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
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.