 Let me introduce also Borja, Borja Eriarte, Festofo Jesus de la Fuente, is the chair executive officer of Grafenea, is a very well known company here in the past country. And also we have here Borja, Borja is huge here in the past country. He has been a lawyer for many years in one of the big for accounting films. And Borja will initiate the debate. Thank you. Ok, thank you Pablo. First we have noticed this morning that we talk together in today's thing that we said no Ersanjón, in our ancient times it was Ersanjón but now it is Iwai I think. You were in Bilbao, I was in Imaquete. We were in the same group working. Ok, now to begin. First I want to thank Grovermans Institute and Professor Alvarez who invited me being called to participate in this training session. It's for me a pleasure and an honor being with people as a relevance as Professor Polkar or our prior speaker and having the opportunity to speak with them, to share the panel with them. And second I want to back your pardon. I know that I have, this is my first public speak in English and I know that I have an awful Spanish accent. Staying in London twice I make questions in English and I was directly answered in Spanish. And you can bet that this is quite mortifying. So I beg your pardon. I will try to do my best. I have been given 20 minutes to speak in English. Usually I don't like to read but in English I will have to read something. I have to speak about 20 minutes in more on a philosophical than on a legal question. And I said I will try to do my best. Why the question, why I am going to speak about practical difficulties in access to courts, the right to do process versus a reiteración. First, human rights and private law is not a common issue. Usually when we think of human rights we think in public law. In constitutional law in the fight between the state, the powerful and the weak people, the individuals. But we usually don't speak of human rights when companies are involved or individuals are involved in interacting individuals and companies. But I am not sure if this is true. I am not sure that human rights is only a question related to public bodies. I think that some questions are also related to private interaction, the interaction of private people. For instance, we all agree that an initiative action forcing people to go to arbitration instead of to courts or imposing subject to certain courts should be over read by courts. But this is not clear in private relations only with consumers. We know that that kind of clauses imposed to consumers are banned by regulation 44-2001 or now really 1250-2012 or the law 2007 of protection of consumers. But what happens when at corporate level? Usually people try to say that all companies are equal. But I am not completely sure if all of them are equal or some of them are more equal than others. What happens when a big company, a great client imposes a small supply or arbitration clause in a contract for instance with submission to Paris Court CCI arbitration you have to sign your contract if you want to sell. We can speak later about that. And they say ok no problem, we buy, the price is this, the amount to be bought is this but any dispute regarding this contract will be subject to arbitration before the Paris Court for instance. Is that equitable, for instance in a 50-thousand euros contract? Or is it a way to avoid courts control, the right to a due process established by the Spanish constitution by major treaties on human rights? We know that in international arbitration is a complex and expensive matter. So sometimes it's a way to avoid control by courts because if you have to claim 10-thousand euros for instance probably it's more affordable losing the amount than beginning a crime before an international and foreign arbitration court. And to speak about that I will make, ok I like sports and I like sport law. So I will use an example that is the Court of Arbitration for Sports commonly known as TAS because it's the most common. Because we shall see first why because I think that sports is funny, a lot of people like sport or it's interesting in sport. In some sense sport is the opinion of the people of the 21st century and I think that it's a very important economic matter. So I think that would be a good example for our question. We usually think that elite sportmen are rich but it's not true. Elite sportmen or sport women to be politically correct are a complex group of people which includes several differences inside. Many of them are not many of the people, ok really most of the people that go for instance to Olympic Games are not rich people. Some of them have several problems to obtain the money to go to the Olympic Games. And all of them for instance have mandatory to submit to any question relating to the Olympic Games before arbitration court in Lausanne, Switzerland. The famous Court of Arbitration for Sports. For many of them an international arbitration procedure expensive and complex is almost impossible to follow. I will explain later an example when they decided not to sue the relevant federation and don't go to the world championship. And why this, I use this example also because I think that sport arbitration is a good example of the kind of people you find in international big businesses. Sport people or sports managers usually are above law. We have seen in Spain that just three days ago the president of the football federation, I can see it publicly because he has said in public, has said that he is not worried about the law to implement it in Spain because he is not subject to law. According, article 78 of FIFA statute says that FIFA's members and the confluturations are the original owners of all the rights emanating from competitions without any restrictions as to content time, place and law. They specially said that they are not subject to law. Also there is an interesting document, the International Olympic Committee sent a document to the European Union during the last French presidency asking for, I say literally, a special and adequate to sport interpretation of AU treaties. So they said, please let us alone, we are not going to apply. They had one problem with the famous Bosman case, I suppose that you all know, when the European court had to expressly said that professional sportmen are workers subject to community freedom and after that they wanted to explain, to escape for that and they wanted to have their own courts. And I make a question, is it reasonable to look for justice from a body that expressly says that law is not a matter for them? The International Federation is not a treaty, an international treaty is just a Swiss association, private association, but they say that they are above law. And if you want to go to some sport competitions you have to sign a submission class to a court that is not owned but is related, in the past was directly owned the court by the Olympic Committee. The committee now is related, very, very, very related, but they are independent bodies that they say that they are not subject to law. That's the question, that is why I think that this is a good example. Because they say that the court was just established to avoid problem with courts, with general courts. The court is located at La Loza, in Switzerland, and has jurisdiction in major sports question. For instance, penalties related to major international leagues doping sportmen labour contracts that I think that is against our public order, at least in Spain, but theoretically any sportmen elite sportmen that has a labour problem with this team has to claim before the court international. I think that this is clearly against our public order and would be over right, but Spanish courts, but you have a contract signed saying that. And what can you do, which is that this is a Swiss, as I said, as a Swiss arbitration to arbitration court. There are words, that's one of, I say the translator, I beg them pardon because I am going to make a game of words, complex to translate. The word for that results from arbitration is an award, and it reminds me the Academy Award. And it's something related, because when you receive a judgement or an award, the first that you read is who is the winner. And the winner is the winner. So the awards are subject to a review by the federal court of Switzerland with a limited scope of review similar to article 41 for arbitration law. So you have to go to Switzerland for arbitration. If you don't agree with the award, you have to challenge it before a Swiss court, more money. Swiss court will probably, Swiss court does not overread many awards from the court for sports because they, as every one, not only they take care of their own businesses and the court and the sport movement is a big business for Switzerland. And they have something good that if the federal court decides to hit them once and twice and three times, they take the private association, move it to another country where it should be better welcomed. So it's complex dealing with them. These awards are fully executable in Spain as any other, should be executed by first instance court with recognition in San Caiz by the civil and criminal bench of the regional court where I am actually serving. Probable label related questions will not be executed in Spain because it should be against our public policy but there are no chatments at least in Spain at this moment. In Germany there has been recently a case, one federation imposed a sanction over doping, doping to a sportsman, the sportsman challenged it before the court for arbitration, the