Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights vs. G4S

Allegations

G4S and its Israeli subsidiaries provide, install, and maintain equipment that is used in military checkpoints in the Separation Barrier. The complaint alleges that G4S contributed to serious human rights abuses, including the detention and imprisonment of children in Israeli prison facilities, during which many allege being subject to torture and/or cruel and degrading treatment.

LPHR requests that G4S provide information about where and how its equipment is used and what due diligence checks have been conducted in providing it. The complaint also asks G4S to stop servicing the equipment, remove it, agree to an independent audit of these actions, and agree to identify ways to compensate the people who have suffered adverse impacts.

LPHR is represented by the London-based law firm Leigh Day.

Relevant OECD Guidelines

• Chapter II
• Chapter IV
• Chapter IV Paragraph 1
• Chapter IV Paragraph 2
• Chapter IV Paragraph 3
• Chapter IV Paragraph 5

Outcome

On 22 May 2014, the NCP accepted the case; however, it rejected allegations relating to G4Ss obligations to avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts and to conduct human rights due diligence.

The NCP offered the parties mediation, but G4S declined the offer, claiming it was legally bound to keep information relevant to the case confidential, and because it felt that LPHR did not have a mandate to negotiate and resolve the issues. Given this situation, the NCP informed the parties on 8 July 2014 that it would proceed to the next phase of the complaint process and conduct a further examination of the allegations in the complaint.

In March 2015, the NCP issued its final statement, finding that G4Ss actions “are not consistent with its obligation under Chapter IV, Paragraph 3 of the OECD Guidelines to address impacts it is
linked to by a business relationship.” As a result of this breach, the UK NCP found that G4S is also technically in breach of other Guidelines provisions related to respect for human rights, but that the company had not failed to respect human rights in regard to its own operations.

In June 2016, the NCP issued a follow-up statement, finding that G4S had not implemented two of the recommendations that had been made in the final statment specific to the compliant and reiterated that the UK NCP continues to consider the company to be in breach of Chapter IV, Paragraph 3 of the OECD Guidelines until it publicly communicates how it has addressed the impacts.

More details

Documents

• statement

  7 July 2016

  The UK NCP published its June 2016 Follow-Up Statement to the recommendations it made in its Final Statement regarding the LPHR compliant against G4S. The follow-up statement was made based on the responses the UK NCP received after it reached out to both parties to request an update. Based on the information provided by the parties, the UK NCP concluded that G4S had not implemented two of the three specific recommendations that were made, which included:That G4S considers how it may be able to work with business partners in Israel to support action to address adverse impacts referred to in the compliant: and That G4S communicate to stakeholders and business partners any action s it is takin gin regard to the issues raised in the compliant.The UK NCP found that G4S had only implemented its general recommendation that “G4S implements across it operations a contract approvals process that includes assessment of human rights risks and application of mitigations, as it has indicated its intention to do in the new governance risk and compliance management procedures shared in its comments on this statement.” The UK NCP also stated that G4Ss comments made publically after the Final Statement misrepresented its findings and as such, the UK NCP reiterated that its Final Statement found G4S to be in breach of its obligations under Chapter IV, Paragraph 3 of the OECD Guidelines to address impacts it is linked to by a business relationship and because G4Ss actions were inconsistent with Chapter IV, Paragraph 3, G4S was also found to be inconsistent with the wider general provisions of the Guidelines in regards to respecting human rights. Lastly, the UK NCP reiterated, as stated in Paragraph 76 of its Final Statement, “Until G4S publicly communicates the actions it is taking to address the impacts it is linked to by the contracts referred to in the compliant, the UK NCP considers that its actions are not consistent with its obligation under Chapter IV, Paragraph 3 of the OECD Guidelines to address impacts it is linked to by a business relationship.”

  NCP UK
• press release

  7 July 2016

  LPHR issued a press release of its reaction to the UK NCPs June 2016 Follow-Up Statement. LPHR reiterates that the UK NCP has found that G4S has not implemented two specific recommendations that were made in the Final Statement in relation to the compliant. As G4S has failed to address the issues, LPHR urges G4S: To definitively commit to withdrawing from all of its relevant contracts with Israeli state agencies immediately, or as soon as practicable, so that it finally ends its unacceptable ongoing violation of human rights obligations towards Palestinians;To provide a specific date by which this full withdrawal will have occurred, and to publicly report to all stakeholders on that date whether full withdrawal has occurred; and To finally acknowledge the full extent of the UK NCPs adverse findings of breach of human rights obligations made against the Company.

  LPHR
• statement

  21 May 2015

  NCP Steering Board rejects request for review

  NCP UK
• letter

  20 April 2015

  LHRP files request for review with Steering Board

  LPHR
• statement

  31 March 2015

  The UK NCP issues final statement

  NCP UK
• letter

  8 July 2014

  After G4S declined medation, the UK NCP continued its examination of the complaint

  NCP UK
• initial assessment

  27 November 2013

  On 22 May 2014, the NCP accepted the cases.

  NCP UK