This week, the UN Human Rights Council adopted its annual resolution on human rights defenders. The resolution, led by Norway and Ireland, was co-sponsored by 74 nation-states and adopted by consensus. The new emphasis – in line with the latest report by the departing Rapporteur, Margaret Sekaggya – is on the importance of domestic law and administrative provisions which protect human rights defenders from criminalization, stigmatization, impediments, and obstructions contrary to international human rights law. The misuse of national security and counterterrorism legislation to crackdown on human rights defenders is also explicitly warned against. The resolution explicitly refers to the impact of how a country’s laws can be used by a government to further or impede the work of human rights defenders within the country.
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.
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.]
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.
In March, Margaret Sekaggya will finish her term as the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders. For more than five years the Ugandan Margaret Sekaggya has served the mandate with dedication and commitment, and has played an integral role in promoting the work of and furthering protection for human rights defenders around the world.
Also it has been announced that the new Special Rapporteur will be Michel Forst , from France.
He is a lawyer by training and the Secretary General of the Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme de la Republique Française. From 2008 – 2013, he was the Independent Expert of the United Nations on the situation of human rights in Haiti. He was Director General of Amnesty International in France and worked in the human rights department of UNESCO. Mr. Forst is also a founding trustee of Front Line Defenders.
In short, Margaret Sekaggya did a great job – like her predecessor Hina Jilani – and the credentials of the new Rapporteur give all reason to hope that the level of knowledge and commitment will be maintained. Glad to report something good coming out of the Council!
“States that commit or tolerate reprisals against #HRDs for cooperation with #UN should loose their voting rights says@thoolen“ is what Michael Ineichen twitted about my intervention in a meeting in Geneva organized by the ISHR. on 11 March. And that is basically correct. However, a bit more explanation of my rather ‘extremist position’ may be in order:
The topic of reprisals against persons who cooperate (as witnesses) with the UN and its various office holders has been raised by many, including this blog. [see: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/protecting-human-rights-defenders-from-reprisals-crucial-issue-with-timely-article-and-side-event-on-24-september/ and https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/conclusions-of-side-event-on-reprisals-against-human-rights-defenders/.] When at the very well-attended side event organized by the International Service for Human Rights in the margin of the UN Council of Human Rights, the issue of reprisals came up again, I said that the international community is perhaps a bit too timid in its reaction to the increase in reprisals against Human Rights Defenders who testify to or cooperate with the United Nations. I stated that ‘messing with witnesses’ is considered by judges in almost all legal systems as an extremely grave thing. Or taking another analogy from legal thinking: a crime is considered a ‘qualified crime’ or ‘aggravated crime’ (and punished more severely) when certain circumstances are present, including when there is a dependency link between the victim and the perpetrator (think of murder or rape by the a custodian, a teacher or a doctor).
The resolution establishing the new Human Rights Council – replacing the previous Commission – states that “members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.” And one of the novelties touted was that the General Assembly, via a two-thirds majority, can suspend the rights and privileges of any Council member that it decides has persistently committed gross and systematic violations of human rights during its term of membership.
The chilling effect that reprisals can have – especially when met with impunity – is potentially extremely damaging for the whole UN system of human rights procedures and will undo the slow but steady process of the last decades. Taken together with the above-mentioned seriousness of the aggravating character of reprisals, a powerful coalition of international and regional NGOs could well start public hearings with the purpose of demanding that States that commit reprisal be suspended.
If States can lose their right to vote in the General Assembly if they do not pay their fees for several years, there is in fact nothing shocking in demanding that States, who persecute and intimidate human rights defenders BECAUSE they cooperate with the United Nations, are not allowed to take part in the proceedings of the UN human rights body.
He is a lawyer by training and the Secretary General of the Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme de la Republique Française. From 2008 – 2013, he was the Independent Expert of the United Nations on the situation of human rights in Haiti. He was Director General of Amnesty International in France and worked in the human rights department of UNESCO. Mr. Forst is also a founding trustee of Front Line Defenders.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 