court sustained the penalty and he climbed again before the German courts. As I have read in the specialized papers German court has denied the lack of jurisdiction and has accepted the claim. I don't know which will be the final consequence but at least they consider that similar to Spain that doping is a question related to administrative or criminal law and is not subject to arbitration. I don't want to go to other questions but one of the problems with this kind and any arbitration is that arbitration law is more Anglo-Saxon law than continental law. We see that in the arbitration in sport law in many other questions in probably all the 21st century lex mercatoria is more Anglo-Saxon law than continental law and that will have problems for us because sometimes we have questions in contracts that are not disposable for the parties and that kind of things. So that is an introduction to the court and my question is, are disputes with federations or with the international big committee balance? Can for instance a bowman, a typical sport with not too much money, sue his federation in Switzerland if the federation denies the possibility to go to world championship? Only I think that only is possible if he is wealthy by his own but not from the money received from sport. The other option that he has is a claim before Spanish court looking for obligation of arbitration clause. First he has to obtain from the Spanish court admission of jurisdiction because obviously the first opposition of the other party will be lack of jurisdiction due to arbitration court. He will have to convince the judge that the clause is at least in the first moment against his rights. I think that is a very complex question and even winning and obtaining a favorable judgment in Spain export entities would probably never execute the judgment. As I said, they are over courts and law so it should be, I don't know how to execute that kind of sentence by means of a crime of disobedience, I don't know the word. If the president of the federation once come to Spain, international federation comes to Spain and is arrested by police, I think that is the only way because they voluntarily will never fulfill the question. What I said is a real case, one federation in the Spanish but a basque related sportmen in a minority sportmen imposed penalty to sportmen. He has been world champion that composed of a penalty, a monetary penalty and he was not allowed to go to the next world championship. He sued the federation before Spanish courts for the penalty and won the procedure and have a favorable judgment but obviously he didn't challenge before the court for arbitration in Losan the other penalty so he couldn't go to the world championship and he might have been for the second time consequently world champion but he couldn't. That's one of the consequences that you can have when you've signed an arbitration clause and sometimes you are not, you don't have any other option. If you want to participate in sport world championship or in sport or in Olympics games, you have to sign that kind of clause, you have to sign the contract of maybe 20 pages. Probably Juanjo has been writing to sports law as an example of 20 pages and you have to quit many questions, you transferred your image rights, I don't know if I have transferred my ones to the stream and I am not completely sure but you will have to check that. And you renounce to any club before any court in the world regarding the championship. And one can we do to solve this. First, I will speak briefly regarding arbitration and the difference between procedures before courts and two major differences that we will speak later that show that arbitration is not, there are three differences I think that is not similar to the court procedure. Ok, I know that now I am a judge and judges try to mistrust in arbitration so I will say the bad parties of arbitration. Also usually arbitration is quicker than ordinary justice at least in Spain, I don't know in other countries, I don't know in Italy or in Portugal we can speak later or in the states. It depends on the state, on the federal level, on that kind of issues. But I know that is more expeditive but it has some difference. As I said, first of all article 170.3 of the constitution says that the exercise of judicial authority in any kind both picing judgment and having them executed lies exclusively within the competence of the courts and tribunals established by law. Ok, constitutional court has said that arbitration is not against constitution, don't worry about that. The question was raised because the constitution says that only law established courts can judge or un-execute is possible arbitration in Spain. So the constitutional court said yes provided that it fullfies the principle of equality, adversal procedure and how the altered impart them if taken from a translator. The constitutional court in Spain never uses Latin but Anglo-Saxon lawyers love Latin and continuously that kind of expression. If these principles are not fulfilled the arbitration should be against constitution. The reality is that at least formally always are fulfilled these three principles. When we speak later about procedures against awards I will say that almost never an award is overruled by Spanish courts. And that kind of principles are checked. The first difference significant is that the arbitrator cannot execute the award, can pass judgments sharing competence with courts but he cannot execute the awards. Execution at least in Spain always release in the courts. And this is a very significant difference as the winner arbitration will need the court help to execute. And sometimes execution of awards is not an easy question in Spain. It is made by first instance courts in Madrid is the 101, it sounds a great number. The 101 deals with arbitration and I've been said that for instance they always ask for the agreement, arbitration agreement. Or for the Spanish law says that the clause can be an exchange of mails or that kind of documents. Once the court said they showed them as clause, one mail stating we propose to submit before ex arbitration court that controversy. The other part answered the mails saying ok. And the first instance court said that this is not an arbitration clause and didn't execute the award. As you can imagine the winner in the award was very upset. The truth is that that can be a warranty for the defendant if the award is to honor us or against law. But it's a great difficult for awards needing the help of courts because sometimes you have a quick award but a very delayed execution in the court. Additionally, awards are subject to revision to review of courts. According to article 41 of arbitration law the civil and criminal chamber of the high regional court. Is the competent to do that. That's the chamber where I am actually working. But this review can only be based in five questions. Mainly is that arbitration agreement mainly for our purposes to be taking account is that arbitration agreement does not exist or is not valid. Or that the award is in conflict with public policy. There are no other regarding the procedure when the arbitrator decides a question submitted to the decision or no other matter. But I think that for my talk today the relevance are A and E. Specialy the arbitration agreement is not valid. For instance if it is imposed against law or not. Additionally, foreign awards have to be executed in Spain with only with two limitations according to New York Convention that are similar to article 41 law of the law. The subject matter of the difference is not capable of setting my arbitration under the law of that country of Spain in this case or the recognition enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of that country. As we can see are in most way similar because probably if there is no arbitration agreement or it is not valid probably we could say that it exists against the public policy. Because public policy I have a care. What is public policy? I don't know. There are several professors of international public law in this room which could explain it obviously better than me. But public policy is everything and is nothing. And is a good reason when you don't want to execute an award you say ok that is against public policy. It's something I have here definition of time net for internet and says public policy is both ubiquitous and fundamental important part of private international law. So yeah they say we don't know what is but it's useful for many purposes. Usualmente to protect your local defendant from a negative foreign plaintiff. I think that the use of public law. I don't know if you agree the professor. But probably it's not the academic purpose but probably the most times use the purpose that most times have been used. I have a big definition that I will not read. It defines the limits of the tolerance of different simplicity in rules of choice of law and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. It has however been frequently criticized for its uncertainty and discretionary character. The proper definition size. And that will be usually the fight in my experience. I only have experience with international awards. We have no had any international award execution or recognition before court signs I am a member. But everyone says that the award is against the public policy because the other the other reasons if the arbitration is at least a little bit careful with his work is almost impossible. That he's not congruent that there is no arbitration