As readers of this blog know I would have readily reported on any developments surrounding the MEA especially since the Final Nominees 2013 were announced recently. A few days ago a controversy arose around the nomination of Mona Seif, the courageous Egyptian human rights defender who was selected because of her campaign against military trials for civilians. UN Watch, an NGO affiliated to the American Jewish Committee, and famous for its strident monitoring of anything that smacks of criticism of Israel, accused Mona Seif of being a terrorist sympathizer on the basis of 3 older tweets in which she strongly defended the right of Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation. The organisation started a twitter campaign to have Mona recalled as nominee.
Mona Seif, Egypt – Final Nominee MEA 2013
The problem is that I am – in a personal capacity – the Chair of the Jury which is composed of ten of the world’s leading human rights NGOs (see list http://www.martinennalsaward.org). I am a non-voting chair whose only role is to facilitate the process and I do not participate in the selection. The board of the Martin Ennals Foundation also has no role in the selection as the Statutes provide for a fully independent Jury. Only the NGOs on the Jury can vote on the recipient of the MEA. Still, I feel that my capacity of Chair of the Jury obliges me to show restraint in speaking out.
Sometimes my eyes fall on more esoteric contributions to the protection of human rights defenders. Let me share with you Mark Laham’s blog post for the Huffington Times of the 1st of May 2013 which calls for a “borderless” one-hour live online yoga class in honour of Nasrin Sotoudeh, the Iranian lawyer in jail, recipient of the Sakharov Award and Nominee of the MEA 2012. Mark got inspired – through AI – by what he read about Nasrin’s struggle and other brave human rights defenders around the world. “How does Nasrin’s story make you feel?” he asks, ” Me, I…I feel the need to do something that will create positive change for this woman and countless others like her.Read the rest of this entry »
reports that on 22 April 2013 the Committee Against Torture (CAT) is the next NGO received a letter of warning from the local Prosecutor’s Office. The letter alleges that CAT is violating the controversial new ‘Foreign Agents’ Law, which states that any Russian NGO involved in political activity and receiving foreign funding must register as a foreign agent.
CAT processes complaints about torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, carries out public investigations, represents the victims’ interests in court and before investigative bodies, and provides assistance with obtaining compensation. The letter from the Prosecutor’s Office states that CAT receives funds from sources outside of Russia, information which is freely available on CAT’s website. The letter also states that CAT has taken part in certain public events, unidentified in the letter, which the authorities consider to be political. According to the authorities, therefore, CAT should have registered as a foreign agent. Read the rest of this entry »
This video accompanies a new 78-page report, “Laws of Attrition: Crackdown on Russia’s Civil Society after Putin’s Return to the Presidency, which describes some of the changes since Putin returned to the presidency in May 2012. The authorities have introduced a series of restrictive laws, begun a nationwide campaign of invasive inspections of nongovernmental organizations, harassed, intimidated, and – in a number of cases – imprisoned political activists, and sought to cast government critics as clandestine enemies. The report analyzes the new laws, including the so-called “foreign agents” law, the treason law, and the assembly law, and documents how they have been used. Many of the new laws and the treatment of civil society violate Russia’s international human rights commitments, Human Rights Watch said.
In spite of protests by many NGOs and Governments around the world (including earlier posts in this blog), Russia seems bent on pursuing its idea of requiring all organisations which receive foreign funding and are engaged in political activity to register as ‘foreign agents’ [‘Foreign Agents’ Law of 21 November 2012] . After the passing of the law, GOLOS, Memorial and the Joint Mobile Group (just made the Final Nominee of the MEA 2013) and many other organisations declared that out of principle they would not register as ‘foreign agent’.
Yesterday, 25 April 2013, the Russian election watchdog GOLOS became the first NGO to be fined. The decision was taken by the Presnensky Court of Moscow. GOLOS is a Russian non-profit organisation which was founded in 2000 for the protection of voters’ rights and the development of civil society. The court found that GOLOS had been receiving foreign funding, thereby implying that it considered the 2012 Andrei Sakharov Freedom Award as such, despite testimony given by a representative of Norwegian Helsinki Committee who confirmed that GOLOS actually refused to receive the 7700$. The court also found that the advocacy work of GOLOS aimed at the introduction of amendments to the Electoral Code constitute ‘political activity’. The law does not define political activity, the precise definition of which depends on state officials’ interpretation. The court ruled that GOLOS and its executive director Lilya Shibanova failed to comply with the obligation to register as a ‘foreign agent’ and fined them 300,000 roubles (approximately €7500) and 100,000 roubles (approximately €2500) respectively. They intend to appeal the decision.
And on 24 April Front Line Defenders reported that the Russian NGO ‘Man and the Law’ has been warned under the same Foreign Agents Law. Man and the Law, which is based in the Mari-El Republic in Russia, received a warning from the local Prosecutor’s Office re ‘political activity’, evidence for which has allegedly been found in their Charter and on their website. Man and the Law is a local non-governmental organisation which monitors local officials’ and civil servants’ compliance with human rights standards. The NGO also works on prisoners’ rights and monitors detention facilities and organises seminars and workshops for local officials, especially from the Federal Penitentiary Service. The warning also states that the latest inspection of the organisation revealed foreign sources of funding, in which case Man and the Law should have registered as a foreign agent.
