Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards

Philip Alston, John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, and former UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions wrote a piece on one of the most crucial topics facing human rights defenders at the moment and which has figured regularly in this blog: the issue of retaliation or reprisals against those HRDs who cooperate with the Un and their Rapporteurs. I reproduce the short and punchy article here in full and refer also to the upcoming side event on the same topic on 24 September in Geneva.

(Geneva, 16 September) – Many witnesses and victims with whom I met on country missions when I was UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions were targeted by the security forces and either harassed or arrested or forced to flee. Several individuals with whom I met paid the ultimate price. They were targeted and killed, almost certainly by the security forces and almost certainly, at least in part, because they had provided me with evidence of serious wrongdoing by those forces. This fact alone underscores the need for the UN human rights system to develop an effective response to such reprisals.

Whenever I was alerted to problems in the course of my country visits I did all I could to convince the relevant government to cease the harassment, and I warned of diplomatic ‘consequences’ when the key officials were unresponsive. When such admonishments failed, I sought the constructive engagement of other actors. NGOs were deeply concerned but not always well placed to help. In some situations, diplomatic representatives stepped in and sought to ameliorate the situation. United Nations representatives in the country concerned should have been a major source of support but they were often reluctant and on occasion proved to be totally unprepared to become involved.

There is clearly reason to be gravely concerned that individuals who have been courageous enough to provide UN fact-finders with the essential information that they need in order to carry out their missions successfully are subsequently subjected to reprisals carried out or orchestrated by officials of the governments concerned. I encountered these various problems between 2004 and 2010, when my mandate expired. I submitted several reports to the Human Rights Council calling for action to be taken and I am pleased that both the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General have, in recent years, sought to ensure that the necessary attention is paid to these challenges.

The recent proliferation of high-level inquiries undertaken in relation to crisis situations also raises the stakes in terms of the potential for reprisals against those who testify, whether they be victims, serving or former security force members, or civil society representatives.

International Service for Human Rights and other groups play a vital role in relation to the situation of human rights defenders who are attacked or harassed by their governments, but it is important to acknowledge that these groups may not always be well placed to support those who are victimised primarily because they had some direct contact with a UN fact-finding mission. When UN-mandated fact-finders seek or accept information from a witness in furtherance of an international inquiry there is an added responsibility that the UN must discharge in relation to the consequences that might if reprisals are threatened or actually taken against such witnesses.

It is clear that the UN assumes a particular obligation and interest in such cases. First, it incurs a clear ethical responsibility as a result of its engagement with a witness who puts herself at risk in order to provide the information the UN is seeking. Second, the easiest way to undermine the potential for any investigation to lead to prosecutions is to send the message that reprisals will work. And third, future UN inquiries will be undermined if it becomes clear that the UN will not take necessary steps to protect those who work directly with it.

All of the international criminal tribunals have recognised the vital importance of witness protection and the UN needs to strive to ensure that it too can provide at least minimal protection in relation to its own fact-finding activities. The preparation of an annual report is a good starting point, but it is only the first step.

There are of course limits to what the UN should do in such situations. In particular, it should not create unrealistic expectations; it should not provide an incentive for those already at risk to run to the UN in the hope of gaining additional protection; and it should not undertake to do more than is reasonably possible in deeply contested situations.

Against that background, these are the steps that I think should be considered:

(a) Recognise a responsibility to do whatever can be done to protect witnesses against reprisals linked to their cooperation with the UN.
(b) Train both UN staff and special procedures mandate-holders in methods of fact-finding which avoid unnecessary risks for witnesses – unskilled fact-finding techniques exacerbate the risks to witnesses.
(c) Include unpublicised contingency arrangements in planning for fact-finding in especially vulnerable contexts.
(d) Establish an urgent response procedure when reprisals are threatened or occur. This might be under the auspices of the High Commissioner for Human Rights herself, or of the President of the Human Rights Council.
(e) Civil society organisations and states through their diplomatic missions should expand arrangements to provide financial and other assistance to individuals who are at risk, including, where necessary, assisting in relocation to a secure place.

with thanks to: WUNRN http://www.wunrn.com and International Service for Human Rights http://www.ishr.ch/council/428-council-not-in-feed/1578-philip-alston-un-must-develop-an-effective-response-on-reprisals

————————————

On 24 September the Permanent Missions of Switzerland and Hungary and the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, organise a side-event to the 24th session of the Human Rights Council on the topic:

Protecting Human Rights Defenders from Reprisals
Tuesday, 24 September 2013, 11.00-13.00
Geneva, Palais des Nations, Room XXI

Amid a number of standard-setting initiatives debated at the Human Rights Council and by the UN human rights treaty bodies, this side-event proposes a forum for reflection on the normative requirements to ensure adequate protection for human rights defenders at domestic and UN levels as well as on the development of effective mechanisms to achieve compliance with these standards.
With the participation of:
H.E. Amb. Urs Schmid, Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations: Opening address
H.E. Amb. András Dékány, Permanent Mission of Hungary to the United Nations:  What the UN and the HRC can do to counter and eliminate reprisals against those  who cooperate with UN HR mechanisms
Prof. Malcolm Evans, Chair of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture: Perspectives from the Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture and the Treaty Body Strengthening Process
Ms. Ivona Truscan, Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights: Key elements of the Geneva Academy In-Brief on “Reprisals against human rights defenders who cooperate with the United Nations System”
Moderator:
Prof. Andrew Clapham, Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights

At the same time there is the Launch of the Geneva Academy In-Brief No 3 on “Reprisals against human rights defenders who cooperate with the United Nations System”

Related articles

• In a few hours starts side event on retaliation against HRDs – can be followed on internet (thoolen.wordpress.com)
• Phil Lynch of ISHR expects UN Human Rights Council to enhance protection of HRDs (thoolen.wordpress.com)

This entry was posted on September 20, 2013 at 05:40 and is filed under human rights, Human Rights Defenders, UN.

Tags: fact finding, Geneva, Human right, Human Rights Defenders, International Service for Human Rights, ISHR, New York University School of Law, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Philip Alston, reprisals, retaliation, testimony, treaty bodies, UN Special Rapporteur, United Nations, United Nations Human Rights Council, WUNRN