clause always say it's against public policy. Typical crime is the valuation of the proof is against public policy. And we have to say valuation of the proof, proof valuation sorry is not a measure that can be reviewed by the court. Because everyone tries to make a second instance. That's another important question. Precedur from article 41 is not a second. Second is than you say in English. Second and it's not an appeal. I've been reading John recent books for three days to try to obtain this vocabulary but I am losing it. The appeal is not an appeal. It's a special procedure just in a few matters. And if we leave away this concrete matter the word is fully enforceable in Spain by means of courts. Additionally another problem with arbitration and I think that this important submission to clauses is and especially to protect the weaker part of the contractual relationship is that arbitration, arbitrators can not make preliminary question either before the Spanish constitutional court nor the European court. And this is very important. An arbitrator if he thinks that a law is against the constitution or the European Union can not make a preliminary judgment. Probable he might raise the question in the world and the court that has to review the world could make either one of them, either one or the other. But the truth is that he cannot do that. Also recently a property register in the Basque country has said that a post constitutional law is against the constitution has denied the description of the deed. I suppose that my colleagues will do something with that. And finally it's another relevant question that arbitration and that I mentioned above. Arbitration is very expensive and I think that is the main matter relating when you have to sign, for instance if you company you have international clients I suppose and you sell something to company in Canada and they say no problem but arbitration will be before the Manitoba arbitration court. And you say ok that's funny what is Manitoba first question I think that is in Canada. No Wikipedia is funny for that kind of question because you seem that you are working and you are working in Wikipedia what is this. But this is a way that being assured that you will not never have an arbitration client before the Manitoba court or only will have that if it is your final solution but not for that contract by the final solution by your company probably. You will try if you find money and Manitoba lawyer who wants to work with a Spanish small company who will have to pay in advance for instance the lawyer in Canada. So this and taking that into account being arbitration always complementary to regular justice there is a way that once we have signed an arbitration clause anyone that is not a consumer that we have seen is protected by consumer legislation against arbitration or submission to court clauses that are exotic to the contractual relationship can we do something because article 24 of the constitution says that every person has the right of time defective protection of the judges and the courts in the exercise of his of her legitimate rates and interest and in no case may he go and defend it. An old person have the right to access to the ordinary judge preterminated by law. Can we on the basis of that challenge a clause of arbitration if we are a company that have signed a contract stating that is not an issue matter. We know that mandatory once alone in Spain establishes a mandatory arbitration regarding the land transportation it was the constitutional court in 1995 said that mandatory arbitration established by law is a Spanish constitution. But what happens is there is no law but it's business negotiation that what makes us to sign that. What happens if your client forces you to accept CCI arbitration for instance on any dispute regarding a contract of 22 euros a small contract. For instance Ximenao Centro profesor has an article of that I think that he has also member he has also been a member of the constitutional court or any kind public body has been and he says that for in his opinion that kind of clauses establishes in a standard reformulated contract. Are against the probably are not palito under Spanish law. He and that kind of contracts are very common in consumers but also in companies are very typical and you receive. You know the word in English this purchase order sorry from your client and you look and he says I want one. I want one piece of iron and you look around and you have this more letter six the full page in the back and one of the things say that any dispute will be subject to to the court of usually the domicile of the. Of the main contractor. He says that also a standard contract has to be signed for instance to as I said to go to olympic games. It's not the back page is about 10 or 20 pages but it's a standard contract every sportsman that goes there has to sign. Cristiano Ronaldo include included he has gone I think not because Portugal usually does not go to his. So what happens if you have to sign that contract. Can you shoot it before court that's close can we claim that you have a defect in contract in consent. Pursuante article 1 to 6 1.265 of the Spanish I will code that said the consent given pursuante to error duex intimidation of fraud fraud fraudulent misrepresentación shall be null al void. I think that is a good question. I have no answer as I said I am just I just come to make questions to you not to solve them we shall try to solve them. Or jointly and I think that we will not solve because we are up to when the European Court has a rule on that we cannot say. I had a professor when I was studying procedure law in Spain that said that truth is he said in Spain that sounds better. Verdade es lo que ensala de cinco dicentres. In English is the truth is what in a chamber of five say three. I have to explain that in the past when this sentence was made in Spanish courts or with chambers of five members. With one soul exception a very something has been mentioned in the answer in the before no when the previous speaking has spoke about the death penalty no capital penalty. When the Supreme Court has a case that was related to criminal death penalty the chamber was of seven members and they needed five to sentence to death. It was supposed to be a guarantee of them but usually major legal decisions in Spain were taken by chambers of five. So three of them were enough to say what is truth in Spain for legal purposes. So up to what time that today in a chamber of three say two in this matter we cannot say we can defend that an arbitration clause is against article 1000. 265 of the civil code because OK we can claim that we will be successful. Can we allegate that there is intimidation? It is a very complex proof problem probably and a very complex perception by the members of the court of what our business relationships. Notice that we don't have an Anglo-Saxon system of justice where judges are former lawyers mainly or former professors. Probably 70% of Spanish judges are people well trained but the only work has been being a judge. They made the exam just when they finished the career. I suppose that in Italy is similar. You have an exam but you don't need any kind of legal experience before only your degree knowing a lot of papers that I have to recognize that I will probably never have been capable to learn. That's why I exceeded by the other way to the courts. So when you have been dealing with negotiations for instance Pablo is dealing now I suppose. You know that equality of the parties is a nice word but probably is not the reality. Always 50 to 50 have never been. I've been 60 to 40 maybe and I've been 85 to 15 and you have to defend your 50 as one of you can. And if you impose a strange arbitration clause for instance you signed and you pray that it will never be needed. Can you claim intimidation fraudulent misrepresentación? I don't know quite who will be. Which will be the procedure to challenge that clause. Because Professor Jimeno Sendra makes a procedure. He says you have to denounce the defect from the beginning even before full view. Because he says for instance you have to denounce the defect from the beginning even before fulfillment of contract obligations. Ok so you signed a contract and before fulfilling your obligations you say that the contract is not valid. What happens in real words if you do that? That you will never receive your money. That's the first answer. Will you lose your contract or will you keep it? Afterwards you have to oppose the arbitration procedure. Ok that you can do. You can say I think that there is no valid arbitration clause because I was intimidated by my client maybe. And the challenge the word before the relevant court when you have a word that says that the clause is correct according to law and also that the word is against your interest. The court can the court and the court could meet a constitutional or european question. And trying to discuss if there is a public order. But this procedure works if you are the defendant. But what happens if you are the climate? You have to sue the other part. You can go to sue before court. The other part will immediately say that the court has no jurisdiction. If the court says I have jurisdiction. Ok you can continue before court. But if the court says ok the other the defendant is ok. I have no jurisdiction. You have then go to arbitration. Lose arbitration and afterwards in execution of arbitration try to prove that the relevant clause is against law. Ok, that is funny. It's interesting. That interpretation of law has been given me the opportunity to speak to you. But we all know that in real world this is not a solution. Because it's long expensive complex. You lose your client of course. He will never buy you. And can have a company do that. I don't know. I am going to conclude. I don't know for how much time I have been speaking. 