Archive for the 'HRW' Category

Member states back International Criminal Court

June 19, 2024

On 17 June 2024, Maria Elena Vignoli, Senior Counsel, International Justice Program of HRW, reported on several statements by States to rejects recent intimidation efforts.

Ninety-three member countries of the International Criminal Court (ICC) have declared their “unwavering support” for the court in the face of recent threats. The June 14 statement by an unprecedented number of ICC members across the globe follows a slew of threats, particularly after ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan announced on May 20 that he was seeking arrest warrants against two senior Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, along with three Hamas leaders.

The joint statement reconfirmed ICC members’ support for the court “as an independent and impartial judicial institution” and their committment to defending the ICC, its officials, and those cooperating with it from any political interference and pressure. It follows similar expressions of support by the Presidency of the ICC Assembly of States Partiesseveral ICC member countries—including UN Security Council members—the high representative of the European UnionUN special procedures, and nongovernmental organizations.

In April, amid speculation ICC warrants for crimes committed in Gaza were imminent, 12 US senators threatened to sanction Khan should he pursue cases against top Israeli officials. Netanyahu also called on governments to prevent the court from issuing warrants. Khan’s office denounced the threats, noting that the ICC can also prosecute individuals for obstructing justice. [see also earlier: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/02/19/large-group-of-ngos-call-on-biden-administration-to-repeal-icc-sanctions/]

On June 4, after the warrant applications were announced, the US House of Representatives passed a bill aimed at imposing sanctions against the ICC, its officials, and those supporting investigations at the court involving US citizens or allies. The bill is now under consideration in the US Senate. The proposed law is reminiscent of the sanctions imposed by President Donald Trump on the previous ICC prosecutor to intimidate the court from pursuing cases against US and Israeli personnel for crimes committed in Afghanistan and Palestine. President Joe Biden revoked those sanctions in 2021 and has so far opposed the current bill.

The ICC is also in Russia’s crosshairs. In 2023, Russian authorities issued arrest warrants against Khan and six ICC judges after the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin and another Russian official for war crimes committed in Ukraine. Russian lawmakers also enacted a law criminalizing cooperation with the ICC.

In both the Palestine and Ukraine investigations, ICC officials are simply doing their job. The joint statement sends a strong message that ICC members have the court’s back and will not bow to efforts to undermine its independence.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/06/17/international-criminal-court-members-speak-out

JOINT NGO LETTER asks to suspend EU-CHINA HUMAN RIGHTS DIALOGUE 2024

June 17, 2024

On 12 June 2024, a group of important NGOs addressed the following letter to Josep Borrell, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs:

We, the undersigned civil society organisations, are writing to reiterate our request for the European Union to suspend its human rights dialogue with China, and to consider other, more impactful measures at the EU’s disposal to address the Chinese government’s assault on human rights at home and abroad.

While appreciative of the open and frank discussion and engagement with the EEAS in preparation of each round of human rights dialogue with China, we regret that the EU continues this exercise despite its amply proven ineffectiveness over 38 rounds. While the EU raises concerns during these dialogues, it knows that the Chinese government will not acknowledge abuses, will not undertake any effort to secure accountability, and will not be persuaded to undertake any policy or legislative action to comply with China’s international human rights obligations. The EU’s reluctance to establish any measurable benchmark of progress, or even to establish clearly defined objectives beyond having a dialogue, exacerbates the ineffectiveness of this exercise.

This year’s human rights dialogue would also entail EU officials sitting down with authorities in Beijing to “engage… through dialogue and cooperation” on human rights, days after the 35th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre.

Since Xi Jinping came to power in 2013, the Chinese government has intensified its crackdown on dissent, harassing and imprisoning human rights defenders and activists including the Swedish bookseller Gui Minhai, the Uyghur economist and Sakharov Prize laureate Ilham Tohti [7 human rights awards, see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/37AE7DC4-16DB-51E9-4CF8-AB0828AEF491], the Hong-Kong barrister and human rights activist Chow Hang-tung and human rights lawyers Yu Wensheng and his wife Xu Yan, who were arrested a little over a year ago on their way to meet with the EU delegation [see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/69fc7057-b583-40c3-b6fa-b8603531248e and https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/07/12/new-wave-of-repression-against-human-rights-lawyers-unleashed-in-china/]. The Chinese government has committed egregious violations against Uyghur and other Turkic communities in Xinjiang/The Uyghur Region, which a report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in August 2022 stated “may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.” Beijing has also intensified its repression in Tibet, while in Hong Kong the creation of a new national security architecture at Beijing’s behest has severely restricted the rights and freedoms long enjoyed by Hong Kong’s people.

Beijing’s foreign policy has also been increasingly detrimental to human rights, both in the region and beyond. The Chinese government continues to support highly abusive governments, to challenge international efforts to secure accountability for grave abuses, and to intensify efforts to undermine the international human rights system and rewrite its norms. The Chinese government has also engaged in increasingly brazen transnational repression – abuses committed outside its borders – including in EU countries.

The EU has already suspended human rights dialogues with highly repressive countries such as Russia, Syria, Belarus, and Myanmar, among others, in light of the nature, scale and pervasiveness of their authorities’ human rights abuses and violations of international law. The Chinese government has committed serious crimes amounting to crimes against humanity. It has long been evident that the human rights dialogue is not an appropriate nor an effective tool to address them. There is no reason to expect the 39th round will prove more beneficial to the rights of people in China than the previous 38. The EU and its member states should pursue different, more effective actions to press the Chinese government to end its crimes against humanity and other serious violations – and to hold accountable those responsible for failing to do so.

We have long been suggesting alternative action, latest in this February 2023 letter. We stand ready to discuss these and other options with you any time.

