Archive for the 'books' Category

Africa: Strong Stand Taken By the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

May 22, 2012
Français : Logo de la Fédération International...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) welcomes the strong stand taken by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) on the political, security and humanitarian confllicts and crises raging on the continent, at its 51st Session. FIDH now urges African Union (AU) Member States to give immediate effect to the recently adopted resolutions. The document published by allAfrica.com refers to the recent conflict between Sudan and South Sudan  the unconstitutional changes of government that lately occured in Mali and Guinea-Bissau, the territorial integrity of Mali and a West African region where several armed groups, like in Nigeria, still perpetrate violations. On HRDs the document of FIDH states the following:

The African Commission considered with a particular attention the civil and political rights’ violations happening in several countries. The Commission condemned the recurring impediment to Human rights defenders’ action in countries like Ethiopia – where the Charities and Civil Societies Proclamation adopted in 2009 continues to place excessive restrictions on Human rights organisations’ work – Swaziland – where authorities keep opposing the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association – and Somalia, where journalists are taken in the grip of the ongoing armed conflict and are openly murdered. The FIDH welcomes the African Commission’s clear call for the amendment of the Ethiopian Charities and Civil Societies Proclamation, for the respect of the rights to fundamental freedoms in Swaziland and for justice to be rendered to the murdered journalists in Somalia. All these recommandations were supported by our organisation.

for the full document go to: allAfrica.com: Africa: Strong Stand Taken By the African Court On Human and Peoples Rights On the Crises Situations Raging On the African Continent.

UN experts and Inter-American Commission issue joint call to protect HRDs in Mexico

May 15, 2012

On 14 May 2012 an exceptional group of international experts urged the Government of Mexico to protect better Human Rights Defenders and journalists.  “The killings and threats repeatedly suffered by rights defenders and journalists in Mexico must stop immediately,” urged a group of four experts from the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, calling on the Government to move ahead with the swift promulgation and effective implementation of the ‘Law for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Journalists’.

Highlighting the immediacy of the threats facing defenders and journalists, the experts also urged the Government to implement existing protection mechanisms as a matter of urgency, in order to avoid further attacks and loss of life and to complement the new provisions when they come into effect.The Bill, which has been approved by both chambers of the Federal Congress, seeks to guarantee and safeguard the life, integrity and security of human rights defenders and journalists by creating a mechanism with the authority to implement measures to protect those at risk, as well as at preventing such risks from arising in the future.

“Human rights defenders in Mexico desperately need the State’s effective protection now,” said Margaret Sekaggya, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. “They continue to suffer killings, attacks, harassment, threats, stigmatization and other serious human rights violations.”  “The State has to implement, as a matter of priority, a global protection policy for human rights defenders. The lack of appropriate and effective systems for implementing specialized protection measures are related to the situation of defenselessness in which many human rights defenders find themselves, which has caused the death of many of them in recent years,” stressed Santiago A. Canton, the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on behalf of the Rapporteurship of Human Rights Defenders*.

“We have to break the cycle of impunity in Mexico, which is becoming an increasingly violent place for journalists,” said Frank La Rue, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. “The recent killing of four press workers in Veracruz underscores the dire need for concrete steps to be taken to guarantee the safety of journalists and put an end to impunity.”

Catalina Botero, Special Rapporteur for freedom of expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, stressed that “safeguarding journalists and human rights defenders is not only compatible with the fight against crime, it is an essential element of this struggle. The Mexican authorities should take immediate measures to protect those journalists and human rights defenders that are being threatened, as well as to make definitive advances in the struggle against impunity for the crimes that have been committed against them.”

The four experts commended the Federal Congress for approving the Bill, pointing out that it would provide added impetus and sustainability to existing protection frameworks, while also strengthening these frameworks.The Bill was drafted in consultation with civil society organizations, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Mexico provided technical advice throughout the drafting process.

