(Bio)Fueling Injustice? - Europafrica

Access to remedies
ETO Principle 37 defines the obligation to provide effective remedy:
States must ensure the enjoyment of the right to a prompt,
accessible and effective remedy before an independent
authority, including, where necessary, recourse to a judicial
authority, for violations of economic, social and cultural rights.
Where the harm resulting from an alleged violation has
occurred on the territory of a State other than a State in which
the harmful conduct took place, any State concerned must
provide remedies to the victim.
Principle 38 details that effective remedies “must be capable of leading to a prompt,
thorough and impartial investigation; cessation of the violation if it is ongoing; and
adequate reparation, including, as necessary, restitution, compensation, satisfaction,
rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition.” When necessary, interim measure
should also be taken.
However, most if not all victims of human rights violations in Africa have not had
access to an effective remedy. The EU does not seem to offer any avenue, whether
legal or administrative, to efficiently handle complaint and provide redress. At the
exception of Spain, no EU Member State has ratified the Optional Protocol to the
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which allows individual complaints
for violations of the ICESCR.
On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that the EU and its Member States have
undertaken promising efforts to monitor the impact of their biofuel policy, potentially
complying with ETO Principle 36. It also still has the opportunity to create efficient
redress mechanisms, or render its current redress mechanisms available to African
victims. Failure to do so, and an inadequate MONITORING report under the RED
would probably cause the EU and its Members States to violated human rights
for their failure to provide effective remedy.
93