the police, lack the training and capacity to enforce the rule of law (though the EU has been providing training to improve the human rights performance of Myanmar’s police). 618 The Government has also taken a number of actions to provide non-judicial grievance mechanisms to the public in the absence of a fully functioning judiciary (see Table 40 below). However, these mechanisms are already overloaded with complaints and hindered by limited mandates. Since the reform process began, these committees and the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission have received thousands of complaints from the public about abuses at the hands of the Government and military, but, as noted above, many of these people still await a resolution to their problems. Many businesses commonly seek to incorporate safeguards into their investment contracts by ensuring access to international – rather than domestic – arbitration tribunals in the event of an investment dispute. 619 Myanmar acceded to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in April 2013, which entered into force July 2013. 620 This solidifies the ability of foreign investors to submit disputes with Myanmar Government and commercial partners to international arbitration. The Myanmar legislature is now reportedly considering a new law based on the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration to replace the 1944 Arbitration Act, which would enable Myanmar courts to recognise and enforce international arbitral awards. 621 An equivalent assurance of access to remedies for most Myanmar people affected by private sector operations is still a practical impossibility. Accountability in Myanmar is a new phenomenon and one that will take time to become established. Given the inefficiencies and acknowledged corruption in the judiciary and the inability of even the ad hoc commissions to resolve complaints, there is a clear lack of access to effective avenues for individuals and communities to express their grievances, engage with responsible parties in the Government or to seek redress if harms have occurred – especially at the local level. Table 40: Existing Non-Judicial Grievance Mechanisms in Myanmar    Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was appointed to head up a new parliamentary Rule of Law and Stability Committee formed in August 2012 to serve as a mechanism for the general public to lodge complaints about Government departments. In one month it received over 10,000 complaint letters regarding courts within the Yangon Division alone. 622 The President’s Office opened a public access portal for people to submit opinions and complaints directly to the President. 623 A non-judicial labour dispute settlement system to resolve disputes between 618 EU Delegation to Myanmar, “EU Crowd Management Training Supports Reform of Myanmar Police Force” (Feb 2014). 619 More recently, the EU and Myanmar have begun discussions on an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism with Myanmar. See for example: Herbert Smith Freehills, “Myanmar and the European Union to enter into an investment protection agreement” (13 March 2014). 620 New York Convention on the Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (last accessed August 2015). 621 Singapore International Arbitration Blog, “Draft Arbitration Bill in Myanmar” (June 2014). 622 Regarding the various bodies noted, see further: Hnin Wut Yee, “Business & Human Rights in ASEAN – A baseline study: Myanmar chapter” (April 2013). 623 Government of Myanmar, “FESR - Policy Priorities for 2012-2015 towards the Long-Term Goals of the National Comprehensive Development Plan” (January 2013), para 114. CHAPTER 4.9: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT & GRIEVANCE MECHANISMS 243 4 4.9