the toxic truth - Greenpeace

172 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenpeAce netherlAnds
Chapter 14
The states involved, notably the Netherlands
and Côte d’Ivoire, but also others, failed not
just in preventing the illegal transboundary
movement and dumping of toxic waste, in
regulating a multinational company to ensure
that it did not abuse these international
standards, but they also failed collectively
to provide an effective remedy to the
victims whose human rights were abused by
Trafigura. The abuses were transnational but
the remedies were not and as the previous
chapters illustrate, the victims and groups
working on behalf of the victims have had
to go from pillar to post in Côte d’Ivoire, in
the Netherlands, in the UK, in France, and
even before the European Commission
seeking justice and effective remedies.
What they have faced are multiple barriers to
remedies, piecemeal processes which only
look at part of the story and which place the
onus on victims to prove the abuses and to
even enforce the remedies and claim the
compensation that they were awarded.
One might expect that, given the numerous
opportunities to secure justice in more than
one jurisdiction, the chances of the victims
uncovering the truth and obtaining an effective
remedy would have been greater. Yet the
reality has been very different: despite the
numerous efforts that were made, there has
been a collective failure by all the states
involved to ensure the right to an effective
remedy for the victims.
Under international law, as stated earlier,
where an individual has suffered human rights
violations at the hands of several states, he
or she is entitled to a full remedy for all of the
violations. So long as the right to an effective
remedy remains unfulfilled in relation to an act
for which a particular state is responsible, that
state remains under the obligation to provide
meaningful access to a procedure capable of
providing an effective remedy. 741
The Maastricht Principles clarify that “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”. 742 They also state
that to give effect to this obligation, states
should: a) seek cooperation and assistance
from other concerned States where necessary
to ensure a remedy; b) ensure remedies are
available for groups as well as individuals;
c) ensure the participation of victims in the
determination of appropriate remedies…”. 743
It is not just the government of Côte d’Ivoire
which has failed in its obligation to provide
an effective remedy to people whose rights
to health and work were abused by Trafigura
as a consequence of the illegal dumping of
toxic waste by its agent Tommy in Abidjan.
The Netherlands, the UK and the European
Commission have failed to provide meaningful
access to the victims to a procedure that would
be capable of providing them with an effective
remedy. They have also failed to engage in
international cooperation with Côte d’Ivoire
and each other to ensure effective remedies
for the victim, including through prosecution
and a full investigation of the company for
its illegal acts across multiple jurisdictions;
compelling Trafigura to disclose the information
that it holds on the content of the waste and
the effects of exposure; ensuring that victims
receive the compensation that they were
awarded as part of settlements in Côte d’Ivoire
and the UK; and ensuring monitoring and
disclosure of any potential long-terms impacts
of exposure to the waste.
Failure to prosecute the company and to
investigate the role played by members of
the Trafigura corporate group
Despite legal actions commencing in a number
of jurisdictions, there was a total lack of coordination
and international co-operation to
prosecute those responsible for the criminal
acts in Côte d’Ivoire. To some degree, these
actions even appear to have played off against
each other in discouraging prosecutions into