on the nature of the harm, and it can take a range of forms, such as apologies, restitution, rehabilitation, financial or non-financial compensation, and punitive sanctions (whether criminal or administrative, such as fines), as well as the prevention of harm through, for example, injunctions or guarantees of non-repetition.358 In respect of Meta’s responsibility to provide a remedy to the Rohingya, although it is not within Meta’s power to provide restitution directly, Meta can provide remediation in the form of compensation, rehabilitation, apologies, and guarantees of non-repetition. Compensation is an important form of remediation where damage can be economically assessed, and in such cases, monetary compensation should be provided. The harm that can be compensated includes: “physical or mental harm” and “lost opportunities, including employment, education and social benefits.”359 The educational programmes requested by the communities in Cox’s Bazar and the civil litigation claims in the US and the UK all fall into this category of remedy. Amnesty International has not sought to quantify the losses suffered by the Rohingya in financial terms; however, both forms of remedy – financial settlements and the funding for educational programming – are valid forms of remediation under international human rights law and standards, and both could be provided by Meta in concert. Given that they have been initiated by different victims’ groups, and focus on different forms of compensation, these processes should not be viewed as mutually exclusive by the competent authorities; neither should the provision of any one form of remedy be interpreted as fully satisfying Meta’s responsibility to remediate the Rohingya. Meta could additionally support remediation in the form of rehabilitation, which would include any medical or psychological care needed by the victims, in addition to support from legal and social services. 360 Many Rohingya refugees suffer enduring trauma based on their experiences, and provision of social services in the camps remains extremely limited. As previously noted, 86.7% of the humanitarian needs of Rohingya refugees remain unmet as of 2022.361 Meta could also support remediation in the form of a public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility, which could be accompanied by verification of the facts and full and public disclosure of the truth.362 This could potentially encompass Meta’s full and voluntary cooperation with the ongoing cases pursuing claims of genocide and crimes against humanity before the ICC and ICJ, encompassing the full disclosure of all relevant evidence in relation to the company’s algorithmic amplification of harmful content.363 Lastly, guarantees of non-repetition are an equally important form of remediation that are intended to prevent abuses from happening again. The prevention of further abuses can be achieved through a number of measures, including both regulatory and accountability measures to be taken by states, and actions to be taken by companies - any or all of which will contribute to non-repetition in the future. 364 It could include an internal investigation into the company’s specific failings in respect of the 2017 atrocities in Myanmar, including its repeated failure to act on warnings from civil society. Rohingya groups have explicitly requested a change to Meta’s business model as a guarantee of non-repetition to be contemplated as part of their remedy. In Meta’s case, this aspect of its responsibility to provide an effective remedy is of critical importance not only for the Rohingya – but for the human rights of at-risk communities across the world. As a global company which operates in high-risk and conflict-affected settings in every region of the world, there is a grave and present risk that Meta’s operations could fuel advocacy of hatred, violence, and even genocide, of ethnic and religious minorities in many other parts of the world. 358 UN Guiding Principles Interpretative Guide, p. 7. Principle 20, UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UN Doc A/RES/60/147, 21 March 2006. 359 Principle 21, UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UN Doc A/RES/60/147, 21 March 2006. 360 OCHA Financial Tracking Service, ‘Bangladesh: Rohingya Refugee Crisis Joint Response Plan 2022’, fts.unocha.org/appeals/1082/summary 361 Principle 22, UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UN Doc A/RES/60/147, 21 March 2006. 362 Facebook has previously been accused of withholding evidence from these international tribunals. See: Robert Burnson, ‘Facebook’s Stance on Myanmar Genocide Records Assailed by Gambia’, Bloomberg, 28 October 2021, bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-1028/facebook-s-stance-on-myanmar-genocide-records-assailed-by-gambia 363 364 Injustice Incorporated: Corporate abuses and the human rights to remedy, Amnesty International, 2014, POL 30/001/2014, p. 18. THE SOCIAL ATROCITY META AND THE RIGHT TO REMEDY FOR THE ROHINGYA Amnesty International 68