40 minutes. 40 minutes. My holly goodness. Yet to conclude. I say again that I have no answer. And probably I don't know how you say in English que me enrolle como las persianas. I suppose that is a translation. But I don't know. Probable the general answer I say is that Pactasun Cervanda and if you have signed the contract including an arbitration clause you have to deal with it and live with it. But there are situations where one of the parties is less powerful than the others. Legislative both European and internal legislative powers agrees that for instance a private consumer is less powerful than a company. So why not a small company is less powerful than a big one. Why do they not need legislative protection or court protection? That is my personal opinion. I raise the question and I would like to hear your opinions. Now it's your time. Just give me again my appreciation to Gloverlands Institute for allowing me to speak here today. And again begging your pardon for my English. As I said, this is my first public speech in English. And I hope that it will not be the last one. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. It has been very interesting. You shared with us your experience as a well-reputable lawyer and now as a member of the court. So it's been really really really interesting saying your thoughts with us. And you will have the both sides of the same coin as a professional lawyer and now as a public servant applying the law. So from my side it has been very very interesting. I don't know if you have any queries. Yes, please. Thank you very much in the view of arbitration. Usually when I sit in arbitration conferences we think of ourselves that we are supermen or superwomen. Now I heard something new and different. And I would like to ask you whether you can post the constitutional court decision of Spain of 1995 for the mandatory arbitration if you can supply our project as a constitutional court decision. Because I can find mandatory arbitration clauses in a lot of European countries. For example in Croatia we can find for the disputes between medical doctors and the medical fund or by laws in sport organizations. Then even we can find mandatory arbitration clause or possibility in bankruptcy proceedings in Croatia with the order of judge. Usually we have arbitration without consent. And there is a huge debate I think now in the United States but without success on arbitration fairness act. So this is something new. When I sit usually we say in favor of arbitration now I heard some new voices. Maybe we have to think about that thoroughly. Because there are voices that say that arbitrations are actually professors or elites corrupt and with wish to evade general court system. Thank you. Ok, first the question was raised in the law for land transport established that several contracts issued by companies had to be submitted to arbitration. It was challenging before the court. The judge men have the number here. It's from 1995. I will have the number here. I will provide you later. And it said that it's against the right to a deep procedure. What they said is that always the parties must have the right to deny arbitration and to go before courts. So it has been substituted by a system of voluntary arbitration. Besides it was for small claims regarding transportation of woods. But it was a challenge. The court said that it was against the law forcing the parties to go to arbitration. It has been substituted by a new system of voluntary arbitration voluntary highly encouraged by the law arbitration. Because one of the parties can in a stage say that they don't want arbitration. I think I am not an expert in arbitration in transport questions. So I don't know what is happening really in the companies. I suppose that main companies will go to arbitration because it is for small amounts. And in companies for small amounts maybe if both companies are similar may be useful because it is very quick procedure. Also for consumers. Public bodies in Spain are encouraging arbitration for consumers trying to buy a mobile phone and it doesn't work properly. They don't want to go to court with that. They prefer to go to consumer arbitration court. But the individual, the consumer always can go to court. Only the company can say the company say I will go always to arbitration has to go once the consumer has decided. But it's not mandatory. I don't know which is the reason. Ok, I've made a joke about mistrust in arbitration by courts and by judges. It's a joke but it's not a complete joke. Some of my colleagues and I may share this opinion to some extent not fully think that sometimes there is a big discussion in Spain ok, we are privatising education. Oh, that's horrible. We are privatising healthcare. Oh, that's horrible. We are privatising justice. That's fine, that's modern, that's marvellous. That is what we see in the media. I am not giving an opinion. And some say ok, big effort with arbitration. Because sometimes it's a complex matter. You move sometimes in Anglo-Saxon legal system. You are from Croatia, I think. Do you have a continental legal system? But when you move around Anglo-Saxon legal system which is very common now in today's lex mercatoria is mainly Anglo-Saxon legal system and contract an agreement of 200 pages 20 pages of definitions. I don't know why they are... What do they serve for? I suppose that in Anglo-Saxon is very important but from our perspective as practitioners in Spanish definition. Parties, parties will mean party. I have a friend that made a joke. He always made a joke. And means that the previous word and the subsequent word go together. Definition of and. No? Because sometimes you read something like that in the contract. And one of the problems of arbitration is that the influence of Anglo-Saxon legal system that I don't see that is... I don't say that it is worse than us. I think that we are taking the bad part because the criminal guarantees of the parties in criminal procedure that are very important in Anglo-Saxon world are less important for us because that's a capital issue. The right... the presumption of innocence is in English. The right to not declare against you that kind of thing. We are not taking that but all the private law is floating over the businesses now in sports for instance. The court of arbitration for sports is fully aligned with the Anglo-Saxon. Labour questions are subject to arbitration or can be subject to arbitration in many countries in the Anglo-Saxon world. Doping is a private question. Not a public question in the Anglo-Saxon world. Ok, if it has to do with drug smuggling yes, it's a public question. But if you have a pill that is fully legal but it makes you run quicker that's not a private question. That is not a public question, sorry. So that's why I think that arbitration has to be to some extent taken with care by us because sometimes you signed an arbitration clause and you have an arbitration in an Anglo-Saxon country or in Paris subject to English law and sometimes that kind of clauses are signed very happily by parties or otherwise you don't have another point because if a big multinational company comes say ok you have to sign that or otherwise you have no client because that is usually the negotiation is I am going to buy that number of items at this price and this is the contract and you say but I want to change ok that's funny, no usually that's how... Afterwards lawyers can be discussing for two weeks but finally the first version of the contract issued by the powerful with two stupid amendments just to justify that something has been negotiated is signed and that is the problem I think and sometimes I know that for big companies arbitration is very good but no and that is what I think that why the Spanish constitutional court thought that mandatory arbitration is against the right to the process you have always to have the choice the problem is that the problem that I wanted to raise is if you have really a choice or not a choice because sometimes in contract that's... I will give you the number of the judgement and I don't know if it is available in English in the internet but later you said Spanish so I will give you the reference thank you hello just few thoughts provoke me your presentation but the first thing is we are trying to imagine what is more appropriate for address the business human rights impacts mostly abroad territorial cases but including in European Union as well if you say this alternative remedy instrument that is called arbitration could be interesting for improve the effectiveness access to remedy for the victims in that business abuse of human rights is just for focus my my question one thing is well another thing is there is a international need if coming from the states that is trying to put in place international arbitration on business and human rights so it's a issue now so we have to think about that it's the is the appropriate instrument to defend and to repair human rights abuses by businesses one thing that has been raised in your intervention was a risk on impartiality and dependency and integrity of the court of the arbitration court the other is the economical barriers or the unbalance