Protection International[PI] is recruiting an Advocacy Officer. The Advocacy Officer is part of a team of three, with a Media Production Officer and an Outreach and Communication Officer, and works from PI’s head office in Brussels with occasional overseas travel. PI uses advocacy, alongside research and capacity building, to achieve a three-fold mission: empower HRDs to protect themselves, bring authorities to fulfil their duty to protect and to make stakeholders do more and better for the protection of HRD.
The Advocacy Officer:
supports PI’s field presence in bringing change where we operate: identification of issues, opportunities and elaboration, capacity building and implementation of influencing strategies
analyses relevant developments and dynamics in the international context and elaborates the corresponding lobbying agenda for PI
makes PI’s work and impact visible for selected audiences
Qualifications
University degree in international relations, journalism, law, social sciences, or related studies
Minimum three years of relevant experience in crafting and implementing influencing strategies in the field of human rights; specific experience in the field of the protection of human rights defenders is highly desirable.
Experience living and working in Asia, Africa and/or Latin-America is advantageous
Ability to travel to other European countries and overseas, several times a year
Fluency in English is required. Fluency in Spanish, French, Arabic and Russian are assets
Knowledge of UN, European, Inter-American, Asian and/or African intergovernmental protection systems is an asset
It concerns a one-year, renewable contract with a four months’ probation period, governed by Belgian law. 30 hrs/week under flexible arrangement. Minimal relocation package. The applicant will need to obtain a Belgian work-permit. To apply send your résumé, cover letter and names and contact details of 3 references by 6 April 2014 to the following email: recruitment[at]protectioninternational.org, making mention of ‘Advocacy Officer’ in the subject line.
On 20 March 2014, human rights defender Mohamed Salah Mohamed was forcibly disappeared at Khartoum International Airport as he was traveling to a workshop in Tunisia. His family have not been provided with any information to his whereabouts.
Mohamed Salah Mohamed is actively involved in the mobilisation of Sudanese citizens to demand human rights and democracy. The human rights defender had attended the funeral of Ali Akabar, a student protester who was killed during a demonstration on 11 March 2014. During the memorial he had given a speech in which he named National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) officials who he claimed were directly responsible for the killing. According to sources, this is very likely to be the reason for his disappearance.
On 20 March 2014, Mohamed Salah Mohamed, for reasons of security, was accompanied by family and friends to the departures hall of Khartoum International Airport. They left the airport after receiving a message from his phone stating that he had boarded the aircraft. However, other individuals on the same flight later informed them that the human rights defender never boarded the plane. Later, the airline confirmed that he had never checked in. After spending four hours seeking information as to his whereabouts, Mohamed Salah Mohamed’s family were informed by an unofficial source that he had been arrested before he checked in. According to the source, he was kept at the airport for some time and was then taken to an unknown location.
On the morning of 21 March 2014, members of Mohamed Salah Mohamed’s family went to NISS headquarters in Khartoum to deliver clothes and personal items to the human rights defender, however they were told by a source in the political section that he was not in their custody and that they should “look for him elsewhere”. They were further advised to search in other NISS centres in Khartoum to obtain information regarding the human rights defender’s whereabouts.
Since the events of 11 March 2014, Mohamed Salah Mohamed’s family home in Khartoum has been monitored, with at least ten security guards spending the night in front of the house every night. On 15 March, the human rights defender’s brother was kidnapped by plain-clothed NISS agents metres from their home. The agents took him to a deserted location of the Alshagara neighbourhood in Khartoum, and there assaulted and robbed him. He was told that this was a message for his brother, Mohamed Salah Mohamed, and that both brothers “should be careful from the consequences of their actions” [sic].
Two human rights defenders in Sri Lanka – on whose arrest and release I reported last week – were banned from speaking to international media and ordered to give their sim cards and computers to police. Police told media personnel that this was because they were under investigation regarding an incident in Killinochi, the details of which cannot be made public [allegedly something to do with terrorism, a commonly used tactic by the Sri Lankan authorities]. https://thoolen.wordpress.com/tag/ruki-fernando/
This blog wants keep you informed of what happens to human rights defenders and on what they do to protect the rights of others. I have also a special interest in the power of images in this area. So, I draw your attention to “Multiple Exposure” a monthly video magazine broadcast by Front Line Defenders, now in its 5th episode. Segments in the series will offer a behind-the-scenes peek at the difficulty of carrying out human rights work in different countries; more information about trends and political developments that directly impact human rights; and profiles of individual human rights defenders at risk.
Episode 5 covers the finalists of the 2014 Front Line Defenders Award for Human Rights Defenders
United Arab Emirates: Dr Mohamed Al Roken – Finalist of the 2014 Front Line Defenders Award
Dr Mohamed Al Roken is a leading lawyer and human rights defender in the United Arab Emirates. Despite official hostility and restrictive laws designed to curtail human rights activities, Mohamed has remained a champion of the rule of law and respect for universal human rights.
Yesterday, 20 March 2014, there was a fierce debate in the UN Council of Human Rights where the issue of the right of NGOs to speak came up, more precisely whether accredited NGOs had the right to let speakers mention other NGOs who do not have such accreditation. In this case it was China taking exemption to the FIDH letting its member NGOs (including a pro Tibetan group) take the floor in its name. For more context see my post of yesterday: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/china-in-the-un-human-rights-council-manages-to-silence-cao-shunli-as-well-as-ngos/.
