Previous 31 / 60 Next

. ., ACH PR 'I',CH":h"O' . ~;i , . . ,/. O:O.:nD , African Commission, o~ Human and Peoples Hiqhts Human Rights our Collective Responsibility environment favorable to their development. C. Complainants' reply 152. The Complainants submitted in reply to the Respondent State's brief on the merits dated 27 November 2015 that both parties largely accept that the Complainants are a "peoples". That they have the right to decide for themselves whether, when and how to change their way of life which is a fundamental element of Articles 20(1), 21(1), 22(1) and 24 of the African Charter. The Complainants submitted that it is agreed by the parties "that the rights conferred by these provisions cannot be abridged in the interest of public need or in the general interest. 153. The Complainants submitted that not only did the Respona~ntstate's arguments and the evidence in support thereof fail to refute the key allegations against the Respondent State, but also that the Respondent State confirmed that: (a) It failed to take into account while pursuing its development projects the rights of the Complainants under the African Charter or any other legal instrument contrary to Articles 20(1),21(1),22(1) of the African Charter; (b) It took no effective steps to protect the Complainants' rights under Article 21 of the African Charter to freely dispose of their natural resources; and (c) It took no effective steps to secure the Complainants free, prior or informed consent for either Gibe III or the Kuraz Social Development Plan. 154. In reply to the Respondent State's counter argument that the Omo annual floods are not a natural resource, the Complainants clarified that the concept of "natural resources" under Article 21 of the African Charter is a broad one that is unrestricted in its use in the African Charter as decided by the Commission in the Endorois case. 155. In reply to the Respondent State's submission or argument that flood retreat agriculture was not in itself sufficient to sustain the Lower Omo peoples, the Complainants submitted that Article 21 of the African Charter would have been robbed of any effect if it applied only to a natural resource which provided an indigenous people with its sole means of subsistence. This, they argued, is because most indigenous peoples depend on a variety of natural resources. An0'0'" ot the African (~)' UnIOn~,~1)j ? 30

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