power of the parties I completely agree with that but one idea that you have said I think it's coming from the constitutional or continental approach of the law it is that the the judgment on fundamental constitutional rights was not produced in arbitration court so it should be there is no jurisdiction on that matters so it should be transferred directly to the appropriate court I think just for verify that is right because in that case human rights violation should be part of fundamental rights so that should I assume that the consequence of that arbitration is not the right tool to resolve that the other thing is the approach of human rights abuse opillation could be civil commercial litigation or civil commercial law but we are looking for a conflict between businesses suppliers and the company but even criminal effect as well in that case I consider that in the grave abuse violation arbitration is not the appropriate given mechanism but it is just for confirmate with your opinion criminal issues the grave human rights abuses that could be use the arbitration from the perspective criminal now we are having Spain criminal mediation that is very strange to us not arbitration but mediadores mediators in small crimes but for criminal law I think that that is a complex for our perspective of law I don't know if in the state is possible to have an arbitration crime I don't mean that the criminal law should be do it by arbitration I said if it's a grave human rights abuses could be criminal offence on that so maybe it's not the best way to procedure the persecution of that or the access to remedy on that but the point is just what do you think that is the the the the human rights violation should be or could be resolved in arbitration scheme first when I think speaking about arbitration I said that arbitration give rise to some troubles and I know that I've mentioned as I was speaking the problem with impartiality of the arbiter but but I try to explain the problem I am not saying that arbiterators are less reliable than judges there are good arbiterators and bad arbiterators and good judges and bad judges what I say is that having a procedure abroad is complex for instance I think that you are from Spain this conversation should be more fluent, easier and more interesting for both of us in Spanish because we both are not speaking in our mother tongue that's a problem for me I've been speaking for 45 minutes for 40 minutes I thought that I had a speech for 20 or 15 why because I don't know how to measure the way I speak in English I know how to prepare a talk in Spanish suppose that I begin to know how to prepare a talk in English a procedure in a foreign language abroad subject to different uses is more complex than a local procedure and I am not speaking of bad behaviour of the arbiterator, that's another problem that might happen and the court also we are going to speak later about the foreign non-convenience in the American United States I think that the United States is a great country and they have a great legal system but foreign non-convenience is a good way to save the as I am sorry for the expression of several American companies the famous problem in Bopal of Union Carbide we speak later but we can't speak later about that so I say you go to another country and the foreigner is always in a worse position than the local one that's why they said not that I think that the arbiterator will sell the word that that can happen of course that can happen and probably happens sometimes but a few times the problems that you are when you are playing out of your field you are more uncomfortable than at home regarding human rights ok I am not an expert in human rights probably Professor Polkarkar can speak a lot about that is arbitration a solution ok I don't know I don't know because it depends on the kind of human rights on how can arbitration can be a way for instance once one party has said ok I have committed a crime against human rights and I am going to pay the amount to indemnitate how to that amount is determined and how that amount is split between the people can be a question subject to arbitration but human rights protection subject ok he has been the court for Rwanda I think if you go to arbiter in the middle of the Tutsis and Hutus you have nothing to arbiter there the only way to but even a court a judge can go with an army but he doesn't stop he doesn't stop the word the worst stop by an army arbitration can be in my opinion I am not an expert on that matter but can be a way to determine indemnities to pay them but I don't see a way to to solve a problem it's in my opinion that's a complex question especially international issue related to human rights ok thank you also we have Xavier Cisabarena joining us he's teacher at the University of País Vascoa University of Deusto and he's also lawyer and we have also indeed Jesus de la Fuente oficers of Grafanea perhaps they can share with us some of his experience regarding human rights we have today two cases in order to deal with Amoco Cadiz and Prestige huge environmental damage the corporation in one of the cases Amoco Cadiz has been declared liable a group of companies has been declared liable in the case of the Prestige the case is already open no companies, no individuals have been found guilty for this tremendous damage to the sort of Spain and France I know quite well the Prestige case because I've been involving advising one of the parties American Blue Shipping with Professor Juan José Alvarez and the case is still open but in any event human rights in business is a key issue and perhaps we have here a Chief Executive of a small company but a very well known company probably you are dealing with huge large corporations and you are dealing also when you want to also you are care about environmental because your products take care about environmental and try to contribute to the development of a better world in this sense yes, yes, first of all thank you very much for the opportunity to spend some minutes and spend my thoughts on this topic especially because I'm not a lawyer at all so I have a very limited knowledge of all this matter but first of all I want to say that human rights and businesses are exactly the same human rights without economy without development technology development there is nothing so if we take back 1000 years in the past so probably the human rights are much lower than nowadays so businesses are the main part and the main power of their right development so we have if we analyze country by country or region by region where we have more free market more free competition, more transparency we have much more human rights and in the part of the world that we have less businesses we have less human rights so and one one critical point here and it's related with these two cases is that it's important that if you generate any damage you have to pay that's very basic and it's very clear and it's important that the payment must be done in a short time because in businesses as you know in life, in financial business one million euros of today worth much more than one million euros 20 years in the future so it's totally unacceptable that these kinds of cases are still open so I think that we need a much more clear fast and deterministic system to deal with all this this business and also we have to consider that all this kind of damage are not only to individuals are also damage to other businesses let's say in the tourist industry or physical industry or even to the energy industry and so on so another very interesting thing that I think that in the wish in GRC is arising and is gaining a lot of momentum is the supplier responsibility programs there is a well known company there is Apple for example but we have another very good expenses very near here for example Inditex, the Thara group has a extremely good supply responsibility program and they do thousands or millions of audits to their suppliers to guarantee that they are complaining with no more than 50 or 60 hours per week work time that they are treating all the workers in a ethically and fairly way so that's very important it's much more faster and effective that any kind of court or application or governmental regulation or things like that so and for that that works at the end we need free competition and transparency and that's the basic the basic structure for this so it's also important how we did how we make decisions and businesses so in businesses we try to avoid any risk and we prefer certainty rather than uncertainty so it's it's very important to have a clear perception that if any businesses or any individual is going to make a damage that individual or that business will have to pay that's important so the main violation to the human rights are these very snail justice processes ok also in businesses we prefer negotiation or arbitration that could be in the middle between the typical courts and the negotiation rather than uncertainty scenarios so so what are the main differences that we have to try to adapt in my opinion the worldwide system to the real case of the company so in 1M we have the businesses and the individuals that we prefer clear rules so in the typical justice systems we have complex and non deterministic rules so for the similar case you have different outputs so that's totally crazy also the businesses are totally global and international and the justice systems are regional or local or in the best case at continental levels we prefer a speed fast processes and typically takes decades