The Zimbabwean authorities must immediately release human rights defenders who have been arbitrarily detained for over two weeks and drop charges against them, independent human rights experts said on15 August 2024.
Woman human rights defender Namatai Kwekweza, teacher and labour rights defender Robson Chere, the Secretary-General of Amalgamated Rural Teachers Union of Zimbabwe (ARTUZ), along with local councilor for Harare Ward 5, Samuel Gwenzi, were forcibly removed from a departing flight at Harare Airport on 31 July 2024. Unidentified men escorted the three to a high security zone within the airport and held them incommunicado for eight hours. During this time, the three were reportedly subjected to enforced disappearance, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including waterboarding. Additionally, they were severely threatened against protesting in advance of or during the Southern African Development Community (SADC) summit scheduled for 17 to 19 August 2024 in Harare.
“The enforced disappearance, incommunicado detention and torture, followed by the arbitrary detention of these human rights defenders is inexcusable, and not only violates international human rights law but also makes a mockery of the safeguards contained in Zimbabwe’s own Constitution,” the experts said.
The experts said, “These baseless charges are being used as a fig-leaf to target human rights defenders and opposition voices for calling for greater democracy, human rights and accountability in Zimbabwe. At a time when Zimbabwe is preparing to host the SADC summit, whose values include institutions that are “democratic, legitimate, and effective”, it is unconscionable that these human rights defenders working to strengthen such institutions remain arbitrarily detained.”
The release of the human rights defenders on bail has been opposed by the prosecutor and a further bail hearing has been scheduled for 16 August 2024. The experts have been in touch with the Government of Zimbabwe on the issue.
In response, Zimbabwean Government Spokesperson Ndavaningi Mangwana asserted on X (formerly Twitter) that Zimbabwe is a sovereign nation and will not tolerate interference in its internal affairs. Mangwana stated, “No country’s sovereignty can be compromised! The rule of law must be upheld within each nation’s borders. Even the United Nations Human Rights Council cannot interfere with the implementation of a country’s laws. Respect for sovereignty is paramount!”
The General Assembly received the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor.
In the report, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor, highlights the contributions made by human rights defenders to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. In the report, she demonstrates that, across every one of the 17 Goals, human rights defenders are placing human rights at the core of sustainable development and, in doing so, are assisting States in their responsibility to leave no one behind. The Special Rapporteur highlights that this work is being made more difficult by increasing restrictions on the right to defend rights.
UN experts called on the Tunisian authorities to respect the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection of Sihem Bensedrine, who was arrested on 1 August 2024.
“In a context marked by the suppression of numerous dissenting voices, the arrest of Ms Bensedrine raises serious concerns about the respect of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in Tunisia and has a chilling effect on journalists, human rights defenders and civil society in general,” the experts said.
Bensedrine is the former President of the Truth and Dignity Commission (TVD) which documented the crimes committed under previous regimes, and a journalist who has long denounced human rights violations in the country.
Since 2021, she has been involved in a judicial investigation into the alleged falsification of a chapter in the TVD´s final report regarding corruption in the banking system. The independent human rights experts have already held discussions with the Tunisian government concerning this investigation.
“This arrest could amount to judicial harassment of Ms Bensedrine for work she has undertaken as President of the Truth and Dignity Commission,” the experts said. “It appears to be aimed at discrediting information contained in the Commission’s report, which could give rise to legal proceedings against alleged perpetrators of corruption under the previous regimes.”
The Special Rapporteurs urged Tunisia to uphold its obligation to protect members of commissions of enquiry into gross human rights violations from defamation and civil or criminal proceedings brought against them because of their work, or the content of their reports.
“We call for strict respect for Ms Bensedrine’s right to judicial guarantees, including the right to a fair trial by due process, impartiality and independence, and for an end to abusive proceedings and reprisals against her.”
