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)
On 17 March 2014 UAE human rights defender Mr Osama Al-Najjar was arrested as he returned home from visiting his father in prison. Front Line Defenders states that he was held at his home for approximately three hours before being brought to an unknown location by state security forces. No charges have been brought against the human rights defender thus far. Osama Al-Najjar is the son of one of the so-called UAE94 – 94 individuals including human rights defenders sentenced to 7 to 15 years imprisonment on charges of attempting to overthrow the government. Osama Al-Najjar’s father is serving eleven years in prison. The son lobbies for detainees’ rights and disseminates information regarding conditions and ill-treatment particularly via social media websites. He has also appeared on television and given talks on the case of the UAE94. It is alleged that this arrest is directly related to his online activism.
[On 16 March 2014 Osama Al-Najjar responded, on Twitter, to remarks made by the Ruler of Sharjah during a radio interview that families of the UAE94 should not fill their children with hate and malice against the country. The human rights defender tweeted, “your highness, the doctor, we do not hate our country and we do not forget injustice we faced even if our mothers forgot it. Those who were unjust to my father carry 20 months of unfair jail and harassment on their conscience”]
On Monday 17 March, I reported on a clampdown on human rights defenders in Sri Lanka which looked very much like reprisals (https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/sri-lanka-champion-retaliator-against-human-rights-defenders/). Fortunately, Front Line Defenders reports today that the human rights defenders Ruki Fernando and Reverend Praveen Mahesan were released from detention. They had been detained on 16 March 2014 when visiting the Killinochchi district after the arrest of human rights defender Ms Balendran Jayakumari. She remains in detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/25400).
A draft resolution promoting reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in Sri Lanka is being discussed at the United Nations Human Rights Council. The proposed resolution calls for, among other things, the Office of the High Commissioner, “To lead a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka and establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes committed with the view to avoiding impunity and ensuring accountability with assistance from relevant experts”.
While the whole of the Syrian population suffers terribly, it is important to recognize that human rights defenders, activists, media and humanitarian workers have been particularly targeted for their work since the beginning of the Syrian uprising three years ago. Many have been arrested or abducted by either government forces and pro-government militias or by non-state armed groups. The channels for obtaining reliable information are drying up and that is certainly not a coincidence.
Now several international NGOs such as Amnesty International, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network, FIDH, Frontline Defenders, Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders have come together to work jointly, with other international, regional and Syrian organizations, to campaign for the release of these Silenced Voices of Syria. The campaign is starting with the documentation of 37 emblematic cases.
This campaign will use a three-pronged strategy of 1. Research and Documentation, 2. Information/Sensitisation and 3/ Mobilization.
Today, 14 March, Amnesty International brought out a statement severely criticizing China‘s treatment of human rights defenders in need of medical care. Cao Shunli, 52, died from organ failure on Friday at a hospital in Beijing, after five months in detention. Repeated requests by Cao’s family for her to receive medical treatment for serious health problems were denied.[ https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/serious-concern-for-health-of-detained-human-rights-defender-cao-shunli/]
“Cao Shunli’s death exposes just how callous and calculating the Chinese authorities are prepared to be to silence critics. The authorities today have blood on their hands.” said Anu Kultalahti, China Researcher at Amnesty International. “Cao Shunli was a courageous woman who paid the ultimate price for the fight for human rights in China. She should have never been detained in the first place; but to then deny her the medical treatment she desperately needed is a most barbaric act.”
Cao had led attempts to allow activists to contribute to China’s national human rights report, ahead of a UPR review at the UN Human Rights Council in 2013 and was arrested in September as she attempted to travel to Geneva to attend a human rights training course. Her detention was seen by many as a reprisal for her wanting to contribute to a public discussion on violations in China – the charges against her concerned “picking quarrels and making trouble” . The full Council is expected to hear the result of the UPR session on Wednesday 19 March. It will be interesting to see how the States and in particular China is going to react to this tragic event.
