A/74/969 in order to avoid the creation of unnecessary barriers to trade in goods that are used for legitimate purposes. 44. The majority of Member States that provided input highlighted the need for the prohibition of trade in goods that have no practical use other than for the purpose of capital punishment, torture or other forms of ill-treatment. Similarly, the majority of Member States that provided input indicated the need for control with regard to goods that could be used for such purposes. 45. The majority of Member States that provided input considered that import, export and transfer and related activities, such as brokering services, technical assistance, training in the use of regulated goods, promotion at trade fairs or exhibitions, and advertising, should be included in the scope of common international standards. Member States also proposed that consideration be given to other activities that facilitate the availability of and enable the trade in goods used for capital punishment, torture or other forms of ill-treatment, namely, the transit, manufacturing, production, sale and purchase of goods in relevant categories. 46. Consideration should be given to the views of all Member States concerning the need to establish a mechanism and criteria for risk assessment of trade in goods that could be used for capital punishment, torture or other forms of illtreatment. Member States that provided input noted the importance of export authorization requirements and end-use verification as appropriate mechanisms for inclusion in the scope of common international standards. They also underscored the importance of considering the risk of diversion. Further deliberations on the matter should be guided by the existing international and regional treaties, agreements and regulations on dual-use goods. 47. The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights should be used as a basis for further discussions on common international standards in this area. In line with the Guiding Principles, companies involved in trading goods that could be used for capital punishment, torture or other forms of ill-treatment should carry out human rights due diligence. 48. Most States that provided input were in favour of a legally binding instrument. Some specifically referred to a convention or a further optional protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, with some expressing a preference for a global instrument and others expressing a preference for a regional instrument. Other States that provided input were in favour of a non-binding instrument or non-binding international standards and called for flexibility until the scope of the standards was further defined. 49. The inputs received from Member States and the suggestions made with regard to the feasibility and possible scope of a range of options to establish common international standards for the import, export and transfer of goods used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment provide a basis for further deliberations by the group of governmental experts to be established under paragraph 2 of General Assembly resolution 73/304. Member States are encouraged to provide appropriate support to the group of governmental experts. 50. Taking into account all the inputs received for the present report, it is important to broaden engagement with the process of considering the establishment of common international standards and further consult Member States across all regions and other stakeholders to shape a wider consensus as the process moves forward. 20-10185 13/13