A/74/969 authorize the import, export, manufacture, marketing and transit of such goods and exercise control over those activities. D. Need for a risk assessment mechanism and criteria for risk assessment 28. Member States were invited to indicate which risk assessment mechanisms and associated criteria should be considered for the regulation of goods that could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 29. The United Kingdom emphasized that any risk assessment criteria should be clear and readily understood by all stakeholders and that any assessment should be conducted on a consistent and non-discriminatory basis, taking into account all relevant information and verifiable sources. Austria noted that any risk management mechanism should be in line with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It also referred to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the Organization’s work on due diligence, which provided a useful tool not only for companies but also for policymakers when they were considering human rights risks and their mitigation. 30. New Zealand suggested drawing on the wide range of existing risk assessment mechanisms and criteria for dual-use goods. France and Ireland considered that the European Union anti-torture regulation provided useful criteria and a sound model. Switzerland suggested drawing on export control regimes such as the Wassenaar Arrangement, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Australia Group. Canada suggested modelling the ri sk assessment mechanisms and criteria on those used in the Arms Trade Treaty. It noted that States could commit to applying the same standards as they applied for their existing export controls, or at least a standard that was no less rigorous. 31. Portugal also proposed that the risk assessment mechanism and risk criteria be very similar to those already in place for any other type of goods subject to restrictions and proposed that the risk of diversion of such goods be considered. New Zealand noted that diversion was a complex issue that should be avoided, and Brazil noted that it would hardly be feasible to control trade in goods that could be diverted. 32. Several States 27 agreed that goods that could be used for the purpose of capital punishment, torture or other forms of ill-treatment should be subject to an export authorization requirement. Such authorization should not be granted when there were reasonable grounds to believe that the goods might be used for that purpose by a law enforcement authority or any natural or legal person in the country to which they were exported. The United Kingdom referred to the specific criteria under the European anti-torture regulation. In accordance with those criteria, the competent authorities deciding on authorizations should take into account available international court judgments, findings of the competent bodies of the United Nations, reports of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and other relevant information, including available national court judgments, reports and other information prepared by civil society organizations. 33. Several States 28 agreed that the criteria for granting authorizations should also apply to the verification of the intended end use and the risk of diversion. Some __________________ 27 28 10/13 Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. 20-10185