E/C.12/GC/24 whether a violation has taken place and to order cessation of the violation and reparation to redress the harm done. Reparation can be in the form of restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantee of non-repetition,94 and must take the views of those affected into account. To ensure non-repetition, an effective remedy may require improvements to legislation and policies that have proven ineffective in preventing the abuses. 42. Because of how corporate groups are organized, business entities routinely escape liability by hiding behind the so-called corporate veil, as the parent company seeks to avoid liability for the acts of the subsidiary even when it would have been in a position to influence its conduct. Other barriers to effective access to remedies for victims of human rights violations by business entities include the difficulty of accessing information and evidence to substantiate claims, much of which is often in the hands of the corporate defendant; the unavailability of collective redress mechanisms where violations are widespread and diffuse; and the lack of legal aid and other funding arrangements to make claims financially viable. 43. Victims of transnational corporate abuses face specific obstacles in accessing effective remedies. In addition to the difficulty of proving the damage or establishing the causal link between the conduct of the defendant corporation located in one jurisdiction and the resulting violation in another, transnational litigation is often prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, and in the absence of strong mechanisms for mutual legal assistance, the collection of evidence and the execution in one State of judgments delivered in another State present specific challenges. In some jurisdictions, the forum non conveniens doctrine, according to which a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if another forum is available to victims, may in effect constitute a barrier to the ability of victims residing in one State to seek redress before the courts of the State where the defendant business is domiciled. Practice shows that claims are often dismissed under this doctrine in favour of another jurisdiction without necessarily ensuring that victims have access to effective remedies in the alternative jurisdiction. 44. States parties have the duty to take necessary steps to address these challenges in order to prevent a denial of justice and ensure the right to effective remedy and reparation. This requires States parties to remove substantive, procedural and practical barriers to remedies, including by establishing parent company or group liability regimes, providing legal aid and other funding schemes to claimants, enabling human rights-related class actions and public interest litigation, facilitating access to relevant information and the collection of evidence abroad, including witness testimony, and allowing such evidence to be presented in judicial proceedings. The extent to which an effective remedy is available and realistic in the alternative jurisdiction should be an overriding consideration in judicial decisions relying on forum non conveniens considerations. 95 The introduction by corporations of actions to discourage individuals or groups from exercising remedies, for instance by alleging damage to a corporation’s reputation, should not be abused to create a chilling effect on the legitimate exercise of such remedies. 45. States parties should facilitate access to relevant information through mandatory disclosure laws and by introducing procedural rules allowing victims to obtain the disclosure of evidence held by the defendant. Shifting the burden of proof may be justified where the facts and events relevant for resolving a claim lie wholly or in part within the exclusive knowledge of the corporate defendant. 96 The conditions under which the protection of trade secrets and other grounds for refusing disclosure may be invoked should be defined restrictively, without jeopardizing the right of all parties to a fair trial. Furthermore, States parties and their judicial and enforcement agencies have a duty to 94 95 96 Ibid., part IX, “Reparation for harm suffered”. See also recommendation CM/Rec(2016)3 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, appendix, para. 34. As already noted by the Committee in the specific context of actions alleging discrimination: see the Committee’s general comment No. 20, para. 40. See also A/HRC/32/19, annex, para. 12.5 (in relation to civil cases) and para. 1.7 (in relation to criminal and quasi-criminal cases). 13