States have an obligation to pay UN membership dues in full and in time. The failure of many States to do so, often for politically motivated reasons, is causing a financial liquidity crisis, meaning that resolutions and mandates of the Human Rights Council cannot be implemented. This is a breach of legal obligations, a betrayal of victims and survivors of violations and abuses, and a waste of the time and resources we have collectively invested over the last 4 weeks. The cuts to Special Procedures’ activities, including fewer country visits and the cancellation of the annual meeting, greatly limit rights holders’ ability to engage with mandate holders and it hinders their access to situations on the ground, and their engagement with domestic authorities for human rights change. Pay your dues!
We deplore the double standards in applying international law and the failure of certain States to push for accountability and ending impunity for all atrocity crimes, when these involve geopolitical interests, despite the clear relevance to thematic principles they endorse. We also deplore initiatives and threats by some States to undermine or sanction the vital work of international justice and accountability bodies, including the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. This undermines the integrity of the framework, the legitimacy of this institution, and the credibility of those States. From Afghanistan to China, to Eritrea to Myanmar, to Palestine to Sri Lanka, to Sudan to Ukraine, resolving grave violations requires States to address root causes, applying human rights norms in a principled and consistent way. States promoting or supporting thematic resolutions must apply these same principles universally, including in their approach to country-specific issues. The Council has a prevention mandate and States have a legal and moral duty to prevent and ensure accountability and non-recurrence for atrocity crimes, wherever they occur. We urge all States to implement resolutions consistently, both nationally and internationally, and to align their actions with the universal human rights standards they claim to uphold, especially in responding to atrocity crimes. We urge States to enhance objective criteria for action, with predictable parameters, consistent actions and a demonstrable way forward to addressing human rights crises.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Expert Mechanism to Advance Racial Justice and Equality in the Context of Law Enforcement (EMLER) by consensus. We welcome the resolution’s request to strengthen the administrative and substantive support to the Mechanism, and to provide the resources necessary for it to effectively fulfill its mandate. This renewal is a recognition of the value of its unique work over the past three years, as well as the need for experts to continue investigating States’ law enforcement practices and their impact on Africans and Afrodescendant people and communities, including the legacies of colonialism and transatlantic slave trade in enslaved Africans. As recognised by the resolution, systemic racism particularly, against Africans and people of African descent needs a systemic response. In this regard, EMLER’s reports offer a powerful tool for much-needed transformation that governments everywhere should implement. We urge States to ensure full cooperation with EMLER towards the effective fulfillment of its mandate, including by implementing its recommendations and responding promptly to its requests for information and country visits.
This session was again marked by increasing attempts at retrogression on well-established human rights standards pertaining to sexual and reproductive rights and other thematic issues related to gender and sexuality. Nevertheless, civil society organisations continue to work together across movements to ensure the resilience of the multilateral system and the upholding of human rights standards. Out of the 26 draft resolutions presented this session, 5 had a stronger focus on gender and sexuality issues and took important steps in developing human rights standards in these areas. Specifically, we welcome the adoption of the resolution on HIV, the resumption of the tradition of adopting this resolution by consensus and the inclusion of a reference to sexual and reproductive health and rights. We welcome the adoption of the resolution on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and girls requesting human rights-based, gender-responsive and intersectional approaches to poverty reduction; while also expressing concern at the multiple attempts to weaken the resolution which the strongest human rights standards on women and girls are reflected, including through amendments. We also welcome the new resolution on Technology-facilitated gender-based violence, the procedural resolution on Accelerating progress towards preventing adolescent girls’ pregnancy and the resolution on menstrual hygiene management, human rights and gender equality.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on Eritrea, renewing the Special Rapporteur’s mandate.
The resolution on the situation of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities is essential to keep the situation of Rohingya high on the agenda of the Council. However, the resolution’s calls for repatriation of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar in the current context where remaining Rohingya in Myanmar are once again confronting the dire prospects of recurrence of grave atrocities they faced in 2016 and 2017 contradict and undermine the fundamental objectives of the resolution to ensure protection of Rohingya and to create conditions for their safe, voluntary, dignified and sustainable return.
