote positive action positive action which there is some people they understand they are not good but with this this equality between the with the people with this ability we think you need to help them in one way to try to arrive to to to the equality and comment also another case to to awareness the society other thing we do it like example we are going now we take we think we need to educate the the society and starting also for the children we try to take we are giving two years ago courses to to the children and I think we are like two three thousand children already give the course and we take them course every 20 or 30 children we take to the company to see and to to stay and to speak with intellect with the people with this ability to explain what they do it in the day a day with the way they do their life I wake up in the morning and I go to work and to see the people and to understand and to feel we are the same on the end so we try to we can help with the human human right in this way and for the last also we think we we need to promote the training programs and we believe and we we work a lot with learning by doing we call it's like we make some programs on education on some training which we put the people to work directly or we find some company or we say let them to it's like a course but practical for work so I don't know good evening everybody and thank you for governance for inviting me to talk I wanted first to talk a little bit about the convention that Maria mentioned that is the the UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities and I think that this is a very important convention because actually it's the first the first convention on human rights of this century and among other things it says that not to provide reasonable accommodations is to make a discrimination in human rights so I think this is very important in this field and after telling this I wanted to say something about the cases both cases I took three ideas and I wanted to achieve to get a conclusion after these three points the first point I wanted to talk about is the problem in both cases the both cases are in relation with very important human rights violations so we can see that are real problems and both problems are related with indirect shorting to play change so for example in the first case we can see that the company that is under investigation is the parent company and it has a subsidiary that has a subsidiary that has a contractor that then have some subcontractors so should be responsible for the acts of the subcontractors the parent company and we can think that for example according to the text we have some of the subcontractors were not authorized by the parent company so maybe we can think that the parent company should not be liable for the acts of these companies but if we read in the text we can there is a very important reason to make it liable that is that a company that his business is to make clothes they must they must know who is producing these garments right so I think it should be liable then they can claim against the subcontractor or the subcontractors that like them but the company should know how the contractors made the garments because if they ask for thousand t-shirts in one week they should know how they are going to do this then the second point the first is the problem the second is and is a reputation aspect in both cases we can see that the companies are pretty worried about about this point about the reputation the first case we can see that the company pay a compensation but telling that he was not responsible of this of these violations the second case is the same the fund is made in some in a way that companies can give money but it it doesn't imply legal responsibility so it shows that companies are very worried about the reputation the third point that I wanted to point out is that companies they they do a good job they for example in Brazil they create seven thousand employments so I think that we have we need to to have a positive point of view and try to be constructive and you are taking into account also that being a word that human rights are very important so mixing the three points I get a conclusion or a proposal that we have to fight against a problem that is the indirect sourcing the supply chains the control over supply chains we know that reputation is important for the companies and also that they do a good job so it's good for them that people for for companies that do a good job and take care of the human rights I think that could be useful to help them to to disclosure this information to publish this information so my my suggestion is to promote laws on transparency in in this with this kind of laws companies can show what they do well consumers investors NGOs can decide if they want to award the companies that do well or to punish the companies that do do wrong and so this information should be about the due diligence they they have or in relation with the with the supply chains the difficulty is that it's not always easy to get reliable information but there are companies that can help with this so this is what I wanted to thank you let me just perhaps like tie some of the points together and tie it also back to the theme of our panel I mean you mentioned the problem of non-compliance right now and this is Spain right then when we're we're encountering different kinds of problems of non-compliance when we're talking about Bangladesh and you talked about the difficult legal structures right that we're dealing with them as as lawyers all of the time but that means it's very hard to sue these creatures right the day we're dealing here with economically integrated entities very often that have have separate legal personalities now both of these problems if you want to pitch it a bit more of a general level may explain some of the attractiveness of a more informal approach one is and that's something we see very clearly in Bangladesh we may want to talk about again is is is a sense that the state is not really and no longer in sort of on top of the process in control of what's going on non-compliances but one issue here sorry in this case well in this case I'm talking about Bangladesh that's what I said sort of that in I can that make that a bit more concrete or or in often the state is part of the problem okay maybe to illustrate it quickly so that we know what we're talking about without taking up too much time a few years before the Rana Plaza disaster there were social unrests