this kind of cases we prefer simplicity and clear rules rather than complex and a lot of exceptions for better words the language and business is English so businesses prefer English and probably every local justice systems for sure will prefer their own local language so at the end just my main message here is that businesses and economic development is the base of the human rights and we have to protect businesses and human rights because they are exactly the same and it's un acceptable to have a snail justice system and this complex justice system thank you the issue for example your company is a limited liability company right? so you are a set holder and the rest of the set holders of your company know that they have the protection of a company in order to avoid being declared liable for the company debt but this is not the case of Amoco Cádiz this is not the case of Amoco Cádiz because in this case in Amoco Cádiz as I said the general rule is limited liability for limited liability companies for corporations but in Amoco Cádiz they have the QIUNAU the courts has pierced the corporate bail what we call in Spain levantamiento del Velo Societario is that the courts has declared the shareholders of the company to be liable in Amoco Cádiz it's the scenario of a group of companies it's a typical scenario of a multinational company which has a holding company with subsidiaries around the world ok? these subsidiaries they are not branches they are limited liability companies in order to avoid the liability to go up to the holding company so in order to apply the doctrine of peace in the corporate bail they are some factors to be taken into account one of the factor is whether the limited liability company is adequate capitalized another issue is the corporate formatis has been followed then if one of the entity of the group of companies is an alter ego or is instrumentally to the other entity whether the defendant extor holder or member has engaged in fraud or road doing and finally whether the case involves tort non contractual ability or contractual regarding the first issue for pushing the corporate bail the capitalization international courts use different measures to assess whether a corporation is or not adequately capitalized and these measures depends on the nature and magnitude or the corporate undertakings if the capital is deemed to be illusory compared with the business to be executed by the corporation an entity can be deemed under capitalized and then the shareholders be declared liable for the company debts or for the company liabilities in Spain it's quite difficult this to occur because in Spanish law the Spanish law foreseen a minimum capitalized for limited liability companies and also depending of the type of business the company is going to execute it has also some minimum of capitalized to be rich for example private equity firms have an increase of this limitation of capital in the states no, this does not happen for example a corporation or a limited liability company in the state normally it could be capitalized whatever you want with the amount you want so it is very important to capitalize the company in the way the type of business is going to execute otherwise the doctrine of pricing the corporate rate it could be applied another issue is the observation of corporate formalities for incorporation and on the day to day issues of the companies for example if a company has distributed dividends without fulfilling the corporate rules or distributing dividends if a company is an alter ego of its matter company and this is one of the one of the issues that the American courts apply in order to declare the liability of the moco cadiz also the the fraud when executing a business or the wrongdoing and finally the type of claim is not the same non-contructual liability like moco cadiz or like prestige we are talking of a non-contructual liability than a contractual liability courts often distinguish between tort and contract claims for piercing the corporate bail proposed because courts are more sensitive to piece the corporate bail on behalf of tort or other involuntary creator than on behalf of a creator who has voluntarily elected to look for a corporation credit if you are signing a contract with another company you normally you can find out in the registry the annual accounts you can find out who are the members of the board of directors or the management body of this company so you have the opportunity to check if this company is in good health or no is in good shape or not if you are you are suffering non-contructual damage this do not apply so these are the main issues that courts normally apply in order to seek liability beyond the corporate structure so the corporate structure is not always is not always the solution to avoid being declarable regarding the prestige I don't know if in Amoco Cadiz you have some some of you have any thoughts to share with us or we can go through also regarding prestige for example Xavier you are a lawyer yes yes it did yes please thank you, I'm Catherine Kissejian from Paris, I'm a professor at the university, I teach human rights and business and I am also an arbitrator and a mediator it's wonderful that you have accepted to be on the panel because it's very rare that we have businesses represented in those meetings when we speak about human rights and business usually we have a lot of NGOs some advocates sometimes judges but very often the business is empty so thank you, this is wonderful thank you I have one question for you and one remark my question is on the website of your company Grafiana I saw that Repsol has a role and my question to you is what kind of a role Repsol has in your company whether it's your mother company whether it has invested and has some control over your company because as you probably know what is developing now in the both in France and in the European Union and also under the UN rugby principles there is a kind of liability thread from the mother company to subsidiaries and two companies which are under the influence or control two concepts which you are not a lawyer but I think as a businessman you must understand because they are not purely legalistic concepts so it's the thread of liability through control and influence which puts some kind of obligations and accountability issues on both the mother company and the other companies in the thread so that's my question my remark is about your link between competition and human rights and I must say here I respectfully completely disagree with you and I will give you a good example and I hope you will after the example you will agree with me the example is the Rana Plaza the what? the Rana Plaza very interesting so you don't even know the case the case is about a building in Bangladesh with more than a thousand employees in that building that building collapses in the building and there are hundreds of people dead and the other rest of the salaries are severely injured in the building in the rubbles of the building we find labels of Auchan and a lot of other French companies some Spanish companies all of that in the closing business garment and most of them women young people working there and there is an interview of the manager of the company who own Rana Plaza and what the guy is telling us is absolutely fascinating and I come to the competition issue he says the competition is putting so much pressure on us that we have to produce t-shirts and I'm just taking the t-shirt example for 50 centímetros of euro and when we are asking for a small increase like 60 centímetros it's not so much in order for us to be able to maintain the building so that it is not going to collapse on our employees this is refused by the companies who are giving us the orders so more competition in my view cannot be equated with human rights yes the problem is that you have different markets there and unfortunately in India there is no competition in the labour market because India is still a country under development so that's the problem because the people and the investors and the labour force in India has not the possibilities they are much better than 50 years in the past and for sure 50 years in the future will be much better than today but the problem is that there is not a fully developed market in India like in some parts of China and in other countries in the world yes that's it if the people has the rights to shellet where the company they want to work the talent people and the smart people will work for the better companies and they have the better salaries and the better working conditions and they will be much more productive and that's exactly that happens in all the parts of the world from Spain to US to China and also in India I agree that India is especially large and complex country and they have a lot of cultural challenges and a lot of things there but I'm not an expert in India but for sure the economic development in India is helping to increase the life expectancy and reduce the poverty and so on but the bad side they do have a long work still in India and in other countries of the world especially in Africa too and answering the question about Resort Repsol is an investor for us so they are the venture capital fund of the company and I totally agree with you and for example we receive several audits from them to assure that we have complied with all the regulations protection of the environment health and safety for sure financial and so on and also it's my main concern because I'm the main stockholder of the company and