The human rights experts praised the consultative process which allowed multiple stakeholders to play an important role in the drafting of the Bill, and called for the same participatory approach throughout the implementation process. However, they emphasized the urgency of providing effective protection to those at risk and ensuring that human rights violations against journalists and human rights defenders do not go unpunished.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/LACRegion/Pages/MXIndex.aspx 

For more information:
Human rights defenders: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/SRHRDefenders/Pages/SRHRDefendersIndex.aspx
Freedom of opinion and expression:http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/OpinionIndex.aspx
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/default.asp 

UN High Commissioner preparing report on reprisals agains Human Rights Defenders

May 15, 2012

On 23 March 2012 I reported on the harassment of HRDs – especially from Sri Lanka- who were in Geneva to testify at the Human Rights Council. The High Commissioners Office took a firm stand against this and the Council asked for a report on “Reprisals against persons cooperating with United Nations human rights mechanisms” to be submitted to the Council in September.

That this being taken seriously is shown by the request for information sent out to all NGOs.

Dear All,

In preparation of the Secretary-General’s forthcoming report to the Human Rights Council (September 2012) on reprisals against persons cooperating with United Nations human rights mechanisms, information is invited about cases of reprisals. Please send submissions by 15 June 2012 to reprisals@ohchr.org. The next report is expected to cover the period between June 2011 and June 2012.

Submissions should:

– fall within the scope of Human Rights Council resolution 12/2 – http://goo.gl/Ulvwo

– give attention to the necessity to preserve the security of the persons concerned; please indicate if the victim (or his/her family) has agreed to be mentioned in this report and has been informed accordingly;

 – indicate if the alleged reprisal has been referred to in any UN documents (provide citations);

– in addition, follow-up information (e.g. any developments, whether additional reprisals took place, whether measures were taken by the State to investigate, etc.) is invited on the cases included in the 2011 report. Cases in 2011 referred to Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, India, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Sudan.
 

Get the 2011 report –  http://goo.gl/LDg9p (Deadline 15 June 2012)

Please share widely.
 
***
 
Background:
 At its 12th session, the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution on “Cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights”. The resolution invites the Secretary-General to annually submit a report to the Council, containing a compilation and analysis on alleged reprisals against persons cooperating with UN human rights mechanisms (see para. 1 of the resolution), as well as recommendations on how to address the issues of intimidation and reprisals. In addition to cases of reprisals regarding cooperation with the Human Rights Council, Special Rapporteurs and Treaty Bodies, the report can also include cases of reprisals due to cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, its field presences and human rights advisers, United Nations Country Teams, the human rights components of peacekeeping missions, etc.

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/unitednationshumanrights

Twitter – http://twitter.com/UNrightswire

YouTube –  http://www.youtube.com/UNOHCHR

Multitude of NGOs express concerns about the proposed expansion of jurisdiction of African Court

May 14, 2012

49 organisations have signed this open letter which makes a good case against the idea to add to the African Human Rights Court an international penal dimension.

Joint letter: concerns about the proposed expansion of the jurisdiction of … – ProtectionLine.

Exemplary piece on how complex human rights mechanisms relate to a country situation: in this case Malaysia

May 10, 2012

Under the somewhat narrow title: “Allow UN Special Rapporteur to probe Bersih 3.0” Ms Khoo Ying Hooi, a staff member at University Malaya, published on 10 May 2012 an excellent piece bringing together the variety of existing UN human rights mechanisms and Malaysia’ s reluctance to really embrace them. She compares the political commitments made by her country when seeking a seat on the Human Rights Council with the willingness of the Government to receive UN Rapporteurs and to implement the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). It is a rather long and detailed piece but worth reading in full. It was published in http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/197526.

Some of the most relevant parts to whet your appetite:

The Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank William La Rue, wanted to investigate the Bersih 3.0 rally that took place on April 28. The Malaysian Foreign Affairs Minister, Anifah Aman, is quoted as saying: “We are a sovereign nation.…….. I do not see the necessity for any outside organisation to determine whether we are free or fair.”

