Sure. I would beg a little bit of indulgence, then, in terms of the timing and perhaps take a minute over the three minutes that were left.
I was saying that a human rights impact assessment undertaken at Goldcorp's Marlin mine in Guatemala has recently been released and found that Goldcorp had failed to respect the rights of indigenous peoples in Guatemala. We've also recently been given a copy of a letter from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that makes clear that the commission has written to the Government of Guatemala calling for the immediate suspension of operations at the Marlin mine.
There is also the most recent Canadian court discussion regarding a case brought against Copper Mesa and the Toronto Stock Exchange, wherein the judge noted that whilst he can understand the concern on the part of citizens of countries in which Canadian companies do business to ensure that the actions of those companies are carried out with the same care and attention as if they were conducted in Canada, this would be a matter for legislatures and not the courts. In other words, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, this really is a matter for you.
Now, I want to make clear that Amnesty International is not alleging that in all of the cases I've highlighted the Canadian company involved is responsible for the perpetration of the abuse. We have also documented human rights abuses associated with state decisions and actions. At times these may appear to be designed to facilitate extractive industry operations, but the role of the company, if any, may be less than clear.
While the authorities of the state in which the abuse occurred should be the authority responsible for identifying those responsible for the human rights abuse, the capacity and willingness of these authorities is often weak, and that is particularly true in developing states that are highly dependent on the investment of foreign mining companies. When the companies operating the mines are reticent to call for an independent investigation, the readiness of the host state to act is further undermined.
This brings me to my final point, which is with regard to the appropriateness of examinations being undertaken by a Canadian authority. In the circumstances I've outlined, where the host state is often unwilling or unable to conduct a full, fair, and impartial investigation that would lead to holding the perpetrators of human rights abuses accountable, examination of the issue by the Canadian government would be of great value. Now, that's not only in the context of where a state might be unable or unwilling, but also that the investigation or examination of the issue by the Canadian authorities could supplement the investigations undertaken by a host state where such investigations occur. That would offer the opportunity to delve into and clarify the situation to the benefit of both the victim of the human rights abuses as well as any companies that may be unjustly accused.
One of the things I would very briefly like to comment upon is some recent testimony provided to the committee. I understand the committee has heard from representatives of the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School, and also from the New York University School of Law, and that their statements pointed to the failure of any independent investigation to occur or result in accountability of perpetrators of human rights abuses around the Porgera mine.
What I do want to raise is that Amnesty International's recent experience in investigating human rights abuses by police resident at Barrick's Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea reveals a similar pattern. Amnesty International's investigations are documented in the report that has been provided to the committee, which demonstrates that aspects of the police activity in Porgera were carried out in violation of both domestic law and international human rights law.
People's homes were burned, people were forced to flee, and there were no legal safeguards to protect those affected by the police operations or to ensure respect for their human rights. There is significant evidence that the police aimed firearms at residents and threatened them while destroying their property and burning their houses, and on at least one occasion severely beat a man and his son during an interrogation in one of the villages. There are also allegations of rape by police officers, which warrant further investigation.
Whilst Amnesty has raised these concerns and presented our findings to the Government of Papua New Guinea, there has been no independent investigation undertaken by the authorities. We have also urged Barrick and the Porgera Joint Venture to call for a full and independent investigation.
I note that after several months of asserting that there were no human rights impacts as a result of the police activity, in December last year Barrick and Porgera Joint Venture privately accepted to Amnesty International that the police had forcibly evicted people from their homes and burnt down their property. The companies told Amnesty International that an investigation by the authorities was warranted. They even asked Amnesty International to provide them more time prior to launching our report, including time to urge such an investigation.
We took this request on good faith and delayed releasing our findings for over a month. Yet to the best of our knowledge, despite evidence that the activity was unlawful and contrary to the human rights of those impacted, Barrick and its subsidiaries have still not urged an independent and full investigation, and no further information has been provided by them to us. Perhaps the situation would be different if the Canadian government had inquired into the situation. I understand that Barrick has received significant support from Export Development Canada on projects other than the Porgera mine, which might cause the company to be more open to inquiries from the Canadian government.
In closing, I would like to reiterate the importance of Canada taking the steps needed to provide guidance on the state's expectations regarding corporate responsibility for human rights, to put in place an effective and independent fact-finding mechanism and to establish an accountability mechanism. Not only would this send a very clear message to Canadian companies, it would also be a message heard by other states, including other home states, other companies, and most importantly by the people whose human rights might be at risk by the extractive operations of Canadian companies and companies from any state.
Thank you.