Dr. Rachel Widdis:

No, not unless those supports are put in place. Again, if the directive obliges that there is civil liability and access, that becomes the opener of the gate for the things that must be put in place. They have been long advocated to be put in place. These cases must be funded in different ways.

Deputy Murphy talked about the people who are affected taking the case. If there was criminal liability - many of the abuses are at the egregious level of cases such as the one I just mentioned - then it would be the state taking the case. It would not be taken by the person who is most diminished, vulnerable or marginalised - the farmer or the human rights defender - but by the state. I recognise that is not on the table. We can imagine that keeping civil liability in those circumstances is crucial, but it is still placing an enormous burden on the most vulnerable. In practice, there are also a lot of barriers to even access it.