At both the international and national levels, an effective complaints mechanism is a key component of the right to water and sanitation and a useful tool to ensure effective implementation of service delivery standards and targets.

Global

At the UN level there are two distinct mechanisms, namely the charter and the treaty based mechanisms. The charter-based mechanism comprises the activities of the Human Rights Council, an inter-governmental human rights institution whose membership is selected by the General Assembly. The Council has a complaints procedure known as the ‘1503’ procedure, which allows individuals and groups to bring complaints to the attention of the council. Since July 2008, the council has established a universal periodic review system to examine the human rights performance of all UN members on a periodic basis. The treaty-based system involves monitoring the implementation by states parties of the treaties they have ratified by committees of independent experts. This includes the periodic submission of reports by states on their implementation of treaty obligations. Some treaties contain an optional protocol, which, if ratified by a state, allows individuals and groups to submit complaints against that state for violations of the provisions of that treaty. Complaint mechanisms also exist at the regional and sub-regional levels.

National

Such mechanisms may be provided for by a regulator. However, whether or not a regulator has established such a mechanism, accountability can be enhanced if an independent branch of government – a human rights commission, an ombudsperson institution or the judiciary – monitors the performance of public institutions.

Many Latin American judicial systems recognise the rights to health and/or take into account international treaties, thereby allowing the right to water to be litigated. In the Menores Comunidad Payemil case in Argentina, an indigenous community faced pollution of its water sources by oil pollution. Together with a university institute, it brought a case against the State and secured a judgment that required the State to assess the situation, take steps against the pollution and to provide safe water in tankers to the community in the interim. In the Bon Vista Mansions case in South Africa, a court required the water supply to be reinstated after a disconnection. This was a case where the supplier had not, as required by law, provided adequate notice, consulted with the users nor taken into account their ability to pay. Also, in the Mazibuko case a South African High Court ruled in April 2008 that the City of Johannesburg’s practice of forced installation of prepayment water meters in Phiri, Soweto is unconstitutional and unlawful.

Human rights commissions and ombudsperson institutions can carry out detailed and long-term reviews of government policy and can respond to complaints quickly, flexibly and cheaply. Though generally slower in operation, courts across the world, in both developed and developing countries have played an important role in requiring the right to water and sanitation to be respected. Courts can require public institutions to revise their programmes and actions and can impose criminal and civil penalties on public officials and private persons. Importantly, litigation should essentially be a last resort, when policy makers and public officials have not done their job.