We welcome that the Council decided to devote its annual resolution on climate change and human rights to address just transition. However, we regret that some fundamental points are missing in the resolution. The recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment by the Human Rights Council (res 48/13) and the General Assembly (res 76/300) has been a landmark achievement. Yet, we regret to see that once again, the resolution on human rights and climate change has failed to include this right more explicitly. Parties to the UNFCCC have already acknowledged that when taking action on climate change, States should respect, promote and consider the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, among other rights (decision 1/CP.27). This resolution also failed to call upon States to transition away from fossil fuels. As has been repeatedly stated by the UN Secretary General, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and several Special Rapporteurs, fossil fuels are the root cause of the triple planetary crisis, and the main driver of climate change. Despite the support expressed by numerous delegations, this resolution is deliberately silent in recognizing the positive, important, legitimate and vital role that environmental human rights defenders play in the promotion and protection of human rights and the environment. As recognized by the HRC resolution 40/11, EHRDs are one of the most exposed and at risk around the world. Many of these attacks include Indigenous Peoples and defenders raising concerns about climate related projects, transition minerals mining and renewal projects. We will not have a just transition in the context of climate change without listening and consulting EHRDs. It is time that the annual resolutions on human rights and climate change align itself to the recent developments and strongly reaffirm a commitment to effective, rights- and science-based climate action.
We welcome the Council’s continued efforts to address the human rights impacts of arms, including by highlighting human rights obligations of States and responsibilities of the arms industry and other businesses contributing to its operations. The adoption of the resolution on human rights and the civilian acquisition, possession and use of firearms is another significant contribution to these efforts. The OHCHR report requested by the resolution, —which will explore the root causes and risk factors of firearms-related violence and its impact on the enjoyment of the right to participation, particularly of individuals in vulnerable or marginalised situations, — presents a key opportunity to highlight critical concerns surrounding civilian firearms and their broader human rights impacts and to promote an effective response to these concerns.
We welcome a new resolution on freedom of opinion and expression, which rightly highlights how this right is an enabler for all other human rights and sustainable development. Among other key issues, the resolution has been updated to express concern at the growing trend of strategic lawsuits against public participation and calls on governments to adopt and implement measures to discourage such legal harassment. In this vein, it mandates a report and expert workshop to explore the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation. We urge all States committed to freedom of opinion and expression to co-sponsor and fully implement the commitments of the resolution.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on Independence and Impartiality of Judges and Independence of Lawyers, focusing on the use of Digital Technologies, including Artificial Intelligence. We welcome the inclusion of language addressing serious concerns relating to the potential negative impact on international fair trial standards, including equality of arms, confidentiality and the protection of legal professions, as well as risks connected to judicial independence and impartiality, the perpetration of existing stereotypes, discrimination or harmful biases. We also welcome the emphasis on the need to always ensure human oversight, scrutiny and accountability with respect to the use of artificial intelligence in the administration of justice.
We continue to deplore this Council’s exceptionalism towards serious human rights violations committed by the Chinese government. Despite China’s efforts to instrumentalise allied countries and GONGOs to portray itself as a constructive actor during its UPR adoption, NGO statements pointed to evidence of Beijing’s lack of willingness to engage in good faith with the UN system, including: a 30% rejection rate higher than its last UPR, acts of reprisals against civil society committed during the UPR cycle, disregard for calls from Western and Global South States to implement Treaty Body recommendations and to provide unfettered access to UN experts. We urge China to genuinely engage with the UN human rights system to enact meaningful reform, and ensure all individuals and peoples enjoy internationally protected human rights. Recommendations from the OHCHR Xinjiang report, UN Treaty Bodies, and UN Special Procedures chart the way for this desperately needed change. In the absence of genuine efforts, it is equally imperative that this Council establishes a monitoring and reporting mechanism on China as repeatedly urged by over 40 UN experts since 2020.
We regret that the Council failed to uphold its obligations to the Libyan people. We are concerned that the resolution on Libya falls short in addressing the urgent need to end impunity for widespread and serious human rights abuses across the country. It ignores the findings of the Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Libya, which documented likely war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by State security forces and armed militia groups, and recommended the creation of an independent international investigation mechanism. Moreover, the resolution overlooks the inability of OHCHR and UNSMIL to conduct capacity-building activities in much of Libya due to threats of violence and governmental non-cooperation. Additionally, it neglects the severe suppression of civil society through arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, abductions, social media monitoring, harassment, and other forms of intimidation.