The Martin Ennals Award has from the beginning used film images to portray the work of human rights defenders. Most you can find through http://www.martinennalsaward.org or on:
In its 2013 Annual Report, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders focuses on a new setback impeding the work of human rights defenders. Access to funding, in particular foreign funding, is increasingly being hindered by governments, whose primary intentions are to silence human rights defenders. The Report of the Observatory, a joint programme of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), provides a global review of the violations of NGOs’ right to funding via various forms of restrictions imposed by States. It provides a detailed picture of this as yet insufficiently studied problem. This analysis is illustrated by concrete cases in 35 countries.
As also highlighted by Maina Kiai, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, in the Foreword to the Report, “The topic of this year’s Report is most pertinent as lately we have witnessed increased stigmatization and undue restrictions in relation to access to funding and resources for civil society organizations, in an attempt to stifle any forms of criticism […]”.
Based on the legal framework surrounding the right to access to funding and the embryonic jurisprudence on this subject, the Report seeks to foster an in-depth analysis of the negative impacts of these restrictive measures, and addresses recommendations to all stakeholders – beneficiaries, donors, governments and intergovernmental organisations.
Two of the three Final Nominees of the MEA this year (in Egypt and Russia) have to deal with these kind of restrictions.
The Martin Ennals Jury just announced today (at 11h00 local time) the three Final Nominees for the Martin Ennals Award 2013. The MEA is the main award of the whole human rights movement thanks to its international Jury composed of 10 well-known human rights organisations (see below). The aim of the award is to provide protective publicity. The Final Nominees are:
Mona Seif, Egypt – Final Nominee MEA 2013
Mona Seif, Egypt: Core founder of the ”No To Military Trials for Civilians”, a grassroots initiative which is trying to stop military trials for civilians. Since February 2011, Mona has brought together activists, lawyers, victims’ families,local stakeholders and started a nationwide movement against military trials. As part of the recent crackdown on the freedom of speech in Egypt she has been charged along with other Human Rights activists. She noted that “International solidarity, and I mean people’s support not governments’, empowers us to continue our battle and stop military trials for civilians“.
reports that on 18 April 2013, on his second day in custody at Kashimpur Central Jail, human rights defender Mahmudur Rahman was moved from judicial custody to Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University due to severe torture which reportedly included the hammering of nails into his flesh and bone as well as electric shock treatment. Mahmudur Rahman is an editor of the newspaper Daily Amardesh, which was closed by police without a court order on 11 April 2013, the same day the human rights defender was arrested. As an editor of the Daily Amardesh, Mahmudur Rahman has published articles exposing corruption scandals of high profile ruling party politicians including the Prime Minister and her family members. He also denounced the killing of 172 civilians by police during government clashes with the opposition last February. Despite the closure of the Daily Amardesh, the Interim Chairperson, Mrs Mahmuda Begum, made arrangements to print at an alternative press, however this was forbidden by the District Magistrate and 19 people were arrested at the press on 14 April 2013.
The torture reportedly took place whilst Mahmudur Rahman was in custody at the Detective Branch of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police. He was detained under police remand for six days before being handed over to judicial remand on 17 April 2013. The human rights defender had been on hunger strike in custody to protest his illegal detention, torture, and the arrest of his colleagues following the closure of the Daily Amardesh. A petition was filed to the High Court Division Bench on 18 April 2013 challenging the decision to send Mahmudur Rahman to police remand. The human rights defender’s lawyers argued that placing him in police remand without adequate measures in place to ensure his physical health violates the High Court’s directives concerning pre-trial detention. Mahmudur Rahman suffers from a heart condition which can be fatal if untreated. When the human rights defender was escorted into court to hear the petition, eye witnesses said that he had fresh wounds on his legs, blood stains on his clothes and that he found it difficult to sit down.
Front Line Defenders believes that the arrest and reported torture in detention of Mahmudur Rahman are related to his work in defence of human rights and denouncing government corruption in Bangladesh (see earlier appeal http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/2561 of 10 November 2010.
I have on earlier occasions tried to point out that there is a (big) difference between peace awards and human rights awards. This time it is Dan Murphy in the Christian Science Monitor, who points to another example. While it could be argued that Myanmar President U Thein Sein deserves to be praised for having made bold steps to move his country away from repression and conflict, he human rights record in the past and [as Human Rights Watch argues in a recent report) in the present would not be considered by many as a likely candidate for a human rights award.
The International Crisis Group’s plan to give its “In Pursuit of Peace” award to Myanmar President U Thein Sein later today and a new Human Rights Watch report on ethnic cleansing against ethnic Rohingya form such striking contrast, that Murphy wonders if Human Rights Watch timed the report to coincide with the gala party that the International Crisis Group (ICG) is planning to host for President Thein Sein later today at the swanky Pierre Hotel in New York City, and with a scheduled lifting of all but arms sanctions against Myanmar (also known as Burma) from the European Union.