Signatories:
Amnesty International
Front Line Defenders
Human Rights Watch
International Service for Human Rights
World Uyghur Congress

https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/statement-report/joint-public-civil-society-letter-eu-china-human-rights-dialogue-2024

and see https://www.ucanews.com/news/jailing-of-chinese-metoo-journalist-upsets-rights-groups/105431

https://www.aol.com/news/eu-urges-china-stop-human-145953152.html

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/eu-urges-china-stop-human-rights-crackdown-2024-06-17/

Q&A: Transnational Repression

June 14, 2024

On 12 June 2024, Human Rights Watch published a useful, short “questions-and-answers” document which outlines key questions on the global trend of transnational repression. 

Illustration of a map being used to bind someone's mouth
© 2024 Brian Stauffer for Human Rights Watch
  1. What is transnational repression?
  2. What tactics are used?
  3. Is transnational repression a new phenomenon?  
  4. Where is transnational repression happening? 
  5. Do only “repressive” states commit transnational repression?
  6. Are steps being taken to recognize and address transnational repression? 
  7. What should be done? 

What is transnational repression?

The term “transnational repression” is increasingly used to refer to state actors reaching beyond their borders to suppress or stifle dissent by targeting human rights defenders, journalists, government critics and opposition activists, academics and others, in violation of their human rights. Particularly vulnerable are nationals or former nationals, members of diaspora communities and those living in exile. Many are asylum seekers or refugees in their place of exile, while others may be at risk of extradition or forced return. Back home, a person’s family members and friends may also be targeted, by way of retribution and with the aim of silencing a relative in exile or forcing their return.

Transnational repression can have far-reaching consequences, including a chilling effect on the rights to freedom of expression and association. While there is no formal legal definition, the framing of transnational repression, which encompasses a wide range of rights abuses, allows us to better understand it and propose victim-centered responses.

What tactics are used?

Documented tactics of transnational repression include killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, unlawful removals, online harassment, the use of digital surveillance including spyware, targeting of relatives, and the abuse of consular services.  Interpol’s Red Notice system has also been used as a tool of transnational repression, to facilitate unlawful extraditions. Interpol has made advances in improving its vetting systems, yet governments continue to abuse the Red Notice system by publishing unlawful notices seeking citizens who have fled abroad on spurious charges. This leaves targets vulnerable to arrest and return to their country of origin to be mistreated, even after they have fled to seek safety abroad.

Is transnational repression a new phenomenon?

No, the practice of governments violating human rights beyond their borders is not new. Civil society organizations have been documenting such abuses for decades. What is new, however, is the growing recognition of transnational repression as more than a collection of grave incidents, but also as an increasing phenomenon of global concern, requiring global responses. What is also new is the increasing access to and use of sophisticated technology to harass, threaten, surveil and track people no matter where they are. This makes the reach of transnational repression even more pervasive. 

Where is transnational repression happening? 

Transnational repression is a global phenomenon. Cases have been documented in countries and regions around the world. The use of technology such as spyware increases the reach of transnational repression, essentially turning an infected device, such as a mobile phone, into a portable surveillance tool, allowing targeted individuals to be spied on and tracked around the world. 

Do only “repressive” states commit transnational repression?

While many authoritarian states resort to repressive tactics beyond their own borders, any government that seeks to silence dissent by targeting critics abroad is committing transnational repression. Democratic governments have also contributed to cases of transnational repression, for example through the provision of spyware, collaborating with repressive governments to deny visas or facilitate returns, or relying upon flawed Interpol Red Notices that expose targeted individuals to risk.

Are steps being taken to recognize and address transnational repression? 

Increasingly, human rights organizations, UN experts and states are documenting and taking steps to address transnational repression.

For example, Freedom House has published several reports on transnational repression and maintains an online resource documenting incidents globally. Human Rights Watch has published reports, including one outlining cases of transnational repression globally and another focusing on Southeast Asia. Amnesty International has published a report on transnational repression in Europe. Many other nongovernmental organizations are increasingly producing research and reports on the issue. In her report on journalists in exile, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression dedicated a chapter to transnational repression. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights used the term in a June 2024 statement.

Certain governments are increasingly aware of the harms posed by transnational repression. Some are passing legislation to address the problem, while others are signing joint statements or raising transnational repression in international forums. However, government responses are often piecemeal, and a more cohesive and coordinated approach is needed. 

What should be done? 

Governments should speak out and condemn all cases of transnational repression, including by their friends and allies. They should take tangible steps to address transnational repression, including by adopting rights-respecting legal frameworks and policies to address it. Governments should put victims at the forefront of their response to these forms of repression. They should be particularly mindful of the risks and fears experienced by refugee and asylum communities. They should investigate and appropriately prosecute those responsible. Interpol should continue to improve vetting process by subjecting governments with a poor human rights record to more scrutiny when they submit Red Notices. Interpol should be transparent on which governments are continually abusing the Red Notice system, and limit their access to the database.  

At the international level, more can be done to integrate transnational repression within existing human rights reporting, and to mandate dedicated reporting on cases of transnational repression, trends, and steps needed to address it.

see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/03/19/transnational-repression-human-rights-watch-and-other-reports/

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/06/12/qa-transnational-repression

Germany Prosecutes Environmental Defenders says HRW

May 30, 2024

Nina Alizadeh Marandi of HRW on 28 May 2024 said that German environmental activists are facing increasingly harsh rhetoric and legal action from authorities as they mobilize to confront the climate crisis.

Last week, on 21 May, Germany’s efforts to curb environmental activism took a disturbing turn when authorities used an offence typically reserved for prosecutorial pursuit of serious organized crime to indict Letzte Generation (Last Generation), a climate activist group known for disruptive protests such as roadblocks and other acts of civil disobedience, as a criminal organization. A conviction under federal law would pave the way for prosecuting anyone who participates in or supports Letzte Generation, including administratively or financially.

This heavy-handed approach reflects a troubling trend in Europe of stifling civil society and climate activism. Such actions chill public participation in protests against state policies or state inaction on a range of urgent issues. [see also:https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/03/04/state-repression-of-environmental-defenders-a-major-threat-to-human-rights/]

The investigation into Letzte Generation as a criminal organization has involved armed police conducting predawn raids, storming private apartments while the activists were still asleep, and granting warrants for police to surveil the group’s communications, including calls made with media.

Last year the group’s website was temporarily seized during a fundraising campaign, with a notice from the police falsely labeling Letzte Generation a criminal organization and stating any donation constitutes illegal support for crime. This move by the police, despite no judicial assessment of the charges having taken place, exposes a deeply worrying bias against the group and raises questions about whether authorities are respecting due process.

International law protects the right to public participation in environmental matters and recognizes peaceful, nonviolent civil disobedience as a legitimate form of assembly. Disruptions like traffic blockades, while inconvenient, generally do not constitute violence under international standards, although damage to or destruction of private or public property may.

While civil disobedience often involves breaking national laws, authorities are required to respond proportionately, giving due weight to the right to protest and the importance to the public interest of the issues at stake.

The government’s extreme response to Letzte Generation’s activism appears disproportionate, threatens the very right to protest, and smears climate activists when their cause has never been more urgent. Instead of intimidating environmental defenders, Germany should live up to its commitment to ambitious climate action and investigate the concerns that groups like Letzte Generation raise.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/05/28/germany-prosecutes-environmental-defenders

But it can also be undone: see: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/05/29/uk-court-rules-anti-protest-measures-unlawful

HRW reports on crackdown on Human Rights Lawyers in Belarus

May 27, 2024

https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/05/27/i-swear-fulfill-duties-defense-lawyer-honestly-and-faithfully/politically#691383337

On 27 May 2024 Human Rights Watch published a major report on the politically motivated crackdown on Human Rights Lawyers in Belarus.

Summary: In August 2020, peaceful protests in Belarus began with hundreds of thousands of people gathering in the streets of Minsk and across Belarus following the contested electoral victory of Aliaksandr Lukashenka, who had already served as president for more than 26 years. Belarusian authorities responded with unprecedented brutality, using excessive force, arbitrarily detaining thousands of peaceful protesters, and subjecting them to ill-treatment and torture in detention before conveyor-belt administrative and criminal trials.

Since then, Belarusian authorities have unrolled widespread and systematic repression of any form of dissent. Government critics have been forced into exile or thrown behind bars on politically motivated charges. The number of political prisoners swelled and at time of publication exceeded 1300, according to Human Rights Center “Viasna,” the prominent Belarusian human rights organization. The term “political prisoner,” for the purpose of this report, includes anyone detained, imprisoned or otherwise deprived of their liberty by Belarusian authorities for peacefully exercising their rights and freedoms or defending human rights and fundamental freedoms.

February 2023 and March 2024 reports of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights found that some violations committed by Belarusian authorities in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and in its aftermath “may amount to crimes against humanity” including the “crime of persecution.” [https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/07/12/state-of-human-rights-in-belarus-called-catastrophic-at-the-un/]

In the face of these grave and widespread rights violations, some lawyers stepped up to represent clients in politically motivated cases. ..This report examines the Lukashenka government’s retribution against lawyers who represent government critics and its nearly complete takeover of the legal profession in Belarus. The authorities have subjected lawyers in politically motivated cases, as well as lawyers who criticize state abuses, to harassment, arbitrary revocation of their licenses, detention and administrative charges, and politically motivated criminal prosecution. Behind bars, lawyers along with other politically-targeted detainees and convicts, experience retaliatory ill-treatment. The authorities have left no space for earnest and efficient discharge of lawyers’ duties in politically motivated cases. At the time of writing, very few lawyers, if any, were willing to take on such cases, which has severely undermined the right to a fair trial, due process, and access to remedy in Belarus.

Belarus: Crackdown on Human Rights Lawyers

The report shows that while governmental crackdown on lawyers in times of political unrest in Belarus is not new, the scale and severity of this wave of repression is unprecedented. For the first time in the history of modern Belarus, lawyers have become political prisoners themselves for their work on behalf of clients.

At the time of writing, six lawyers—Maksim Znak, Aliaksandr Danilevich, Vital Brahinets, Anastasiya Lazarenka, Yuliya Yurhilevich, and Aliaksei Barodka—were serving sentences on politically motivated charges ranging from six to ten years. Such charges included providing legal aid to political opposition figures and activists or giving interviews to and sharing information with independent media labelled “extremist” by the authorities. [see https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/09/10/two-lawyers-from-belarus-share-lawyers-for-lawyers-award-2021/]

In addition to politically motivated prosecution, lawyers also have faced politically motivated disbarment. Since 2020, more than 140 lawyers have been disbarred by the regional bar associations or faced arbitrary license revocation by the Justice Ministry following decisions of its Qualification Commission because they supposedly breeched some regulations or were not sufficiently qualified to work as lawyers. These grounds are often easily exposed as flimsy pretexts: on average, those “unqualified” lawyers had more than 13.5 years of experience; many had successfully worked in the legal field for two to three decades, or more, and some of them were previously recognized by bar associations for their excellence…

The report also examines how the Belarusian government has established all-encompassing control over the legal profession in the country by controlling the admission of lawyers into the profession, regulating the way they discharge their duties, and exercising other broad controlling functions including but not limited to revoking lawyers’ licenses and essentially stripping lawyers’ self-governing bodies of independence.

Crackdown on Human Rights Lawyers in Belarus: Maryia Kolesava Hudzilina

In November 2021, a set of amendments into the Law on the Bar and Practice of Law in the Republic of Belarus (Law on the Bar) entered into force, which banned lawyers from working individually or opening law firms, requiring them to join legal consultation offices created and supervised by regional bar associations in coordination with the Justice Ministry. The amendments also significantly expanded the Justice Ministry’s control over the self-governing bodies of the bar and eased the conditions for obtaining a lawyer’s status for ex workers of law enforcement and judiciary….  

The Belarusian Republican Bar Association (BRBA) and regional bar associations generally have failed to represent and protect the rights of their members and withheld support from lawyers facing obstacles in discharging their duties, which in recent years have come to include harassment, arbitrary detention, and criminal prosecution. Moreover, bar association executive bodies have become vehicles for the agenda of state officials, triggering sanctions against and disbarring lawyers deemed undesirable by the authorities. In light of the control exercised by the state over the formation of the Belarusian bar’s executive bodies and their work, these associations cannot be considered genuinely independent self-governing bodies representing the interests of all lawyers in Belarus.

Some lawyers described the current state of the Belarusian justice system and bar as a “total collapse of the legal system” and many felt “disarmed” in the face of systematic and widespread violations of due process, fair trial, and rule of law. Yet, lawyers noted, that it is their duty to discharge their functions to the highest professional standard, notwithstanding the political motivation of their clients’ cases and the unprecedented pressure from the state:

Crackdown on Human Rights Lawyers in Belarus: Uladzimir Pylchanka

Recommendations

To the Belarusian Government

  • Immediately end the systematic detention and prosecution of anyone who peacefully exercises their rights and freedoms, release all political prisoners, provide effective remedies for victims and survivors of human rights abuses, and carry out prompt and impartial investigations into all alleged human rights violations;
  • Immediately end the ill-treatment of prisoners and ensure the protection of their rights and freedoms in confinement, including by ending the pervasive practice of incommunicado detention; grant lawyers and families unhindered access to detainees, and ensure all prisoners receive adequate medical assistance;
  • End all harassment of, attacks on, and interference with lawyers, particularly those representing clients in politically motivated cases and exercising their freedom of expression in line with international standards;
  • Ensure all courts adhere to fair trial standards. Allow lawyers to effectively perform their professional functions in accordance with the guarantees provided for in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, including by instructing law enforcement and state agencies on the protected role and function of lawyers;
  • Repeal and amend national legislation to bring domestic law in compliance with international standards to ensure the independence and self-governance of the legal profession in Belarus; 
  • Restore the licenses of all lawyers who have been disbarred or lost their licenses as a result of discharging their professional duties in accordance with international standards or for exercising their freedom of expression (including those lawyers who lost their license over arbitrary and state-controlled procedures at the Justice Ministry’s Qualification Commission);
  • Guarantee the independence of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, which should be carried out by lawyers’ self-governing bodies in a fair and objective manner;
  • Curtail the Justice Ministry’s authority to interfere with independence of the legal profession, including the ministry’s authority to issue regulations on the work of lawyers, admit them into the profession, revoke licenses, carry out certification procedures, initiate disciplinary proceedings, and shape the selection of executive bodies of bar associations; 
  • Void existing policies undermining the independence of legal profession and ensure separation of the bar from the state, including by abolishing the pervasive practice of forcing lawyers to express support for the government’s agenda and interests;
  • Respect the right to legal assistance, including by removing arbitrary obstacles to lawyers’ access to clients, safeguarding lawyer-client privilege, stopping the practice of making lawyers sign arbitrary and overly broad non-disclosure obligations, and ensuring fair and public trials and full equality of arms in courts of law;
  • Promptly comply with repeated requests by the UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Belarus to conduct a country visit.

To the Belarusian Republican Bar Association and Regional Bar Associations

  • Immediately end retaliation against members for carrying out professional duties or legitimately exercising their freedom of expression, and ensure lawyers targeted on such grounds have access to an effective remedy;
  • Repeal internal regulations that undermine the unhindered provision of legal assistance;
  • Advocate resolutely with the Belarusian government in support of the above recommendations and for Belarus’s adherence to international standards on the role of lawyers and the right to a fair trial;
  • Take measures to actively protect the interests of lawyers, defend the right of all accused to an effective defense regardless of the charges, and emphasize that lawyers cannot be identified with or punished for the alleged crimes of their clients;
  • Push back consistently and in principled fashion against the ongoing severe erosion of the bar’s professional autonomy and integrity, and the state’s overarching control of the bar;
  • Encourage regional bar associations to draw up rosters of lawyers to visit prisons to provide free legal advice and assistance to prisoners.
     

To United Nations Member States, Council of Europe, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the European Union

  • Refrain from any cooperation with the Belarusian Republican Bar Association and regional bar associations until they become independent self-governing bodies representing the interests of Belarusian lawyers;
  • Call on the government of Belarus and the Belarusian bar to respect the rights of lawyers and to end arbitrary arrests, harassment, retaliation, and attacks against them;
  • Develop and fund programs to support lawyers who have faced retaliation for their professional activities or exercise of freedom of expression and examine ways of integrating Belarusian lawyers in exile into the legal profession in host countries;
  • Recognize Belarusian lawyers who have faced retaliation for their professional activities in defending clients in politically motivated cases as human rights defenders and afford them the requisite protection, including assistance with access to visas, funding and protection in exile and protection from transnational repression;
  • Consider imposing coordinated, targeted sanctions against the Justice Ministry officials and leaders of the Belarusian bar responsible for the systematic and widespread abuses against lawyers working on politically motivated cases and exercising their freedom of expression;
  • Recognize the Belarusian Association of Human Rights Lawyers as a key independent organization of Belarusian lawyers, and support its efforts to promote and protect the human rights of lawyers deprived of their right to exercise their profession in retaliation for discharging their duties and exercising their freedom of expression, and to improve the provision of legal aid in Belarus;
  • Express solidarity with and provide support to Belarusian human rights defenders working to deter politically motivated repression and document cases of grave rights violations for future accountability;
  • Support independent information sources providing independent coverage of events in Belarus and promoting universal human rights principles. 
     

To Bar Associations and Lawyers’ Associations in Europe, Canada, and the US

  • Advocate for the above recommendations, in particular , for Belarusian authorities, and bar, to uphold international human rights standards, ending politically motivated persecution, ensuring independence and guarantees for legal profession.
  • Privately and publicly express concern at the interference of the government in the work of lawyers in Belarus;
  • Support Belarusian lawyers who have experienced or face retaliation for their legitimate professional activities, including by monitoring politically motivated cases against lawyers and, when relevant, providing third party interventions to courts and international agencies;
  • Refrain from any cooperation with the Belarusian Republican Bar Association and regional bar associations until they become independent self-governing bodies representing the interests of Belarusian lawyers.

Human Right Watch wrote to the Belarusian Justice Ministry and the Belarusian Republican Bar Association in April 2024 seeking their response to a summary of the report findings. At the time of writing no response had been received.


https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/05/27/i-swear-fulfill-duties-defense-lawyer-honestly-and-faithfully/politically

Human rights defenders in Brazil disappointed by Lula and Mary Lawlor agrees with them

April 24, 2024

On 19 April 2024 – Indigenous Peoples Day in Brazil – tribal leaders and activists used the occasion to criticize government of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for falling short on promises to safeguard native land rights.

This is revolting for us Indigenous peoples to have had so much faith in the government’s commitments to our rights and the demarcation of our territories,” Alessandra Korap Munduruku, a member of the Munduruku people and a 2023 winner of the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize, told Amazon Watch in a statement published Friday.

We hear all of these discussions about environmental and climate protection, but without support for Indigenous peoples on the front lines, suffering serious attacks and threats. Lula cannot speak about fighting climate change without fulfilling his duty to demarcate our lands,” she added.

On the same day United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor said that Brazil needs to prioritise the demarcation and titling of land – the root cause of most attacks against human rights defenders in the country.

Human rights defenders are under extreme threat in Brazil. The Federal Government knows this but has so far failed to put the structures in place to provide them with better protection and tackle the root causes of the risks they face,” said Mary Lawlor, in a statement following an official visit to the country.

Brazil’s Federal Government recognises human rights defenders and their work, and understands the risks they face, the expert noted. However, when human rights defenders challenge structures of power that impose and reinforce injustice, they are violently attacked and face an extremely high level of risks, she said. “Again and again during my visit I heard from defenders who had survived assassination attempts, who had been shot at, had their houses surrounded, had death threats delivered to their door. I heard from defenders whose work had been criminalised,” Lawlor said.

“The defenders most at risk in Brazil are indigenous and quilombola people and members of other traditional communities. In many cases, perpetrators of the attacks are known. Yet, there is rampant impunity for these crimes,” the expert said.

The UN expert said business and markets play a key role as drivers of conflicts, putting human rights defenders at risk. “The demarcation and titling of indigenous, quilombola and other traditional peoples’ land, as well as the revision of the legality of all existing concessions given to companies must be prioritised,” she said.

Lawlor said that in urban areas, human rights defenders were also being attacked, defamed and heavily criminalised, specifically black women human rights defenders, journalists, popular communicators and lawyers, and social and cultural workers.

“The conflation of human rights defenders with criminals by local authorities – in particular defenders who are part of social movements and supporting the most vulnerable in society – is a clear problem and must end,” the expert said.

A protection programme to address situations of risk for human rights defenders has been in place in Brazil for some time. However, Lawlor said it was currently unfit for purpose and needs radical reform and expansion. Lawlor applauded the Federal Government for re-opening the door to human rights defenders and civil society in the design of policy that affects them and encouraged authorities to not abandon these efforts.

The Federal Government needs to match the courage of human rights defenders in the country – and it must do so now,” Lawlor said.

On 22 April 2024 Maria Laura Canineu HRW’s Deputy Director, Environment and Human Rights, said she wanted to use this quilombolaas an opportunity to celebrate the work of the courageous people who put themselves at risk fighting for a world in which people and the planet can thrive. “I personally would like to honor Osvalinda Marcelino Alves Pereira. Sadly, she passed away from a long-standing illness just over a week ago.”

https://reliefweb.int/report/brazil/united-nations-special-rapporteur-situation-human-rights-defenders-mary-lawlor-brasilia-19-april-2024-enpt

Download Report (PDF | 213.1 KB | Statement – English version)

https://www.commondreams.org/news/lula-indigenous-rights

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/22/earth-day-homage-beloved-forest-defender

‘Foreign Agent’ Laws Spread, now also Georgia ?

April 8, 2024

Iskra Kirova, Advocacy Director, Europe and Central Asia Division of HRW, wrote on 4 April 2024: ‘Foreign Agent’ Laws Spread as EU Dithers to Support Civil Society

On the night before the infamous “foreign agents” law came into force back in 2012, unknown individuals sprayed graffiti reading, “Foreign Agent! ♥ USA” on the buildings hosting the offices of three prominent NGOs in Moscow, including Memorial. 
On the night before the infamous “foreign agents” law came into force back in 2012, unknown individuals sprayed graffiti reading, “Foreign Agent! ♥ USA” on the buildings hosting the offices of three prominent NGOs in Moscow, including Memorial.  © 2012 Yulia Klimova/Memorial

Georgia’s ruling party plans to reintroduce highly controversial Russia-style “foreign agent” legislation aimed at incapacitating civil society and independent media. If adopted, the laws, which were withdrawn last year in the face of massive protests, would require foreign-funded nongovernmental organizations and media to register as “agents of foreign influence”. That would make them subject to additional scrutiny and sanctions, including administrative penalties up to 25,000 GEL (about 8,600 Euro). Authorities claim the laws promote “transparency”, but their statements make it clear the laws will be used to stigmatize and punish critical voices.

Georgia was granted EU candidate status in December 2023 on the understanding it would improve conditions for civil society. This move risks derailing its EU integration even if the EU has until now been willing to move the country forward in the accession process despite limited progress on EU reform priorities. Georgia’s defiance of the EU on its civil society commitments isn’t so surprising when seen in the regional context. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/03/24/kyrgyzstan-on-its-way-to-emulate-russia-with-a-draft-law-on-foreign-representatives-agents/

The day before Georgia’s announcement, Kyrgyzstan’s president signed an abusive “foreign representatives” law. Copied almost entirely from the Russian equivalent, the law would apply the stigmatizing designation of “foreign representative” to any nongovernmental organization that receives foreign funding and engages in vaguely defined “political activity”. The bill had been widely criticized after its initial submission in November 2022, including in a urgency resolution by the European Parliament.

The EU had ample opportunity to press the authorities to reject this bill. Kyrgyzstan benefits from privileged access to the EU internal market tied to respect for international human rights conventions: conventions this law clearly contravenes. The country is poised to sign an enhanced partnership agreement with the EU that centers democracy and fundamental rights. The EU has been silent on whether these deals would be imperiled by the bill’s adoption, despite the fact the European Commission’s own assessment highlighted Kyrgyzstan’s dire environment for civil society and the country’s breach of its obligations.

The latest spate of curbs on civil society comes in the wake of the European Commission’s December 2023 legislative proposal for an EU Directive on “transparency of interest representation” that would create a register of organizations which receive foreign funding. European civil society vehemently opposes the proposal because it risks shrinking space for independent organizations at home and diminishing the EU’s credibility in opposing such laws abroad. Yet the Commission forged ahead. On the same day the proposal was adopted, Hungary’s parliament approved a law that gives a government-controlled body broad powers to target civil society and independent media.

With civil society organizations under threat throughout Europe and Central Asia, we need an EU that in words and actions protects civic space and sets the right standards.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/04/foreign-agent-laws-spread-eu-dithers-support-civil-society

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-briefing-notes/2024/04/kyrgyzstan-new-law-risks-undermining-work-ngos

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/05/1149776

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/05/georgia-un-experts-condemn-adoption-law-transparency-foreign-influence

and see this! https://oc-media.org/georgian-foreign-agent-law-protester-lazare-grigoriadis-found-guilty/

Rwanda: Human Rights Watch’ Archives March 1993 – December 1994 digitized and public

April 4, 2024

A crowd of mostly Tutsi civilians, seeking protection against Hutu militiamen, sit in the Sainte Famille Catholic church in the then-government controlled part of Kigali, listening to a member of the security services address them. Over several months, ma

On 2 April, 2024 Human Rights Watch made part of its Rwanda Archives public in digital form.

Human Rights Watch has been documenting and exposing human rights violations in Rwanda since the early 1990s. Its senior adviser in the Africa division, Alison Des Forges, one of the world’s foremost experts on Rwanda, dedicated her career to the struggle for human rights in the Great Lakes region of Africa, and to Rwanda in particular. In the period leading up to the 1994 genocide, she worked tirelessly to alert world powers to the impending crisis in Rwanda. Few would listen. By the time the genocidal forces had unleashed their sinister program and the world had awakened to the full horror that was unfolding in Rwanda, it was too late. The killings in Rwanda increased as a civil war in Burundi waged on. The violence in Burundi, also based on ethnic divisions between Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups, lasted from 1993 until 2005.

Des Forges’s efforts did not stop when the genocide ended. She continued to painstakingly gather information on the killings, rapes, and other horrific crimes, which she compiled into what has become one of the main reference books on the Rwandan genocide: “Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda”, a 500-page account of the genocide published jointly by Human Rights Watch and the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) in 1999. 

Des Forges testified as an expert witness in 11 trials at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha, Tanzania, as well as in domestic court proceedings involving Rwandan genocide suspects in several countries.

Des Forges campaigned vigorously for justice for the genocide until her tragic death in a plane crash in the US on February 12, 2009. She also documented human rights abuses by the new government of Rwanda after the genocide and advocated for accountability for all abuses, past and present.

Thirty years after the genocide, Human Rights Watch has begun the process of digitizing and making available some of Des Forges’s archives. The documents summarized below are some of those that remained in Human Rights Watch possession after Des Forges’s death and help shed light on efforts by Des Forges and others to warn about, and then attempt to stop, the genocide. These are just a selection of the many documents in the archives; others will not be published at this time for a variety of reasons. The private exchanges, letters, statements, and reports below do not purport to be a comprehensive account of the work of Human Rights Watch and others at the time, as it is likely documents are missing from the archive.

See also: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/awards/F42005AB-6691-4C7F-BA0D-1999D2279EA2

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/02/human-rights-watch-rwanda-archives

India – not satisfied with its ranking – planning to develop own democracy index

April 2, 2024

The New Indian Express of 22 March 2024 reports (based on Al Jazeera) that Prime Minister Narendra Modi government has approached a major Indian think tank to develop its own democracy ratings index that could help it counter recent downgrades in rankings issued by international groups that New Delhi fears could affect the country’s credit rating. The Observer Research Foundation (ORF), which works closely with the Indian government on multiple initiatives, is preparing the ratings framework,

On June 2023, The Guardian reported that the Indian government has been secretly working to keep its reputation as the “world’s largest democracy” alive after being called out by researchers for serious democratic backsliding under the nationalist rule of the Narendra Modi government, according to internal reports seen by The Guardian.

Despite publicly dismissing several global rankings that suggest the country is on a dangerous downward trajectory, officials from government ministries have been quietly assigned to monitor India’s performance, minutes from meetings show, The Guardian said. Al Jazeera revealed that the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), which works closely with the Indian government on multiple initiatives, is preparing the ratings framework. The new rankings system could be released soon, an official was quoted as saying.

Global human rights NGO Amnesty International has continued to highlight the erosion of civil rights and religious freedom under the Narendra Modi regime.

Amnesty in its India 2022 report noted that arbitrary arrests, prolonged detentions, unlawful attacks and killings, internet shutdowns and intimidation using digital technologies, including unlawful surveillance as major concerns faced by minority groups, human rights defenders, dissenters and critics of the Union government. [see also: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/03/india-crackdown-on-opposition-reaches-a-crisis-point-ahead-of-national-elections/]

Similarly, Human Rights Watch has also continued to highlight the crackdown on civil society and media under the Modi government citing persecution of activists, journalists, protesters and critics on fabricated counterterrorism and hate speech laws. The vilification of Muslims and other minorities by some BJP leaders and police inaction against government supporters who commit violence are also among HRW’s concerns in India.

Notably, the ‘Democracy Index’, prepared by The Economist Group’s Economist Intelligence Unit, had downgraded India to a “flawed democracy” in its 2022 report due to the serious backsliding of democratic freedom under the Modi government.

Similarly, the US-based non-profit organization Freedom House had lowered India’s standing from a free democracy to a “partly free” democracy in its global freedom and internet freedom ratings, while V-Dem Institute, a Sweden-based independent research institute, had classified India as an “electoral autocracy”, as part of its 2022 Democracy report. for more on ranking, see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/ranking/

https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2024/Mar/22/centre-planning-its-own-democracy-index-amid-global-rankings-downgrade

Kyrgyzstan (and Slovakia) on their way to emulate Russia with draft law on ‘foreign representatives (agents)’

March 24, 2024

On 21 March 2024, Nikkei Asia carried the story on Kyrgyzstan taking a page from Russia in pushing for a ‘foreign agents’ law

Kyrgyzstan: Veto the draft law on ‘foreign representatives’ - Civic Space

Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov faces a high-stakes decision on whether to sign new legislation that critics warn will significantly impair how human rights defenders and independent media, among others, can work in his mountainous Central Asian state. On March 14, Kyrgyzstan’s parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of a “foreign agents” bill that mirrors legislation adopted in Russia over a decade ago. The law is designed to control the activities of nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations that receive funding from abroad by compelling them to register as “foreign representatives,” leading to closer scrutiny of their activities by the authorities.

Japarov has a month from that date to sign it into law. Many observers have been vocal in their opposition and are urging the president to veto the bill. Syinat Sultanalieva, Central Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch, told Nikkei Asia that this law “would see the further and sharper shrinking of civil society,” a sector that has been under attack in Kyrgyzstan for more than a decade. BUT see: https://www.aol.com/kyrgyzstan-adopts-law-targeting-foreign-100124498.html

In the meantime the Prague based NGO, People in Need, speaks out against the Slovakian government’s proposed measures to curb critical media and NGOs, which would mirror tactics employed by autocrats and dictators in places ranging from Russia to Latin America, It has raised concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and the stifling of dissent. In a move reminiscent of authoritarian regimes, officials seek to designate these entities as “foreign agents,” a term often utilised to suppress opposition voices. The Fico government has already taken steps to cut NGO funding, raising further alarms about the independence of civil society activities. Additionally, Culture Minister Martina Šimkovičová and Justice Minister Boris Susko have initiated cuts to subsidy programmes, redirecting funds away from NGOs to other areas, citing concerns about transparency and favouritism in grant allocation. The government’s actions have prompted backlash from NGOs, with 90 organisations signing a petition against the minister’s decisions. 

As an organisation with roots steeped in the freedom and civic movements of post-Cold-War Czechoslovakia, we are appalled to see the illiberal turn taken by the Slovak government. The Fico government’s proposal to impose a Russian-style foreign agents’ law is anathema to the shared goals of the Czech and Slovak people who fought to end the Russian subjugation of our homelands. This is of great concern and sadness to us at People in Need.  

https://www.peopleinneed.net/slovak-government-targets-ngos-with-proposed-foreign-agents-act-11299gp

On 21 March 2024, a large group of civil society organisations jointly called on the president of Kyrgyzstan, Sadyr Japarov, to veto the amendments to the Law on Non-commercial Organisations, known as the law on ‘foreign representatives’ which clearly violates the country’s international human rights obligations and would be a devastating blow the civil society. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/foreign-agent-law/]

We are writing to you on behalf of the undersigned civil society organisations from different countries to express support for Kyrgyzstan’s civil society and urge you to veto the amendments to the Law on Non-commercial Organisations, known as the law on ‘foreign representatives’, which parliament adopted on third reading on 14 March 2024. The proposed amendments fall seriously short of Kyrgyzstan’s international human rights obligations and risk delivering a devastating blow to its vibrant civil society. The amendments will impair civil society’s ability to carry out its important and legitimate work to the benefit of the people of Kyrgyzstan, and to promote public participation, transparency, accountability and good governance, thereby eroding democratic and human rights progress made by Kyrgyzstan with negative implications for its international reputation. Further, the proposed amendments will endanger international development and economic assistance programmes in the country, which will also undermine prospects for the achievement of sustainable development goals contrary to your government’s ambitious agenda in this area. Thus, we urge you to veto the amendments for the benefit of Kyrgyzstan and its people.

Both national and international human rights experts have concluded that the draft law on ‘foreign representatives’ clearly violates Kyrgyzstan’s international human rights obligations. For example, such conclusions were presented in a joint communication addressed to your government by three UN Special Rapporteurs, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, of which Kyrgyzstan currently is a member. The three rapporteurs stated: ‘many provisions in the proposed law would be contrary to the international human rights obligations of the Kyrgyz Republic, including the right to the freedom of association, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the right to non-discrimination and the right to privacy. If passed, this draft law could have a chilling effect on the operation of all associations in the Kyrgyz Republic, limiting their ability to advocate for human rights, provide social services, and contribute to the development of a robust and inclusive society.’

In an earlier legal assessment prepared at the request of Kyrgyzstan’s Ombudsperson, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) found that the proposed provisions lack legitimate justification and do not meet the requirements of international human rights law for acceptable restrictions on the right to freedom of association. ODIHR also stressed that the key concepts of ‘foreign representatives’ and ‘political activities’ used in the draft law are inconsistent with the principle of legal certainty and predictability and ‘would allow unfettered discretion on the part of the implementing authorities’. ODIHR further found that the proposed provisions are contrary to the principle of non-discrimination and risk stigmatising organisations carrying out legitimate work and triggering mistrust, fear and hostility against them.

The draft law on ‘foreign representatives’ does not only violate your country’s international obligations but also contradicts provisions of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic (including articles 36, 32, 24 and 29), which protect the right to freedom of association and other fundamental rights. In this way, the draft law challenges the legitimacy of the current Constitution, which was initiated by you and endorsed by citizens in a national referendum in 2021.

The proponents of the draft law on ‘foreign representatives’ have argued that it is aimed at ensuring the transparency of civil society organisations (CSOs). However, while transparency is an important issue, it is not a legitimate reason under international human rights law for imposing invasive, discriminatory, and stigmatising restrictions on CSOs. On the contrary, transparency can be ensured in ways that do not contradict international law nor hamper the work of CSOs. Moreover, all non-commercial organisations in Kyrgyzstan, including those that receive foreign funding, are already subjected to extensive state control and regularly report about their activities and finances to various state bodies, which ensures transparency of their work. In particular, amendments to the Law on Non-commercial Organisations, adopted in 2021, oblige non-commercial organisations to annually provide detailed information on their sources of funding, use of funds and assets for publication on the Tax Service’s website. This information is thus already publicly accessible.

Rather than increasing the transparency of non-commercial organisations, the draft law risks undermining civil society’s crucial role in assisting public bodies with the provision of support to vulnerable groups of the population, and also in promoting public sector transparency and accountability. Watchdog organisations have already warned of a significant decline in government transparency in Kyrgyzstan, preventing the exposure of wrongdoing and increasing the risk of corruption. This impairs foreign investments as well as economic growth and well-being in the country.

Kyrgyzstan’s international partners have warned that the adoption of the law on ‘foreign representatives’ would negatively affect development assistance programmes in the country. For example, in a joint statement issued on 14 March 2024, the Delegation of the EU to the Kyrgyz Republic and the Embassies of Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States stated that the proposed provisions would ‘jeopardise our ability to provide assistance that improves the lives of the citizens and residents of the Kyrgyz Republic’. They stated that, if signed in its current form, the law ‘has the potential to hurt the most vulnerable who rely on the essential services – such as food, healthcare, and education – that non-profits and NGOs [non-governmental organisations] provide’. The UN Resident Coordinator in the Kyrgyz Republic pointed out that enacting the law would threaten civil society engagement in development initiatives and the achievement of UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Thus, the law contradicts the government’s aim of being among the top 30 countries in the realisation of SDGs by 2030.

The World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development have also stressed the importance that they attach to CSO engagement for the success of their in-country operations, when commenting on NGO concerns about the draft law’s potential impact on the activities of international financial institutions in Kyrgyzstan.

As you know, as a beneficiary of the General Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+), the Kyrgyz Republic is required to effectively implement international human rights conventions, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in return for trade benefits afforded by the EU. Thus, the adoption and enforcement of the law on ‘foreign representatives’ is likely to negatively affect these benefits. The European Commission’s recent GSP+ monitoring report on the Kyrgyz Republic highlighted shrinking space for civil society as a key area of concern and called for swift measures to reverse this negative trend in the light of the country’s ICCPR obligations. Moreover, in its resolution adopted in July 2023, the European Parliament called for a reassessment of Kyrgyzstan’s GSP+ benefits in view of recent developments, in particular draft legislation that runs counter to the country’s international human rights obligations.

We are aware that proponents of the draft law on ‘foreign representatives’ have argued that it is similar to the US Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). However, FARA differs from the proposed legislation in Kyrgyzstan in crucial respects. In particular, FARA is not targeted at non-commercial organisations that receive foreign funding. Instead, FARA requires persons who conduct certain activities ‘at the order’ or ‘under the direction or control’ of a foreign government or other foreign entity to register as an ‘agent of a foreign principal’ and periodically file supplementary information about their activities in this capacity. The purpose of FARA is to ensure the public disclosure of such information rather than to subject those registered under it to ongoing, invasive state control.

President Japarov, when you consider whether or not to sign the draft law on ‘foreign representatives’, you are deciding the fate of civil society in Kyrgyzstan. Will you opt for the path taken by authoritarian countries, where similar legislation has been used in campaigns to systematically dismantle independent civil society, with negative implications for the reputation, prosperity and well-being of these countries? Or for a more forward-looking, inclusive, and democratically-oriented approach under which CSOs are treated as important, respected partners who can work together with state bodies in addressing societal problems, and international partners retain their confidence in Kyrgyzstan’s commitment to sustainable development?

For the reasons outlined above, we urge you to refrain from signing the draft law on ‘foreign representatives’ and ensure that any new legislation impacting non-commercial organisations reflects Kyrgyzstan’s international human rights obligations and undergoes thorough and inclusive consultations with civil society, as well as national and international experts. When elaborating this type of legislation, it is crucial to take the opinions of CSOs directly affected by it into account.

Signed by the following organisations (listed in the order of signature):

International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR), Belgium

IDP Women Association Consent, Georgia

Norwegian Helsinki Committee

Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Hungary

Legal Policy Research Centre, Kazakhstan

Public Association “Dignity”, Kazakhstan

Netherlands Helsinki Committee

Civil Rights Defenders, Sweden

Protection of Rights without Borders NGO, Armenia

Swedish OSCE-network

Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly – Vanadzor, Armenia

Center for Civil Liberties, Ukraine

Public Verdict, Russia

Turkmen Helsinki Foundation, Bulgaria

Crude Accountability, USA

Freedom Files, Poland

Human Rights Center “Viasna”, Belarus

Center for Participation and Development, Georgia

Human Rights Defence Center Memorial, Russia

Civic Assistance Committee, Russia

Austrian Helsinki Association

Bulgarian Helsinki Committee

Human Rights Center (HRC), Georgia

Macedonian Helsinki Committee

Sova Research Center, Russia

Promo LEX Association, Moldova

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Poland

ARTICLE 19 Europe

FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

Amnesty International

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Kyrgyzstan-takes-page-from-Russia-in-pushing-foreign-agents-law