A/HRC/42/38 (a) Development banks should make their environmental and social safeguarding policies more accessible to ordinary people and they should adopt explicit human rights policies; (b) The monitoring mechanisms of development banks should be more participatory and ensure direct contact with affected communities and impacted areas. They should go beyond mediation and incorporate the possibility of vetoing projects that are not endorsed by the affected communities. 130. Following adequate consultations with relevant civil society entities, recently established international financial institutions and development agencies should formulate and implement safeguarding policies that are in line with international human rights standards. 131. International financial institutions and banks should conduct systematic human rights impact assessments and monitor and evaluate their policies. In particular, human rights impact assessments should be conducted on austerity measures, structural adjustments, securities and trade and investment agreements. Specifically: (a) International financial institutions should support and implement the guiding principles on human rights impact assessments of economic reforms developed by the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of human rights human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights (A/HRC/40/57); (b) Development banks should disseminate more information on the long-term impact of their projects, including the impact in countries where they operate. 132. Civil society and affected populations should make use of the existing monitoring mechanisms of the development banks, such as the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman of the International Finance Corporation and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (members of the World Bank Group) and the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism of the Inter-American Development Bank. Banks should reform these mechanisms when they prove ineffective. 133. Communities themselves, with the engagement of civil society organizations and academic bodies, should complement the State’s data-collection efforts. Civil society should seek additional resources for the collection of disaggregated data that would add to information drawn from official State sources, particularly in politically sensitive environments or on politically sensitive issues. 134. Stakeholders, including civil society organizations and other non-State actors, should be trained to conduct human rights assessments and to apply a right-to-development lens. 135. Regional civil society networks should weigh in on the development policies of newly established development banks in their respective regions. E. Promoting accountability and access to remedy 136. It is only possible to give effect to the right to development if there are adequate accountability mechanisms and remedies in cases of violations. The fact that both individuals and collectives are considered rights holders – and that States, with their links to relevant non-State actors and the international community, are considered duty bearers – means that there are several prospective avenues for seeking accountability. 137. Some of these avenues are set out in the present guidelines. They include national courts, administrative procedures, complaints mechanisms and national human rights institutions. The guidelines also identify international bodies that could complement national accountability mechanisms. For example, in its 2011 statement on the importance and relevance of the right to development (E/C.12/2011/2), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights committed itself to monitoring the implementation of all the 16