Ms Khoo Ying Hooi then recalls that in declaring its intention for its candidature for the HRC, the Malaysian government circulated a memorandum dated March 9, 2010, outlining its human rights record and its pledges and voluntary commitments, including “deepening and widening our cooperation with and support for the work of various UN actors and mechanisms involved in the promotion and protection of human rights such as the … Special Procedures of the HRC”. However, she continues, the way Anifah Aman described the Special Rapporteur and the HRC, as the “outsider” and the “outside organisation” is detrimental to the country.

It doesn’t reflect the commitment that the government has promised to the HRC and it is obviously just another diplomatic exercise.

The author then gives a clear explanation of the general system of the Special Procedures and summarizes with relevant detail the disappointing results of the 1998 visit to Malaysia by the (former) Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Abid Hussain.

She also describes the Malaysian Government’s commitment at the international level through the UPR mechanism and contrasts them with the reluctance to receive Special Rapporteurs. She ends with the strong but polite conclusion that:
”Despite the obligation on government to protect and promote the human rights, Malaysia continues to brush these concerns aside. It is indeed contradictory for Anifah Aman to come up with such a response on the offer made by La Rue.

The Foreign Affairs Minister should have been more sensitive and aware of the promises made by the government in the international level particularly in view of the next UPR review in 2013.”

Let us see whether next year the UN and NGOs can make good use of the ammunition here provided.

European Parliament calls – again – for more attention for Human Rights Defenders

May 2, 2012

The European Parliament adopts every year a Resolution based on the report it receives on the EU’s human rights action and policy. So, it did again on 18 April 2012.

The official emblem of the European Parliament.

The official emblem of the European Parliament. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It is quite a long resolution and I only copy here the general paragraphs relevant to Human Rights Defenders (the chapter also includes a somewhat ill-fitting paragraph 91 on Western Sahara and a correct but detailed observation re the Sacharov prize in para 93, which you can consult in the full text):

…….

Re Human rights defenders

87.  Welcomes the EU’s political commitment to supporting human rights defenders, as a long-established component of the EU’s human rights external relations policy, and the many positive examples of demarches, trial observations, prison visits, and other concrete actions undertaken by EU missions and delegations, such as regular, institutionalised meetings with human rights defenders, but remains concerned at the lack of implementation of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders in some third countries; considers that the VP/HR should make recommendations for enhanced action to those missions where implementation has been noticeably weak;

88.  Urges the EU and its Member States to encourage EU missions and delegations to show their support and solidarity for the work undertaken by human rights defenders and their organisations, by regularly meeting and proactively engaging with them and incorporating their contributions into the development of the specific country strategies on human rights and democracy, and regularly engaging with Parliament;

89.  Reiterates its call on the EU to systematically raise individual cases of human rights defenders in the ongoing human rights dialogues it has with those third countries where human rights defenders continue to suffer harassment and attacks;

90.  Stresses the importance of systematic follow up to contacts with independent civil society, as well as more direct and easier access for human rights defenders to EU Delegations in third countries; welcomes the appointment of liaison officers, in the Delegations and/or in Member State embassies, for human rights defenders, and stresses that these should be experienced and appropriately trained officials whose functions are well-publicised both internally and externally; very much welcomes the fact that the VP/HR has indicated that she will always meet with human rights defenders in the course of her visits to third countries and calls for this practice to be followed by all Commissioners with responsibilities in the external relations field, and for reports on these contacts to be made available to Parliament;

91…….

92.  Reiterates its call for greater inter-institutional cooperation on human rights defenders; considers that the EU’s response capacity and the coherence between the actions of the different institutions on urgent crises for human rights defenders would be well served by a shared alert system based on focal points, and encourages the EEAS and the Commission to explore this avenue further with the European Parliament;

93.  ……

94.  Undertakes to include women’s rights more systematically in its own human rights debates and resolutions and to use the Sakharov Prize network, and especially female winners of the Prize, to advocate women’s rights in the world;

 full text: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2012-0126&language=EN&ring=A7-2012-0086

‘media framing’ and the independence of the judiciary: the case of water boarding

April 30, 2012

What follows are my  SPEAKING NOTES ON THE OCCASION OF THE NJCM-THOOLEN AWARD  on Thursday 26 April 2012, the Hague. At this gathering of the Dutch Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (NJCM) I had the honor to hand over the award for the best master thesis on human rights. 

