Ms Gabriela Quijano:

I am sorry about before. I did not realise it was five minutes but I will be very brief. With regard to what needs to shift, one thing I wanted to mention is that at the treaty negotiation week, initially the impetus was for the regulation of transnational companies. A lot of debate happened around that issue, with many states and industry bodies saying this was an unfair targeting of a set of companies. They would primarily point at the western world and the richer countries because that is where most of the transnational companies come from. It was stated that all companies should be targeted and that this was the approach of the UNGPs, etc. When some organisations started saying that, okay, it should be all companies or there should be a statement that this applies to all companies, even though some provisions more distinctively apply to transnational companies with transnational activity, then the pushback was that this was not fair because small and medium-sized enterprises should not be burdened with the same obligations as transnational companies, their operations are by nature only domestic, etc. These arguments are not being raised in good faith. I just wanted to mention that, and many of us in civil society think the treaty should make statements about all companies, which is very much line with the UNGPs. However, when it comes to the alternative provisions, they really should target transnational companies, transnational activities and global supply chains because that is where the biggest normative gaps in international law lie.

With regard to enforcement, at the moment the treaty is addressing it in two manners. One is by imposing obligations on states to create their own competent bodies to monitor-----