in Bangladesh because the people tried to raise the minimum wage now the international buyers because people buy they don't incorporate in Bangladesh the international buyers were quite willing to accommodate the demands of these people partly to sort of calm down the situation in that situation the state intervened state meaning members of parliament who own significant shares in the local garment industry and blocked it basically threatening the international buyers to to end business relationships because the argument was they were undermining the stability of the Bangladeshi economy by trying to raise the wages right so this is a is one of the examples where the state is part of the problem rather than part of the answer and a question whether and one of the perhaps the rationales is the suggestion for discussion why informal approaches between the corporations or the corporations in the trade unions the trade unions are difficult issue in Bangladesh too and might be attractive do I raise some comment with this comment anyone wants to yes please the one comment and this is something I'm going to come back to tomorrow morning but the one comment that I would like to make is really for companies at least the ones with which I work the most important thing is the reputation the image aspect of it and I'm concerned about informal justice not being enough because of the confidentiality and you mentioned that yourself and I think to me there is a problem there and I know with the Rana Plaza I mean the French national contact point was very very active also because of the of the government but that was the home government because we found a lot of French companies who were actually having their products produced in the in the Rana Plaza so yeah that that's my main concern you know confidentiality and and the one story that the businesses understand is actually not there thank you can we um also here can we have some more views on this you know what what do you think are the advantages disadvantages of moving away from these formal law-based mechanisms towards what we here call again informal well yeah the first the figure I would like to put it on the table is a Bangladesh is in that time was the second supplier of the you European government companies so the there's a big power in the trade agreement even in the European economy agreement so and during their first week after the collapse even in the European parliament even in some European governments asking for some punishments and review of the treaty on incorporating some criteria respecting human rights so it's very linked between trade agreement and trade interest and this current situation obviously the Bangladesh government failed in protect their citizens and their people and because their policy the policies doesn't cover enough and I end up give but also the European government has responsibility to protect and the duty to protect human rights abroad and in this case I think we fail as well in to to manage this this situation previously and and after the the accident for me the the effectiveness of their solution is not really effective is also is no transparency but also is is no try to restore under the the human rights protection so it's trying to give a economic compensation and even didn't get enough money with the estimation that they they own estimates in in the in the beginning so in my opinion is not the right way to to manage this kind of accidents it should be study or reach other other ways to do it better thank you we have time for one or two last questions there's one already yeah just a comment I think one of the problems that you're also facing with these informal settlements is that they don't there's no threshold usually for victims to to bring a claim afterwards this is what we saw in the in a traffic or a case right I mean there was a I think there was a big settlement with the Ivorian government between traffic or an Ivorian government but then you can also raise a question whether that money ever reached the victims the victims say it didn't and they went on and filed a suit against traffic so I think there's also a problem for the companies involved in that they this is they may be hesitant to to to engage in these informal settlements because they cannot formally exclude the possibility of a later lawsuit any other comments questions so then maybe just to to conclude by picking up on this point I guess we're in a bit of a dilemma here right because we've seen that often the traditional ways of addressing cases through law don't work I mean if you think probably the most the most famous because early case to introduce another case by way of conclusion the Bhopal case right where a US based subsidiary sorry what's that and they got two thousand dollars each of them indeed so so on the one hand we saw so the case was about chemical explosion in a in a factory that basically eradicated the whole city right and one on the one hand that was in the 80s so the judicial remedies were spectacularly unsuccessful both in India in the US where the parent was based one of the there's still cases pending one was just kicked out of the US system following Cuba so the there was not much achieved in terms of the traditional ways of approaching these problems through law at the same time and what we saw was a kind of contracting out of the victims so after the disaster the the government the Indian government assumed the right to sue for all of the victims partly that was the motivation according to the government to protect them from the American lawyers flying in trying to make business and then they concluded a settlement that included very wide-ranging immunities for all the companies involved basically for the two reasons making it impossible that's going back to the point to sue for the for the victims to sue at the same time indeed the compensation was inadequate to say the very least and we've spent then spent basically 20 years after this trying to get beyond these immunities renegotiate renegotiate the the the settlement and so on but the basic point I only wanted to make without taking sides is that we face problems on both sides right the law doesn't seem to work the way we would like it to work and there are also significant disadvantages in leaving it just to the corporations and the individuals and unless someone wants to comment on what I just said I would close the session with this remark no then enjoy the rest of the evening thank you for holding on to with us