Archive for the 'human rights' Category

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.

17 May wil be again International Day Against Homophobia; UN High Commissioner takes the lead

May 12, 2012

On the occasion of the International Day against Homophobia, 17 May, watch a video message from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, who has shown consistently that she is concerned with human rights of all and not afraid to speak out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-_kzl-_mrg (subtitled in English, French, Spanish and Arabic. click on the “CC” button at the bottom of the YouTube viewer)

Related articles

new film shows rampant and systematic use of torture by Sri Lankan police

May 11, 2012

This recent film is not directly about Human Rights Defenders (although they are certainly victims of it) nor  about the treatment of ethnic minorities. Rather is demonstrates. through a large variety of interviews with victims, lawyers – including Basil Fernando of the Asian Human Rights Commission – and experts, how a lack of investigative skills and high-level condoning have led the Sri Lankan policy to use torture routinely. Most shockingly a former police officers confirms that this is what is expected from the police by the system. It has become a mindset at all levels, including most of the  judiciary. It is a long film but worth it. The Danish film maker, Josefina Bergsten, manages to demonstrate the disconnect between international procedures (which are based on functioning institutions that have to address a few bad apples) and the reality on the ground in Sri Lanka where the good apples are the exception. See it and forward it:  https://vimeo.com/41898677

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.

Mohammad Ali Dadkhah sentenced to nine years in jail: Iran does it again!

May 3, 2012

And the virtual ink on my previous post is hardly dry and I come across the case of Mohammed Ali Dadkhah, just but not justly sentenced to 9 year prison. Iran can hardly be surprised that it leads the table of HRDS honored in the context of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders.

A prominent lawyer who worked on the case of a Christian pastor on death row in Iran for apostasy, which made headlines around the world, Dadkhah has been sentenced to nine years in jail. “I have been convicted of acting against the national security, spreading propaganda against the regime and keeping banned books at home,” he said. Iranian authorities have used such vague charges in recent years to incriminate activists and lawyers in recent years. He had also been banned from teaching at universities or practicing law for an extra 10 years.

Dadkhah has represented several political and human rights activists jailed in the aftermath of the country’s 2009 disputed elections. He has also been the lawyer of the 32-year-old Yusuf Naderkhani, whose sentencing to death for apostasy triggered an international outcry.

Other prominent Iranian lawyers have also been sentenced to lengthy prison terms such as Abdolfattah SoltaniNasrin Sotoudeh and recently Narges Mohammadi. Like them, Dadkhah worked for the DHRC of Iranian Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi who fled the country in 2009.

The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a joint programme of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) on Thursday condemned the sentencing of Dadkhah as well as the systematic harassment by the state against the DHRC members.

“We fear that the harassment against DHRC and attempts to silence its members will continue exponentially”, says Souhayr Belhassen, the FIDH President.

“The authorities in Iran are doing their utmost to stifle human rights defenders by imposing heavy sentences of imprisonment, exile, and ban on professional practice. All this is aimed at intimidating the whole society into a deadly silence”, adds secretary general of the OMCT, Gerald Staberock.

Iranian lawyer Mohammad Ali Dadkhah sentenced to nine years in jail | World news | guardian.co.uk.

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.

Breaking news: the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights – MEA 2012 nominee

April 24, 2012

Today the nominees of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders 2012 are announced in Geneva. The ann0uncement was made by the new Chair of the Martin Ennals Foundation, Mrs Micheline Calmy Rey, until last year the President of and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland.  Each nominee deserves its own post!  One of the 3 nominees is the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR).

BCHR is a nongovernmental organization that conducts research, documents human rights abuses, provides information to international NGOs and the diplomatic community in Bahrain and advocates locally and internationally.  Several of its leaders have been arrested wihout cause. BCHR has continued its human rights activities despite a hostile environment, in particular the numerous threats issued by the Government, warning that further ‘legal’ action will be taken against the members should they continue their activities.  Through its website (www.bahrainrights.org) BCHR struggles to promote democracy and human rights in accordance with international norms, encourages and supports individuals and groups to be proactive in the protection of their own and others’ rights. BCHR has emerged as a model NGO in the region on how to continue to operate and leverage national and international advocacy despite a repressive national context. It is only the second time in the 20-year history of the MEA that an organisation is one of the nominees.

Breaking news: Nasrin Sotoudeh from Iran – MEA 2012 nominee

April 24, 2012

Today the nominees of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders 2012 are announced in Geneva. The ann0uncement was made by the new Chair of the Martin Ennals Foundation, Mrs Micheline Calmy Rey, until last year the President of and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland.  Each nominee deserves its own post!  One of the 3 nominees is Nasrin Sotoudeh from Iran.

Nasrin Sotoudeh is a human rights lawyer and a member of the now closed Defenders of Human Rights Centre (DHRC); she was imprisoned for “spreading propaganda against the State”, “collusion and gathering with the aim of acting against national security” and “membership in an illegal organisation”. She worked for Shirin Ebadi‘s law firm, and represented imprisoned opposition activists following the June 2009 presidential elections. In this regard, she represented Shirin Ebadi after she left Iran and her assets were confiscated. On September 4, 2010, Nasrin Sotoudeh was arrested, and later sentenced to 6-year of prison and a 10-year ban on practising as lawyer. She remains detained in Evin prison and on several occasions subjected to solitary confinement. Unlike fur common criminals her family visits and furlongs are limited. Despite real danger for her security and liberty, Nasrin Sotoudeh has relentlessly defended those most vulnerable. As started by Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi “Ms. Sotoudeh is one of the last remaining courageous human rights lawyers who has accepted all risks for defending the victims of human rights violations in Iran”. After Akbar Ganji (2006) and Baghi (2009) this is the third human rights defender from Iran chosen by the Jury in the last seven years. The Government will surely portray this as a bias, but the rest of the world will understand that Iran is one of the worst when it comes to respect HRDs.