Dear friends,

When the Dutch Lawyers Committee, in 2005, decided to make an award in my name, I was most touched, especially as they had apparently dropped the requirement that I should die first.  Being alive has the additional advantage that on occasion I will be able to hand over the award myself, which I will do with the greatest pleasure in a few moments. This pleasure is the greater as the winning master paper touched on a topic very close to my heart: the role of the media or as it is sometimes referred to the “Fourth Estate”. There is some controversy about who exactly coined the term, but the most telling statement comes from Oscar Wilde who wrote: “Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. …”. That was said in 1981 and it is hard to imagine that that Oscar Wilde would come to a different conclusion more than a century later.

Spinning (an important element in the toolkit of media framing) has become a profession and the title ‘spin doctor’ is quite appropriate as the results are indeed often doctored. There are surely great historical cases that we cannot recognise because we ourselves have been successfully framed; who knows what positive image Attila the Hun could have enjoyed if only his PR people had done a more professional job. To take a more serious and recent case: let’s look at the so-called ‘failure’ of the UN in Somalia. This was a combined UN-US operation with a humanitarian mandate. When in October 1993, 18 U.S. Rangers were killed in a fierce battle with Aideed’s forces and television showed the body of a dead American soldier being dragged through the streets, American public opinion overnight turned against further U.S. involvement in Somalia and Clinton pulled out all troops soon afterwards. Although the Rangers were part of Washington’s own separate Somalia operation, and the US did not want to function under UN command, the incident was played and replayed as a major “UN failure.” The UN was widely, and wrongly, blamed for the gruesome deaths of the U.S. Rangers, despite the fact that they were not part of the UN operation, something that President Clinton finally acknowledged in 1996. Yet most people around the worlds continue to hold the UN responsible. I am afraid that each of us can probably come up with a favorite case of the media having got the better of the truth but that should not be tonight’s debate.

Laura Henderson in her paper “Tortured reality” has gone one important step further. She has investigated how media framing of waterboarding affects judicial independence. She had to limit herself to the US judiciary and to the specific case of ‘waterboarding’ in order to create an environment stable enough to draw some statistical conclusions. Her research is done very neatly. She makes clear that the concept of independence of the judiciary has always been defined broadly and not just as a prohibition of interference by the state, although that remains the classical background.  Cases of media pressure are dealt with in jurisprudence but they have always been considered in the context of an independent judge who is well-trained and not easily swayed by what the flimsy press has to say. The little jurisprudence there is does not contemplate a case of wilful, orchestrated influencing of all the media with the purpose of changing the perception and language of an existing concept.

What makes the study of Henderson stand out that it exactly tries pin down to what extent this has happened with the question whether the technique of ‘waterboarding’ changed in the minds of the judges after the 11 September watershed (no pun intended). The torrent of rhetoric not only framed everything in a ‘war’ context but also specifically tried to downplay the labelling of waterboarding as torture. And she did find the evidence. I will not reveal it all – you have to read for yourself the whole article once the NJCM has rightly published it. Laura herself indicates that further work is needed on how the independence of the judiciary is undermined by media framing and I hope that will be the case. She also gives some very useful indications of how the media framing could be countered, e.g. by strengthening the pluriformity of the media and raising the awareness of the judiciary. She describes her recommendations as ‘simple, yet effective”.  Here I beg to differ. There is nothing simple about changing the media landscape, especially if one adds the television and social media, which her study understandably had to leave out. The magnitude and multitude of media is such that no-one can really do much about it. All recent studies on the effect of the internet on our information intake show that they tend to solidify the dominant opinions/news/books etc, while giving great potential to small niche items, including the nutty and the genial. What gets squeezed is the moderate, considered, well-argued, balanced stuff in the middle. My fear is that the voice of the NJCM may well have the qualities described above!

