The UN’s Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) requests States to provide information on State-based non-judicial mechanisms in the case of business-related human rights violations before May 31st, 2017

The OHCHR has launched a series of questions directed to States in the context of the “Accountability and Remedy Project II” (ARP II). The questions address the current practices and challenges with respect to the use of State-based non-judicial mechanisms as a way of enhancing access to remedy in cases of corporate abuse.

With the scope of promoting the application of the Third Pillar of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the Office has launched the cited initiative (ARP II) which includes the development of a study that examines the effectiveness of State-based non-judicial mechanisms and invites States to provide information on the this end by answering, among others, the following questions:

1.        What State-based non-judicial mechanisms (“State-based NJMs”) have been established within your State’s jurisdiction that are potentially relevant to business respect for human rights? Explanatory notes: (i) For the purposes of this call for input, State-based NJMs are State agencies, other than courts, which (a) handle complaints by individuals about business activities and/or (b) resolve disputes between individuals and business enterprises).  (ii) Examples could include labour inspectorates, consumer dispute resolution bodies, environmental ombudsmen, equality bodies, NHRIs, and other specialist agencies.
2.      What practical measures have these State-based NJMs taken to (a) improve their accessibility to persons who may be at risk of vulnerability or marginalisation or (b) ensure the safety of people who may be at risk of threats and/or intimidation?
3.       What kinds of fact-finding and investigatory powers do these State-based NJMs have?  To what extent can these State-based NJMs investigate complaints and disputes on their own initiative?
4.        Do these State-based NJMs have any functions or powers in respect of adverse business-related human rights impacts in other States?  Or is their jurisdiction limited to impacts within the territory of the State in which it is based?
5.        What kinds of remedies can these State-based NJMs offer to people whose human rights have been adversely impacted by business activities?  Are these remedies legally binding?  In deciding which remedies are appropriate, to what extent do these State-based NJMs take account of the needs of (a) people who may be at risk of vulnerability or marginalisation or (b) people who may be at risk of threats and/or intimidation?

The OHCHR’s Sector Study – Part 1 can be accessed here.