my main concern is to try to generate value and the way to generate value is not to break the rules or make damage to res so the make to generate value is to try to do things in the right way and produce really good materials for the rest of the community for the rest of the business industry and that's our focus there Thank you I don't know if Xavier do you want to share some Yes, very briefly first of all I would like to thank you very much to the organizers and Globernance, Katrina and Ibas and all the team for the opportunity it's a pleasure being here secondly to present my excuses because I was late so well there was a session in the provincial parliament about waste management and this is an issue nowadays in Gipusqua I never thought that I was going to be involved in waste management from the political legal point of view but that's a part of my of my issue, of my topic nowadays so my excuses going to the topic which I will just try to do to make a very, very brief comparative approach among both cases the Amoco Cadiz and the Prestige it is a very complex thing and we've heard a few things about it in particular the complexity of the piercing of the veil and so on it is a complex thing in civil law in market law in criminal law and even in environmental law which is my field in theory so I'm going to speak from the point of view I could be speaking from another point of view but in this case from the point of view of the environment of the conservation of the resources of the protection of nature let me say that the portrait is very poor in my view of course it is a subjective point of view but it is also based upon practice and if we could analyze that idea in three, four main sub-ideas what I would suggest firstly is the timing because the Amoco Cadiz took place in the 78 and the Prestige happened in 2002 so there's a long time between both accidents and we'll see how for example the legal response of the US jurisdiction I think you've been hearing about it during the last time well it is arguable but it is an advanced response it is a serious response in terms of a qualitative quantitative approach of the liability it is a much higher approach than the Spanish jurisdiction with the Prestige for example so in terms of the timing we can say from the 78 towards 2002 there's a huge evolution on law in European Union in Spain in the US and so on but the solution given in the first judgment at the United States in the 88 is much more advanced than the Spanish solution in 2012 and not very pro-american in that way and more an Anglo-Saxon guy but let me say in this sense well in the European Union we are still far away from the solutions of the United States and let me suggest that for example in the United States there are two fields which are very strict and very serious one is consumers law when something happens concerning consuming it is a serious thing in the US and another one is environmental law is how the United States behaves internationally with environmental law but in domestic issues it is an important point and we see how they deal in a way with the Amoco Cadiz with a very strict liability and with a very important amount of civil liability in the first appeal and even a higher one in the second appeal on the other hand we see that in the Spanish case well the case went through the criminal court first it was against the captain of the tanker and the result is extremely poor in terms of liability there is nearly nothing in terms of liability there is only the P&I system of protection which is ok that is fine but it has nothing to do with environmental law it has nothing to do with the protection of the environment it has nothing to do with the protection and conservation of fisheries that's another thing it's the classic idea of civil law direct economic damage un profit un loose profit that was invented by Romans so it is not a huge advance so that would be a first idea the second one is to distinguish which was quoted by Mr. Paesán of course the different roles of liability in this case in the US the case went through civil liability in the Spanish case it was criminal liability but moreover there was the important decision on foreign shopping in the case of the Amoco Cadiz and that was very good for the plaintiffs of course you have to take the time the money, the lawyers and the whole infrastructure to go to present the formal claim in the United States but in that sense also foreign shopping was very useful so those would be like two, three main ideas in another way if we try to link the whole thing with human rights it is also an issue and it is a very complicated issue because we would require to go to the regulation of every country for example in the Spanish case we got a provision concerning the environment in Article 45 which assumes that there is a right to an adequate environment in Spain but even though it is a fundamental right it is not a right that we could directly apply on to the constitutional court because those are only between the 14th and the 30th so we got a trouble there and in some of the jurisdictions in particular in South America there are some other different approaches to that idea but we have to go state by state having a look at what's our constitution saying about the recognition of this right as a fundamental real right it is part of the constitution but it is as you know a principle of economic development and it is a mandate towards the public administrations so we have to go also analyzing every case one by one and on the other hand if we would like to apply internationally in the European Union well the only way forward would be the European Court of Human Rights of course we got the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea the International Court of Justice and those structures are in force of course but normally in general with some exceptions they are void to citizens so those would be liabilities of the state so well in 5, 10 minutes I think the portrait would be very difficult but in conclusion the general idea about protecting the environment it's developed in the recent decades it is there, it is law in force but at the end it is not being applicable what we are applying is the classic ideas of civil law economic damage and lost profit well whether we like it or not that's another issue but well I think that's more or less a pragmatic approach to what's happening to environmental law from the point of view of an environmental lawyer and all things is companies, insurances and it's a very complex thing but anyway thanks a lot thank you very much Xavier I don't know if Borja want to share also something with us I want just to make a brief comment on the sorry the prestige I think that the problem with the prestige is that due to political reasons the court was badly determined it was a civil issue not a criminal issue the problem was that there were political involved criminal courts are more sexy than civil ones you have such warrants people to prison that sounds great for the papers but the really is that criminal procedure in Spain is very complex, very long and finishes with that the first problem that we had is that according to article I think that is 263 of Montego by treaty the captain of a ship cannot be committed cannot be sent to prison due to a sea accident only provided that he has acted bad and voluntarily bad no? and that the prestige case has finished as many people has predicted that is going to finish but the problem is that the people especially due to political pressures decided that go to in criminal courts you have to be more careful with the first in Spain at that time we could not condend companies only from 2010 there is the possibility to establish that companies are liable to criminal crimes so you cannot go to the company you cannot pierce the veil you cannot make many things in the criminal courts that could might be done in the savings courts even you can try to do foreign shopping as finally the Spanish government try to do foreign shopping in the United States and they couldn't achieve that but in criminal courts you cannot make foreign shopping you cannot shoot before the federal court in the criminal bench because there is no federal crime in Spain ok some of them in Rotam those countries there are some problems of that but not here but the problem is that there is very typical in Spain when I was practicing as a lawyer it was typical the discussion within the firm we go to crime procedure because the client sometimes feels more comfortable but if the case is not clear and the other attorney is would attorney he can have you in the investigation court for 10 years and in the civil procedure you have a crime and he has 20 days to answer and there is no more histories but in the in the criminal procedure in the investigation phase everything can be appealed so you are continuously with small appeals that stop the procedure you have more more troubles of constitutional law you have to take care of the rights of the people so it was just a political decision just to fill in press front pages that has finishes in that and I think that the supreme court will do the same I don't know but I think that it will be the same thank you very much I don't know if someone yes someone who wants to share also his thought with us no, it's just a very quick remark on the on the La Puente speech first the was in India was in Bangladesh the collapse of Rana Plaza secondly the due diligence process in company is everybody knows that is very poor so it's not really effective