Previous 45 / 60 Next

ACHPR African Commission on Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Human and Peoptes' Hinrlts the Gibe III and Kuraz projects.P The Respondent State submitted that the consultations were organized at the zonal, woreda and kebele levels where community members were invited to participate in public discussions, presentations, and question-and-answer sessions with administrators and representatives of the communities.s" 208. Having considered the nature of the allegation and the serious human rights concerns that the two projects raise, the Commission notes that the interviews conducted and cited by the Complainants have no probative value having not been authenticated nor signed by the interviewees themselves, a person in authority or other duly authorised official. More so, the written depositions supporting these claims suffer from the same evidentiary deficit having not been duly endorsed by a notary public or a Commissioner for Oath. As an international body, the Commission cannot rely merely on the reports of thirdparty bodies or governmental agencies and non-governmental organisations to come to an informed conclusion. 209. Furthermore, both parties placed substantial reliance on the Final Report of the Development Assistance Group (DAG) mission to Ethiopia made up of representatives of the Finnish Embassy, the Swedish Embassy, the German Embassy, the Dutch Embassy, the United Kingdom Department for International Development, the United Stated Agency for International Development, and the European Union, all in Addis. The DAG mission report notes that the Government did not offer communities any alternative but to settle permanently, and that the focus of consultation appears to be an effort to persuade the communities to go along with this process, rather than debating options. After a careful consideration of the DAG mission report, the Commission notes that despite identifying apparent human rights challenges associated with the statedirected resettlement in the South Omo Zone, the Mission "team found no evidence of forced migration" .65 210. The Commission finds no indication that the peoples of the Lower Omo have been manifestly denied their right to freely determine their economic and social development or to participate in the consultations on the Gibe III dam. While the Commission agrees with the Complainants on the potential impact of the two projects on the affected communities, there is neither a direct nor primary piece of evidence on record to support its claim that the communities were unrepresented in the consultation processes held by the Respondent State on Respondent's Written Submissions on the Merit para 37(D). 64 Respondent's Written Submissions on the Merit para 37(A)-(G). 65 Development Assistance Group Final Report (2014) page 2. 63 An Organ of the African (!-. ",) Union ',,,r" 44

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