Any private individual, private or public company, or public official, agent, or employee of the government, as well as the government itself, that violates IBOR is not immune from liability, qualified or otherwise, and is responsible to pay damages, including attorney’s fees and costs, to the person or business whose rights have been violated.
I think that this article is of a great importance. However, how are governments going to be punished for violating the IBOR? How can we ensure that governments will be held responsible and not get immunity? My point here is that it is very difficult to ensure that everyone will be equality placed in front of the law, as for years we have seen that this does not happen always and in many cases they get off with immunity.
In Article 23 it could be specified that violations can also take place in an indirect way by Transnational and Multinational Companies by perpetuating situations of illegal occupation, for example. Thus, companies should be also held responsable for allowing and even reinforcing the perpetuation of such situation.
Companies, including transnational, can be held accountable for the violation of the rights in IBOR. Is there specific wording you think needs to be added?
Thanks,
Kirk
I was thinking maybe in the specification of direct and indirect violations where it says “[…] that violates IBOR is not immune from liability […]” . In the sense that companies can contribute to the perpetuation of the violation of the rights of the populations under occupation, as it the case of the Palestinian. So even though they are not directly violating Palestinians’ human rights, they are part of a mechanism that is doing so. Consequently, they are indirectly contributing to a violation to which they should be at least partially held accountable. Yet, with the lack of such clarification, it might be easier for these companies to elude their responsibility and contribution to such violations.
Qualified immunity is antithetical to a Bill of Rights. It is hypocritical for any judge, or politician, to say that there should be immunity when the rights in IBOR (a social contract between the people and those who govern) are violated. Article 23 removes these immunities and provides that rights are genuinely enforceable.