to identify and prevent and to resolve this risk situation of the government in Bangladesh and secondly we got a whole problem that is big impunity or effectiveness of the grievance mechanisms or remedy, access to remedy for the victims so it's no opinion it's a recognition from the United Nations and it's a big problem so we are trying to figure what is the best way to resolve or to try to put decisions on grievance mechanisms or judicial courts or whatever so it's no debate of about I think that the probably the best tool nowadays is try to use more popular the supplier responsibility reports by large companies like Inditex or H&M or whatever in this industry in the government's industry and they have to publish all the results of external audits with external auditors that check all the supplier value change and identify those kind of problems because probably I don't know the local regulation in Bangladesh but but here the responsibility of the technical of the building responsibility so probably in that case the company must be not operating for sure but I know that India is a complex country and probably the local regulation is not the force but so I think that transparency and supplier responsibility programs are a very good tool to warranty all this kind for sure will be terrible accidents or terrible problems in the future for sure will be because risk or any business activity or any human activity there is no zero risk but we have to avoid and we have to warranty that if someone adds in the bad way they have to damage even if it's not even if they are doing everything okay but they have generating a damage that company has to pay that's the bad way that have the market to try to resolve this problems I think that sorry one of the problems with suppliers in the third world is that the local legislation allows what is happening and sometimes we don't remember that happened in Spain not many years ago my father began to work before he was 14 and was typical and now we have changed but we sometimes happens that we try for instance the index of death in working accident in Spain in Sweden is incredible they say okay you are a third world and we are in some sense a third world country because we have ratios absolutely in a second world for northern Europe countries and we don't think that is you say one one worker per day or two parts that's not common in other countries and i think that those kind of countries have to have upset it and i think that in the first world have a problem with that problem of the supplier responsibility program that sometimes European consumers do not act according to a consumer responsibility program but they try to say is O que é? Ok, eu quero uma tira de Zara, cheira, bonita, muda todo o ano, que é impossível, só com os filhos na Bangladesh, que é o único jeito. Então, probablemente o que eu tenho que fazer é que eu não compro em tira de Zara. Eu não estou dizendo que eu tenho que fazer ou que eu não estou fazendo, que eu sou unido e infato a comprar tira de Zara, mas a ideia é que eu acho que é, ok, eu quero uma tira de 20 euros, mas eu quero uma tira de Zara, ok, eu quero uma tira de Zara, por cento, 15 cento, na Bangladesh na Indonésia, ou em muitos outros países, ou even na Morocco, não é necessario xerar, na Morocco nós temos ese problema, e eu gostaria saber quão é que ele paga 20 anos atrás na Galicia, por exemplo, para as pessoas que coxeram, coxeram, coxeram, mas eu digo que àssí os consumores tenem o poder na tira, mas a gratidúria àssí é que eu quero seu produto, como tu coxeras hoje, mas eu quero mudar a produção de China. E probablemente o que nós temos que dizer é que, primeiro, se continues a esta forma, eu não vou comprar para ti, e segundo, eu sei que para que improve o modo de vida das pessoas na Bangladesh eu tenho que pagar não 20, mas 25. É algo que àssí não é accebido, e é parte de que nós não sabemos o nosso pasado, ou nós não queremos, nós sabemos o nosso pasado, porque nós não queremos falar sobre isso, porque nós queremos que os jovens coxeram, ok, o generación de parentes coxeramos os jovens coxeramos, antes de 14, meu pai, antes de 14 coxeramos na compania, e na landa, na agricultura coxeramos 10 anos, as pessoas que hoje são 70, coxeramos 10 anos na España. Então, nós temos que saber o que é o nosso pasado e o quão ha mudado, e é a forma de mudar isso, e o que ha mudado, porque nós temos que comprar mais coisas, e mais expensivas coisas, e isso faz, mas a edición que é o que... Ok, nós temos que mudar, porque é inaceptable, e eu acho que é inaceptable, que as pessoas que joven xxten, maybé, coxeram, mas é parte da nossa país, não tan manya anos, e o índex de accedentes na España, por exemplo, é inaceptable, é inaceptable. E as pessoas, na Europa, as estadísticas da Unión Europea, e eles dão que o que é sucedido na España, é que o que é sucedido na Zaedña, e que é inaceptable ná, maspse mais de que nós sámos, porque is that we are not asking for a boycott in the text. Because sometimes tomorrow in the paper and justice in Bilbao asks boycott for in the text because it works this way. Mas eu digo que seИs unha, se inusitamos o gedón do supply, probablemente nós tenamos que mudar o supply. X통s é unha coisa queavaş que ten promise, mas se isse non. Se non, se fono saifian o requisito local, o requisito legal, é unos. E isso é sucedente. E temos uns exemplos que suceden. Por exemplo, o Nike tem sources que abeixamos e o valor de o mercado de capitalización da empresa Nike dope a lota e tem problemas com as salas. Eu acho que isso é funcionando. Mas o humano tem solución para isso, que é o desenvolvimento económic. 200 anos nao passamos vivendo nao the same condición como nao da India. 200 ou 50 anos ago. Então temos o mesmo problema. E temos que focusar nao garantir a liberación da gente e a liberación da unidade nao país. Porque é o único modo para morar e ser mais desenvolvido nao da economía. Justo marco, novo. Eu não irei monopalizar o dialogo. Mas o que é o rol da loa nao discussión nao opinión? Porque obviamente nou da dribas nao consumer e investidor. Mas o que é o rol da loa e o rol da acceso nao da justiça? Nao caso é que as violaciones da humanas rais. Porque é o problema nao que estamos discutiendo. Obviamente nou da dribas. E obviamente nou desagreio completamente nao da acceso nao da dribas nao da economía. E é o problema nao da competición nao que estamos conversando. Porque estamos conversando nao da humanas rais nao da economía. Então não estamos conversando nao da competición nao da actores. Estamos conversando nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da competición nao da Xen case ou similar case must have the same output. So in my opinion that's the best tool. If I may try to answer that complicated question, I would suggest only that the role of law is to try to ease to every citizen the right to claim on behalf of the rights. Well that in theory it's very easy, in theory. But what it comes to the practical approach is not that easy. Because as we all know, well things are moving very fast and we got the paradigm of human rights, that's the important thing. But the international system it is based upon the idea of the sovereignty of a state. And we do have still among us a lot of people who believe that sovereignty of a state is a powerful tool even against the human rights of the people. So that's the paradigm that we have to overcome, that's very important. And in particular when it deals with the environment. Because in theory also, well we are all entitled to claim for the protection of the environment. But on the other side there will be some people, some states, some political organizations that would suggest that we are not sovereign to do that because they are the ones entitled to claim on behalf of us. So I think there is a breach in that idea and it's a question of overcoming the troubles of sovereignty versus human rights. It is very difficult and there are a lot of things on the backside of course but that's my idea. Ok thank you. It seems there is a divorce between human rights and business and it should not be a divorce between these two topics. In the last year the European Parliament approved a directive on the 15 of April 2014 regarding sustainability report in order to impose listed companies to include in the corporate governance report these kinds of topics, how the companies treat the employees, how they deal with the environmental issues, how they deal with the subsidiaries in other countries, not in the development world. So I think it seems there is a divorce between business and human rights but we have all of us, lawyers, practitioners, policymakers try to do these two war human rights and business to go together and I think a sustainability report is one of the weapons we have in order to go against this divorce. Many listed companies in the states are adopting this kind of sustainability report in the corporate governance report and probably in the coming years it's going to be compulsory not only to listed companies, to all the companies to include in the report, to submit every year to the registry these kinds of issues, these kinds of matters that in my view it should go in the same way, in the same direction. I don't know if... Do you have any other issues, any other queries? Ok, thank you very much indeed. Thank you, Xavier, Jesús, Borja and thank you very much Globernans for the opportunity of being here with you and sharing our thoughts with you and if you don't have any... Ok, at three o'clock we will come back. Thank you very much.