Previous 11 / 60 Next

(~~\ACHPR t' ',j t . ctJ.1.l..t::c ' Afncan Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 52. Article 56 of the African Charter requires the Communication to satisfy the seven Admissibility conditions listed therein. The Conunission notes that the Parties have not proffered any arguments on the requirements in Article 56 (1)(2)(3)(4)(6) and (7). However, the Commission's own assessment of the Communication indicates that the conditions in those provisions are satisfied. Accordingly, the Commission's analysis will focus on the requirement to exhaust local remedies as set out in Article 56 (5) of the Charter. 53. Article 56(5) of the African Charter provides that Communications received by the Commission shall be considered if the 'are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that the procedure is unduly prolonged'. As the Commission has previously indicated, where local remedies are available, effective and sufficient, the onus to exhaust such local remedies or demonstrate that they have been exhausted or attempted lies on the author of a Communication." 54. The Complainant in the present Communication does not claim to have exhausted or even attempted to exhaust any local remedies in the Respondent State. Instead, the Complainants have argued that it should be exempted from the requirement to exhaust local remedies because in its opinion, effective and sufficient local remedies are not available to the Victims in the Respondent State. 55. The Respondent State disputes the claim that local remedies are not available and asserts instead that effective local remedies exist and should first have been utilised by the Complainants. 56. The Commission recalls that where a State Party asserts that effective and sufficient local remedies are available within its legal system, the onus is on that State Party to prove the assertion+ In Zimbabwe Launjers for Human Rights and Another v Zimbabwe, this Commission noted that where a Complainant claims that local remedies did not have to be exhausted because they are ineffective, unavailable or insufficient without the need for proof on the part of the Complainant, a burden is imposed on the Respondent State to prove the contrary." The Respondent State 'must then show that the remedy is available, effective and sufficient'." It is only after the Respondent State has established the existence of effective and sufficient remedies that the burden shifts back to the 7 As above. An Organ of Ihe AfriGan~~."~~)'\ UnIOn~~k( 10

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 419/12 - The Indigenous Peoples of the Lower Omo (Represented by Survival International Trust) v. Ethiopia

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Economic, Social and Cultural Development
Free Disposal of Wealth and Natural Resources
Indigenous Communities
Land Rights
Right to a General Satisfactory Environment
Right to Self-Determination

Case Head Notes: The Complainants state that two projects undertaken by the Respondent State, the Gibe III Dam Construction and the Kuraz Sugar Project, will deprive the Lower Omo Peoples of the practices that they have depended upon for centuries to gather food, graze livestock, and grow food. The Complainants state that the Government did not make an effort to inform the Lower Omo Peoples of the adverse impacts of the projects, and did not obtain their consent on the Gibe III Dam project before work commenced in 2006. The Complainants also state that the Kuraz Sugar Project involves the involuntary resettlement of large numbers of people, without any effort by the Respondent State to inform or consult the people prior to the start of the project. The Complainants state that many people have already been forced to move from their traditional lands to a much more arid land. The Commission found a violation of Article 22, with respect to the Kuraz Sugar Project, becuse there was no public disclosure of the impact of the project on the peoples' rights, livelihoods, and way of life. The Commission stated that providing information related to peoples' rights, livelihoods, and way of life is fundamental to the exercise of the peoples' "free, prior, and informed consent." Accordingly, since the Respondent State did not undertake, or publicly disclose an Enviornmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), the Respondent State violated Article 22 with regard to the Kuraz Sugar Project. Regarding the dam, the Commission found that the Respondent State made reasonable public disclosure on the impact of the dam. The Commission found no violation of Article 20, stating that the interviews conducted, and cited, by the Complainants had no probative value since they were not signed by the interviewees or a duly authorized official, and the written depositions supporting the claims were not duly endorsed. While stating that mere consultation with a few village leaders is not sufficient to discharge the Respondent State's responsibility to consult, the Commission stated that evidence submitted by the Respondent State shows that the seven affected peoples groups exercised their right to self-determination - not just through representatives, but also by directly participating in the public consultations regarding the construction of the dam and sugar factories. The Commission found no violation of Article 21, stating that evidence showed that the Omo people were participating in consultations, directly, with the Respondent State, and through representatives and, also, because the evidence demonstrated that the potential adverse human rights impacts of the projects had been avoided or significantly mitigated. The Commission found no violation of Article 24 stating that they were not satisfied by the evidence provided by the Complainants. They state that, for a violation to be established, a Complainant must prove that the existing conditions for normal life have been substantially upset by the Respondent State, or, a third party supported by the Respondent State. The Commission requested the Respondent State to conduct, and disclose, an ESIA of the Kuraz Sugar Project and to inform the Commission of the measures taken to implement the recommendations.

Country

Ethiopia

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Aug 2, 2022

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 20 : Right to Self-Determination
ACHPR 20.1: Right to existence
ACHPR 21: Right to Free Disposal of Wealth and Natural Resources
ACHPR 21.1: People's right to freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources
ACHPR 22: Peoples' Right to Economic, Social and Cultural Development
ACHPR 22.1: Right to Economic, Social and Cultural Development
ACHPR 24: Right to a General Satisfactory Environment

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 22: Peoples' Right to Economic, Social and Cultural Development
ACHPR 22.1: Right to Economic, Social and Cultural Development

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 20 : Right to Self-Determination
ACHPR 20.1: Right to existence
ACHPR 21: Right to Free Disposal of Wealth and Natural Resources
ACHPR 21.1: People's right to freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources
ACHPR 24: Right to a General Satisfactory Environment

Duration of Procedure

Apr 16, 2012 ~ Aug 2, 2022

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 9.145000000000001

Longitude: 40.489673

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Ethiopia

Primary Documents

The Indigenous Peoples of the Lower Omo (Represented by Survival International Trust) v Ethiopia.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 419/12 - The Indigenous Peoples of the Lower Omo (Represented by Survival International Trust) v. Ethiopia

Primary Documents

Notifications