c) Ensure participation of all relevant stakeholders in decisions on the development, deployment and use of AI, in particular affected individuals and groups; d) Advance the explainability of AI-based decisions, including by funding and conducting research towards that goal.80 There are increasingly efforts among states and lawmakers to introduce binding regulations to tackle the harms of algorithmic systems and hold powerful technology companies to account. In July 2022, the EU’s landmark Digital Service Act (DSA) package was adopted by the EU Parliament. The DSA introduces, as a first of its kind, novel obligations on very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large online search engines (VLOSEs), including a requirement to assess and mitigate systemic risks that arise from the “design, including algorithmic systems, functioning and use made of their services”. 81 4.3 THE CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE REMEDY All victims of human rights violations and abuses have a right to an effective remedy. This right lies at the very core of international human rights law. It also stems from a general principle of international law that every breach gives rise to an obligation to provide a remedy. The right to an effective remedy has been recognized under various international and regional human rights treaties and instruments and also as a rule of customary international law.82 The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of expression has affirmed that ‘adverse impacts of AI [Artificial Intelligence] systems on human rights must be remediable and remedied by the companies responsible’.83 Similarly, UN OHCHR has called on states to “[e]nsure that victims of human rights violations and abuses linked to the use of AI systems have access to effective remedies”.84 Access to an effective remedy is a key pillar of the business and human rights framework. The UN Guiding Principles state that where "business enterprises identify that they have caused or contributed to adverse impacts, they should provide for or cooperate in their remediation through legitimate processes". 85 The OECD Guidelines also state “Enterprises should provide for or cooperate through legitimate processes in the remediation of adverse human rights impacts where they identify that they have caused or contributed to these impacts”.86 Companies have a varying degree of responsibility to provide an effective remedy to the victims of human rights harms depending on the nature and extent of their role in any adverse human rights impact. The key question in any assessment as to whether a company has a responsibility to provide a remedy to affected individuals or communities is whether the company: • Caused the adverse human rights impact, • Contributed to the adverse human rights impact, or was • Directly linked to the adverse human rights impact. If a company either causes or contributes to an adverse impact, it has a responsibility to provide remediation. Where a company does not reach the threshold of ‘contribution’, it may still be ‘directly linked’ to an adverse impact. In such cases, the company is not required to provide remediation,87 however, the company is still expected to use its leverage to prevent or mitigate the impact.88 80 OHCHR, “The right to privacy in the digital age” (previously cited), para. 60. Amnesty International, What the EU’s Digital Services Act means for human rights and harmful Big Tech business models, 7 July 2022, amnesty.eu/news/what-the-eus-digital-services-act-means-for-human-rights-and-harmful-big-tech-business-models 81 For a thorough overview of the right to remedy under international human rights law, see: Amnesty International, “Injustice Incorporated: Corporate abuses and the human rights to remedy”, 2014, POL30/001/2014, Chapter 2. 82 83 Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, Report on Artificial Intelligence (previously cited), para. 60. 84 OHCHR, “The right to privacy in the digital age” (previously cited), para. 59 (g). 85 UN Guiding Principles, Principle 22. 86 OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, Chapter IV ‘Human Rights’, 6. 87 UN Guiding Principles, Commentary to Principle 22. 88 UN Guiding Principles, Principle 13. THE SOCIAL ATROCITY META AND THE RIGHT TO REMEDY FOR THE ROHINGYA Amnesty International 22