The Chair and Secretariat rightly spoke of a standing practice in this regards. One such precedent is 30 years old and probably lost to most observers, so I give here my own recollection of this story in the hope that someone with access to the UN files or a better memory can confirm or correct the details.
It is 1982 and the Working group on Disappearances (created in 1980 after a long struggle and with the active support from the then Director Theo van Boven)) is reporting to the Commission on Human Rights (the predecessor of the Council). The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), of which I was the Executive Secretary at the time, has lined up to speak. Read the rest of this entry »
(Cao Shunli, the Chinese activist who died in custody (c) Photograph: Reuters)
For those with an interest in how the UN Council deals with criticism – in this case of China – should follow the debate on the UN webcast (or see the video on demand later) [http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/25th-regular-session-of-the-human-rights-council/2178978642001/#]. What happened in short is that during the debate on the adoption of China’s UPR report on 20 March, the International Service of Human Rights (ISHR) called for a few moments of silence to remember Cao Shunli, the human rights defender who recently died in detention (see references below). China then invoked a point of order saying that speakers should make general statements and that did not include asking for silence. During a long procedural debate many views were expressed – mostly supportive of China – but some others clearly stating that freedom of speech included the right not to speak. The interpretation of the rules of procedure then seemed to lead to the conclusion that the UPR (Universal Periodic Review) should not be ‘politicized”….and that from the eminently political entities called Governments! Sensing that a majority would support it, China insisted on a ruling by the Chairman that this kind of intervention needs to be ruled out for the future. The big majority of States, fearing a ‘precedent-setting’, rejected even the compromise proposal by the Chair to discuss the issue further in the Bureau (at a later time) with a vote of 20 against 13 (and 12 abstentions). The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the second NGO to get the floor, then continued the request for a minute of silence for Cao Shunli. This was of course again interrupted. So, the Council ended up supporting China’s tough stance, in spite of several other NGOs and a few countries coming out with strong support for the moment of silence.
When the FIDH then let one its member organisations (including the Campaign Against Tibet) speak on its behalf, the Chinese delegation (perhaps emboldened by its earlier success) decided to interrupt again asking that the FIDH only identifies itself and not its members. This led to another procedural debate on whether NGOs with consultative status are allowed to mention other NGOs that have no such status (a standing practice I should add, which was established far back in the 80s when Argentina tried – in vain – to stop the ICJ from letting an Argentinian lawyer, Emilio Mignone, to speak about the disappearance of his own daughter).
Perhaps there will be further debate on these procedural aspects, but it is unlikely that the UPR comes out of this as a serious innovation in dealing with human rights violations.
Teenager in Pakistan who set herself on fire when the men who gang raped her were released after bribing the police.
Manipuri hunger striker Irom Sharmila, who has spent 14 years protesting the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), is released and re-arrested in what is now an annual ritual; Manipuri human rights defender Babloo Loitongbam further discusses the AFSPA in relation to the upcoming elections in India.
Basil Fernando talks about the arrests of human rights defenders in Sri Lanka, just as the UN Human Rights Council has proposed a new landmark resolution to investigate war crimes committed by both sides during the end of the war in Sri Lanka.
Kerala lawyer R.K Asha describes her police torture ordeal from her hospital bed.
A disturbing report from Thar district in Pakistan, where children are starving to death while the relief wheat meant for them remains unused and is rotting in storage.
In Voices of Survivors: this week we hear from Biman Bose in Assam, India, who has fought a decades-long battle for justice after brutal torture costing him his livelihood.
The bulletin can be watched online at AHRC YouTube. The AHRC welcomes both human rights feeds to be considered for weekly news bulletin and suggestions to improve the news channel: news[at]ahrc.asia.
The first comes from the Head of Iran’s Human Rights Council, Mohammad Javad Larijani, who in a 2-hour press conference rejected again any criticism and attacked the UN Rapporteur on Iran, Ahmed Shaheed, saying that his report was biased and filled with inaccurate reports and double standards.Larijani said that “he was turned into a media actor for propaganda against the Islamic Republic of Iran”. [from Iran rejects latest human rights report by the UN | Iran Pulse: Must-Reads from Iran Today.]
Dublin-based Front Line Defendersseeks to recruit staff and volunteers in an open and transparent manner and to increase cultural diversity within the Front Line Defenders staff. Therefore, all positions are advertised via its website. Due to the volume of requests, it is not possible to keep general applications or CVs on file but it will respond to all applications by email. Two posts are open at the moment:
Digital Security Consultant Southeast Asia region
Digital Security Consultant MENA region
Front Line is also looking for:
Regional internship: Middle East & North Africa, Arabic-speaking
Regional internship: Europe, Central Asia & Asia, Russian-speaking
Admin & Publications Internship
Regional Internship: Africa & Americas Internship, Portuguese speaking
Frank Jennings Internship 2014/2015 (in Dublin and Geneva)
Front Line Defenders Internship for postgraduate students of Peking University China (in Dublin)
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 