Previous 29 / 60 Next

Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 138. The Respondent State reaffirms that the COP does not displace anyone but merely seeks to bring socio-economic services to people who otherwise live in highly scattered settlements. (iv) Right to a general satisfactory environment under Article 24 139. In response to the Complainants' submission that Gibe III and the Kuraz will deny the people of Bodi, Dassenech, Hamar, Kara, Kwegu, Mursi, and Nyangatom a general satisfactory envirorunent favorable to their development in violation of Article 24 of the African Charter, the Respondent submitted that the goverrunent has enacted a series of envirorunental protection legislation and policies. 140. The Respondent State submitted that the Complainants' allegations of violation of Article 24 of the African Charter are on the most part based on fears and assumptions because development projects and activities in Ethiopia are carried out under strict guidelines, following a complex web of land, environmental, and labor policies. The Gibe III and the Kuraz are no exceptions. 141. The Respondent State submitted that the allegations do not take into account the fact that the EEPCO identified the potential impact of the dam and put in place mitigating measures, which in turn are included in the envirorunental and social impact assessment studies of the two projects. 142. The Respondent State submitted that no cause of action, either individual or collective, was brought in the federal or regional courts of the SNNRPS regarding either the Gibe III or Kuraz. And that, in any case, the Complainants can do so in the event the EEPCO and/ or the Sugar Corporation should cause any damage to the environment. 143. With regards to the Complainants' allegation that an envirorunental impact assessment study was not performed for Gibe III and Kuraz prior to their construction, the Respondent State submitted that the impact assessment study for the Gibe III was performed between 2007 and 2008 before the start of the construction of the darn in 2010. The Respondent state submitted that this study was available on the projects and the World Bank's website for public comment. 144. Similarly, with regards to the Impact Assessment Study for Kuraz, the Respondent State submitted that that assessment was completed in 2012 before the Kuraz was launched in 2013. Both studies were conducted followi ~::;;:;o.;;;;;:::~ An Or:o.Janof the African ((~~ Union ~",,!I. 28

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