Previous 44 / 60 Next

Human Rights our Collective Responsibility on the community - is accurate, objective and presented in a form and manner that is understandable to the community.w 204. Furthermore, in the decision of the Inter-American Court in the case of Saramaka People v Suriname, it was held that in cases of: large-scale deuelopmeui or investment projects that would have a major impact with Saramaka territory the State luis n duty, not only to consult with the Saramakas, but also to obtain their free, prior and informed consent according to their customs and traditions» 205. In this case, the Complainants submitted that the Gibe III darn and the Kuraz sugar projects meet the criterion that the free, prior and informed consent of the alleged victims must be obtain because the projects will have a potentially substantial or major impact on the affected communities.P The Complainants contended that none of the affected indigenous communities have hereditary chiefs or elected representatives. That decisions are made at meetings attended by adult males in each community. And that elders are occasionally summoned to appear before local officials but have no authority to enter agreements on behalf of their community. 206. The Complainants further submitted that the participation of the indigenous peoples of the Lower Omo in the consultations on the Gibe III dam project was not timely because the EEPca had already concluded the contract to construct the darn before actual consultations with the people occurred. The Complainants also submitted that only 93 members of the affected communities participated in the consultations, which was insufficient to render the consultations effective. The Complainants further submitted that the information provided to the 93 people who attended the consultations was inadequate as it did not clearly explain to the people what the assessment of the adverse impact of the dam was on their sources of livelihood. The Complainants submitted that none of those interviewed understood what consequences the construction of the dam would have on their lives and livelihoods. 207. From the Respondent State's account, not only has the government held consultations with administrators and elected representatives in the South Omo Zone, it has in certain cases spent significant effort to consult practically every elder and village chief in Selamago Woreda" and other communities in respect of 1/ 60 As above. 43

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