This session will discuss different types of grievance mechanisms based on experiences from across regions, including state-based and non-state based mechanisms; those based on binding or non-binding regulations; and enforceable and non-enforceable mechanisms. Panelists and the audience will collectively evaluate whether they facilitate effective remedy for victims and reflect on the core strengths of the various approaches.
The session will identify the practices of remedial mechanisms necessary to ensure effective remedy and accountability for corporate impacts. The session will also consider how various paths to remedy can complement each other to give rights holders choice in obtaining a bouquet of remedies suited to the unique circumstances of their case.
Key objectives of the session:- Provide examples of different grievance mechanisms and cases of successful and unsuccessful remediation to highlight best and less good practice.
- Debate whether a smart mix of measures support an effective remedy for victims.
- Discuss how the nature of the mechanisms and of outcomes, including in terms of enforceability enable effective remedies for rights holders.
- Identify key objective elements needed to ensure victims can access effective remedies, based on practical cases.
Key questions : - What barriers to effective remedy hinder access through courts and how can these be overcome, including during development of new judicial paths under due diligence and similar legislation?
- What elements of internal or cross-company grievance mechanisms are key to ensure victims access to effective remedies?
- What benefits can non-judicial grievance mechanisms bring to facilitate access to effective remedies and upon which conditions?
- How should companies’ implementation of remedies be enforced and monitored?
- What can states do to overcome power imbalances between companies and vulnerable communities seeking remedies?
Background of the discussion:Binding measures, such as laws, regulations, and judicial processes, can be essential for establishing a strong foundation for accountability, while accountability can also be established by voluntary measures (or grievance mechanisms) in a dialogue-based approach based on binding foundations, or accompanied with sanctions or a rigorous follow up. Indeed, decisions of NHRI, NCP or internal or cross-company grievance mechanisms can bring about significant outcomes for victims in terms of reparation, with victims at the centre. These voluntary mechanisms can be especially important in contexts where legal systems are slow, judicial mechanisms hardly accessible, giving rights holders alternative routes to remedy.
Key background materialsEnhancing the effectiveness of non-State-based grievance mechanisms, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Enhancing the effectiveness of State-based non-judicial mechanisms, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Enhancing the effectiveness of judicial mechanismsReport on access to effective remedy for business-related human rights abuses (A/72/162), UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights
