On Human Rights Day, FIDH reports that Chan Soveth, a prominent Cambodian human rights defender, has died at the early age of 51. He was a senior investigator at the Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC, a member organization of FIDH). “Chan Soveth was a voice for the voiceless. For decades, he selflessly worked for victims of human rights violations and abuses, in particular the poor and those living in remote areas, which ADHOC managed to reach out to”, said Karim Lahidji, FIDH President. “Soveth’s death is a great loss for his family, his colleagues and Cambodia’s human rights community, but the heritage of courage and commitment he left will last for generations”.
On many occasions, Soveth’s human rights work and personal commitment had caused him to be subjected to threats, intimidation and reprisals in the form of judicial harassment. In 2012, he had been forced to stay outside his country for several months. Upon his return, despite receiving another summon to appear before Cambodia’s flawed judicial system, and thus, despite the risk of being arbitrarily detained, he had decided to stay in Cambodia, amongst his fellow countrymen. Soveth relentlessly fought against human rights violations – from land grabbing and violations of people’s and communities’ rights to food, water or housing, to extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, torture, and violations of the rights to free expression and free assembly. He was not only a great investigator, trainer and human rights advocate, but also an inspiration to many. He was always eager to improve his impressive human rights and professional skills and to celebrate successes.
In mere 17 seconds Khadija Ismayilova,Azerbaijan’s leading investigative journalist and ardent government critic, shows courage and optimism in spite of her arrest. On 5 December 2014 (a few days before Human Rights Day) the Sabail District Court of Baku sent Ismayilova to two-months of pretrial custody, pending investigation on charges of allegedly driving someone to attempt suicide.
On the evening of 6 December, 2014, the Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) arrested Dr. Amin Mekki Medani, a renowned human rights activist, President of the Sudan Human Rights Monitor (SHRM) from his house in Khartoum. Dr Medani was arrested shortly after he returned from Addis Ababa. There are serious concerns for the safety of Dr. Medani who is 76 years of age and suffers from high blood pressure and diabetes. According to the information received, the NISS refused to allow him to take his medications with him when he was arrested.
The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders strongly denounces the arbitrary arrest and detention of Dr. Medani and considers it as a reprisal to sanction his legitimate human rights activities. [On December 3, 2014 Dr. Medani signed the “Sudan Call”, on behalf of civil society organisations. The “Sudan Call” is a Declaration on the “Establishment of a State of Citizenship and Democracy”, under which co-signatories committed to work towards the end of the conflicts raging in different regions of Sudan and towards legal, institutional and economic reforms. The Declaration, which commits signatories to end wars and conflicts as a priority, was co-signed in Addis Ababa by representatives from political and armed opposition parties, including the National Umma Party, the National Consensus Forces and the Sudan Revolutionary Front. Dr. Medani co-signed the Sudan Call on behalf of the Civil Society Initiative.]
Six prominent human rights defenders who participated in the ICJ’s Geneva Forum 2014 give their views on judicial protection of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) as well as on what needs to be changed to address obstacles to guarantee an effective remedy for victims of violations of their socio-economic rights:
Brussels-based Protection International‘s Focus Report provides detailed monitoring of developments in the field ofnationalpublic policy on the protection of Human Rights Defenders. This year’s edition of Focus highlights the renewed interest in adopting legal instruments for the protection if HRDs in Latin America (in Honduras and Guatemala) and in Sub-Saharan Africa (in Côte d’Ivoire, Burundi and Mali).
The report (second year running) draws attention to the recent publication of guidelines on the protection of HRDs by OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). The work of several Latin American civil society organisations (CSOs) that have presented cases concerning murdered HRDs before the regional mechanisms has been of great value. These efforts have led to the development of jurisprudence by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Finally, this edition includes contributions by external collaborators:
the Preface, prepared by Michel Forst, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders;
an analysis of advances in the field of protection in the Americas, by Jesús Orozco H., President of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) and Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders;
an overview of the topic in Africa by Reine Alapini Gansou, the Commissioner and Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders of the African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR); and
contributions by representatives of local CSOs in Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, countries that have pioneered the effective implementation of public policies for the protection of HRDs.
PI hopes to enrich the discussions on the adoption of appropriate policies in countries where they do not exist and to help authorities and civil society organisations implement them where they do.
On 1 December 2014 a group of 7 NGOs (Amnesty International, Digitale Gesellschaft, International Federation for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, Open Technology Institute (at New America), Privacy International, Reporters sans frontieres) sent an Open Letter to the “Wassenaar Arrangement” (for what this is see link at the end). The key issue is that the alarming proliferation of surveillance technologies available to repressive countries adversely affects political activists, human rights defenders, refugees, dissidents and journalists.
Here is the text of the letter:
“We, the undersigned organisations, call upon the 41 Governments that compose the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies, to take action and address the alarming proliferation of surveillance technologies available to repressive countries involved in committing systematic human rights violations. This trade results in unlawful surveillance, which often leads to further human rights violations including invasions of privacy, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the silencing of free expression, preventing political participation, and crushing offline and online dissent.
Surveillance technologies are not simply harmless tools. In the wrong hands they are often used as a tool of repression. Evidence is continuing to reveal the extent of this secretive trade that puts countless individuals at direct risk from human rights abusing governments. More and more stories emerge showing these damaging and often unlawful technologies affecting political activists, human rights defenders, refugees, dissidents and journalists, with some technologies placing entire populations under surveillance. Governments with internationally condemned human rights records such as Bahrain, Ethiopia, Egypt, Turkmenistan, Libya, Syria and Iran have all purchased surveillance technologies from private companies, and have used them to facilitate a variety of human rights violations. Some revelations in France, Germany, the UK, and the US have led to police and judicial investigations following calls from NGOs and members of the Coalition Against Unlawful Surveillance Exports. Remarkably and despite mounting evidence of associated abuses, surveillance technology companies still openly market their products at ‘trade fairs’ across the UK, France, US, Brazil and the UAE among other countries.
Although steps were taken in 2013 to address this largely unregulated global market, governments cannot let the momentum halt. Governments have now included additional technologies associated with intrusion software and IP monitoring to the Lists of Dual Use Goods and Technologies and Munitions, and are aware of the impact surveillance technologies can have on human rights. There is now a pressing need to modernise out of date export controls. In addition, technologies such as undersea fibre-optic cable taps, monitoring centres, and mass voice / speaker recognition technologies urgently need to be examined for their impact on human rights and internal repression, particularly when the end user is a government known for committing human rights violations. Technologies evolve at a rapid pace and governments that abuse human rights take advantage of weak regulation, the product of poor understanding of the technologies and their capabilities.
In the current system, human rights and digital rights groups, as well as external independent experts, are excluded from contributing their expertise and knowledge to the Wassenaar Arrangement forum. The additional expertise and knowledge that civil society can bring to the debate is invaluable to this end. Discussions should not continue in a closed-forum manner and we urge governments to engage with civil society organisations to help ensure that accurate and effective controls are developed which reflect modern technological developments and do not impede legitimate scientific and security research.
Any export policy relating to surveillance technologies should place human rights at its heart. Governments must exercise a strict policy of restraint and should refuse to grant export licenses for surveillance technology destined for end-users in countries where they are likely to be used in an unlawful manner i.e. not compliant with human rights legal standards. Governments should consider the weakness or absence of an appropriate legal framework in the recipient country to ensure the transfer would not pose a substantial risk of the items being used to violate or abuse human rights. Governments should also be transparent in what they export, and to whom and support the development of an international legal framework to address the sale and trade of surveillance technologies.”
The Wassenaar Arrangement (41 participating States) has been established in order to contribute to regional and international security and stability, by promoting transparency and greater responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies, thus preventing destabilising accumulations. Participating States seek, through their national policies, to ensure that transfers of these items do not contribute to the development or enhancement of military capabilities which undermine these goals, and are not diverted to support such capabilities.
Coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the UN Convention against torture, the OMCT HAS launched its Campaign “10 Days of Activism against torture and ill-treatment” from the 1st to the 10th of December 2014. This is the first episode figuring human rights defender Adilur Rahman Khan, from Bangladesh. He was one of the 3 final nominees of the MEA 2014.
The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (joint programme of OMCT and FIDH) has, since 2013, launched more than 500 urgent interventions on more than 60 countries. Its 2014 Annual Report came out today in the context of the 3rd UN Forum on Business and Human Rights and focuses on “land rights defenders” who are increasingly the target of repressive measures. The pressure on land has become unbearable and mobilisation for the respect of the economic, social and cultural rights of affected communities has become a high risk activity.
Between 2011 and 2014, the Observatory documented 43 assassination cases targeting land rights defenders and the judicial harassment of 123 defenders, sometimes together with their arbitrary detention. These figures only reflect a small fraction of the real picture. All regions in the world are concerned, Asia and Latin America being the most affected. The Observatory found that authors of repression are often the police, the military, private security agents and “henchmen”. Their objective being to silence dissenting voices likely to slow down investment projects.
In addition to violence, numerous States also use judicial harassment and arbitrary detention to intimidate defenders. Thanks to laws that violate fundamental freedoms or in violation of their own laws, they jail any person deemed to be a nuisance. “Terrorism”, “misleading propaganda”, “infringement to State security”, “public unrest”, there are many abusive charges which can result in heavy prison terms.
Land rights defenders are often powerless when they face physical attacks and arbitrary arrests. According to the Observatory, 95% of violations against them remain unpunished today. Judicial bodies in countries where such violations occur are characterised by a lack of independence, resources and expertise. Regarding the possibility of prosecuting business corporations responsible for human rights violations, the legal battle – if any – is often lengthy, perilous, unequal and costly.
At the heart of the problem lies the issue of the participation of individuals and communities affected by the development policies and investment projects. The Observatory calls for meaningful consultations that ensure the direct participation of populations affected by the projects and the recognition of land rights defenders as the legitimate spokespersons in order to prevent conflicts and put an end to serious human rights violations. Furthermore, it is necessary to strengthen the capacity and independence of domestic judicial systems, including in States hosting the headquarters of business corporations, in order to allow defenders to access justice and seek redress in the event of human rights violations.
The Observatory also recommends to strengthen international law in order to trigger effectively the responsibility of business corporations when the latter commit human rights violations and to guarantee the adequate protection of land rights.
For the 3rd UN Forum on Business and Human Rights (going on at the moment), ISHR published also an article by Alejandra Ancheita, 2014 Martin Ennals Award Laureate and Executive Director of ProDESC. Women defenders and those working on business and human rights represent two groups facing particular risks yet, in Mexico, the State’s response is falling short, concludes Alejandra Ancheita in her article:
“The challenges and risks that human rights defenders (HRDs) are facing in Mexico and other Latin American countries are diverse and growing daily in the absence of comprehensive State action to address this situation. The inadequate response of the Mexican government to the hundreds of cases of attacks and intimidation has become evident in various spaces. For instance in the recent Universal Periodic Review of the United Nations, the Mexican State received 24 recommendations on the situation of human rights defenders and journalists in the country, whilst the Protection Mechanism for Human Rights Defenders and Journalists, in the Interior Ministry, has received 130 applications for protection. Its response has been insufficient, particularly for those groups of defenders who face particular and heightened risks. As a woman human rights defender who works on issues related to business and the environment, I ought to know.……
Importantly, the fact that women human rights defenders face specific threats has been well established. However, existing protection mechanisms have not yet adjusted to incorporate this reality into their functioning, thus leaving women defenders vulnerable to gender-specific threats and aggressions. This is a global phenomenon and, in over 15 years as a human rights defender in Mexico, I have personally suffered violations of my human rights because of my gender and numerous colleagues have found themselves in the same situation.….
Integral security for women defenders must also seek to transform public opinion to understand and support our work. The first step in this regard is for States to recognize that working to defend certain rights can make women HRDs particularly vulnerable, for example by working on indigenous land rights in Latin America. Public statements made by public officials on the importance of our role and the legitimacy of our work are key. Authorities must investigate and punish those responsible for statements that seek to defame or attack defenders or delegitimize their work, even when such statements are made by non-State actors like community leaders or company representatives. Given the severe impact inflammatory statements have on women defenders’ work and wellbeing, they must be treated as aggressions in and of themselves.…..
In the vast majority of countries there are no specific mechanisms in place to protect human rights defenders. Where mechanisms have been created they are often hindered by operational failings, a lack of financial or human resources, the absence of gender-sensitivity, limited options for collective or community measures, and absent political will…..
As my work is based in Mexico, and due to my incorporation into the Federal Protection Mechanism for human rights defenders and journalists last year, this is the Mechanism I am best-placed to comment on. One very positive aspect of the mechanism is that four of the nine members of the decision-making body come from civil society. However, the Mechanism is also faced with several challenges.
The Mechanism falls short in the preventative aspect. Recently, various actors including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the CEDAW Committee have highlighted impunity for violations against women defenders as the greatest obstacle in improving their safety. In spite of this concern, the law establishing the Mechanism does not guarantee the adequate investigation and prosecution of perpetrators.
The Mechanism also fails to incorporate a gender perspective to better understand the situation facing women HRDs. I believe that the Mexican authorities have the opportunity to set best practices in this regard, by providing gender-sensitive training to staff and by developing gender indicators to guide the granting, planning and implementation of protection measures.
Mexican authorities responsible for the Mechanism must also effectively involve defenders in the design and implementation of protection measures, as well as conducting risk assessments in a more transparent way. This is particularly important in the case of defenders working on issues that impact upon private actors such as business, or those defending land rights in isolated communities. Finally, cooperation and coordination between federal, state and local authorities in the implementation of protection measures need to drastically improve……..”