In the end there can be only one winner. A feature of almost any award and painfully brought home two days ago in Geneva where I was for the announcement of the 3 nominees for 2012 Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders. All 3 nominees are extremely courageous Human Rights Defenders (Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, the multimedia monk form Cambodia, and Shirin Ebadi’s former lawyer: Nasrin Sotoudeh) and the Jury making the final choice on 2 October will have a hard time.

Still, the hard choices have been made already for the NJCM Thoolen Award – may I take this occasion to thank the Jury and Franka for their excellent work – and I am proud to hand over the prizes to the 3 finalists.

A balanced post on how the US should balance its human rights record

March 23, 2012

Under the title “A Diminished Force for Good” Tom Parker of USA AI posted on 21 March 2012 a piece that – in a frank way – argues that the US should act with regard to its own human rights problems in order to regain international influence. It takes the lead role of the US in getting a resolution on Sri Lanka (successfully) passed in the Human Rights Council in Geneva this week and contrasts it with how the US has dealt with human rights abuses in its own ambit.

As Amnesty’s recent report Locked Away: Sri Lanka’s security detainees makes clear, human rights abuses still continue to this day in Sri Lanka. Instances of arbitrary and illegal detention have been widely reported, as have acts of torture and extrajudicial execution. Tom Parker says “I know from my own personal experience of working with Sri Lankan human rights defenders that the climate of fear in which opponents of the Rajapaksa regime operate is all-pervasive. The situation in Sri Lanka is grave and the intervention of the United Nations is much needed. .However, welcome though the US-sponsored resolution is, it is greatly undermined by the embarrassing gap that exists between US rhetoric and US behavior. Critics have not been slow in pointing this out.”…”The complete failure of the United States to address the deliberate use of torture as an integral part of the War on Terror hugely diminishes its ability to put pressure on other states to adhere to human rights standards that it itself has ignored. And we are all the poorer for it.”

The alacrity with which the US Army has responded to the tragic deaths of sixteen Afghan villagers in Zangabad, Afghanistan, earlier this month demonstrates that accountability is nothing to be afraid of. Indeed it can be a powerful force for good….. The US is one of the [governments that actively promote human rights] but its influence has been greatly diminished over the past decade because of its reluctance to meaningfully address its own, very public, failings in this regard….We need a strong US voice speaking out for human rights in the world, but that can’t happen without real accountability at home.”

for the full text see: A Diminished Force for Good.

Law Students Participate in Hearing of human Rights Committee on violations in Cape Verde

March 23, 2012

This is just one good example of how students can get practically involved in work as human rights defenders. Four law students from the Indiana Purdue University Indianapolis will go to New York this week to participate in the United Nations Human Rights Committee hearing on allegations of the corporal punishment and sexual abuse of elementary school children in Cape Verde.

The four are part of a group of Robert H. McKinney School of Law students who, in partnership with Delta Cultura Cabo Verde, a Cape Verdean nongovernmental organization, researched and wrote a shadow report to a United Nations committee discussing how the government of Cape Verde has failed to combat corporal punishment and sexual abuse of school children (Articles 2, 7 & 24 of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights).

“Writing the shadow report has been a rewarding experience. Not only do we get the practical experience of legal writing, but we learn a little more about the world and help prevent human rights violations globally,” said one of the students. Unlike periodic reports submitted by states parties, a shadow report provides U.N. human rights treaty bodies with various forms of information — including victims’ personal accounts, data and statistics —independently prepared by NGOs and details violations by states parties of a specific treaty. “Shadow reporting enables grass-roots human rights defenders to engage in United Nations human rights monitoring and enforcement mechanisms,” Program in Human Rights Law manager Perfecto Caparas said.

for more information: Diane Brown IU Communications habrown@iupui.edu

Human Rights Defenders Report in the UN Human Rights Council

March 1, 2012

The UN Human Rights Council is in session and in addition to highly topical questions such as Syria there is also the annual report by the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya. Her report is clustered with that of the Special Rapporteur on Torture. The debate should take place on Monday 5 March in the morning. There are several side events organized by NGOs.

for the text of her report:  annual report of the Special Rapporteur to the Council