We regret that the Council failed to adequately respond to the situation in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is not fit to sit at the Human Rights Council, as it is responsible for the commission of atrocity crimes, a pattern of reprisals against those who cooperate with the UN, and the repression of civil society. The human rights situation in the country is dire, with the criminalisation of women human rights defenders, arbitrary detention and the application of the death penalty, among other abuses. We call on all UN States at the General Assembly not to vote for Saudi Arabia in the upcoming HRC elections.
We regret that once more, civil society representatives faced numerous obstacles to accessing the Palais and engaging in discussions during this session, as well as continuing and worsening incidents of reprisals and transnational repression here in Geneva against those seeking to cooperate with the Council. We are concerned by the barriers imposed to access room XX and that the majority of informal consultations on resolutions were held exclusively in person. We remind UN member States, as well as UNOG, that the Council’s mandate, as set out in HRC Res 5/1, requires that arrangements be made, and practices observed to ensure ‘the most effective contribution’ of NGOs. We reiterate that an inclusive approach to participation requires that the UN addresses the limited space for civil society engagement. Undermining civil society access and participation not only undermines the capacities and effectiveness of civil society but also of the Council itself.
Signatories:
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
CIVICUS
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Right (EIPR)
FIDH
GIN SSOGIE – The Global Interfaith Network For People of All Sexes, Sexual Orientations, Gender Identities and Expressions
Right Livelihood’s advocacy team delivered a statement at the 56th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva calling for Member States to stop retaliating against environmental defenders. The statement highlighted the struggles of Right Livelihood Laureates from Cambodia, Kenya and Nicaragua, where activists leading the fight against climate change face unlawful arrests, armed attacks and police violence, among other forms of oppression, for their peaceful activities.
Right Livelihood Laureates from Cambodia, Nicaragua and Kenya who are leading the fight against climate change are being attacked by their governments, a concerning trend Right Livelihood says the Council has a responsibility to reverse.
Addressing the Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of human rights in the context of climate change, Right Livelihood asked, “How can the Council better address reprisals against environmental defenders playing a key role in the fight against climate change?”
Similarly, in Kenya, Laureate Phyllis Omido and her organisation the Center for Justice Governance and Environmental Action have been targeted by the government for organising against business interests that jeopardise the environment.
In May, Omido and local community leaders came under threat when police brutalised protestors for opposing a nuclear project in a biodiverse area between the Watamu National Marine Park and the Arabuko Sokoke Forest. Police fired 137 live rounds and 70 tear gas canisters.
“Investigations into such crimes are rare, and those speaking out face severe reprisals,” we told the Council.
Wefinished our statement by highlighting the situation in Nicaragua, where Indigenous communities protecting their land are attacked, forcefully displaced and killed by illegal settlers involved in mining and cattle trading.
4 July 202: China’s government accepted – wholly or partially – 298 of the 428 (70%) recommendations the country received from UN member states during its fourth UPR on 23 January 2024. This represents a 12% drop in the proportion of recommendations the government accepted compared to the previous UPR in 2018.
In a worrying sign of the government’s outright refusal to heed the mounting international concern over key human rights issues, of the 130 recommendations Beijing did not accept, an unprecedented number – 98 – were categorised as “rejected” and 32 were “noted.
China’s government used the United Nations (UN)-backed review of its human rights record to rebuff international concern over serious abuses, issue blanket denials, and make blatantly false statements, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Human Rights in China (HRIC), the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT), the Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR), and the Database Center for North Korean Human Rights (NKDB) said after the adoption of the outcome of China’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva, Switzerland.
Despite well-documented evidence to the contrary, the government claimed that many of the recommendations it accepted were being implemented or had already been implemented. Such was the case regarding the accepted recommendations related to human rights in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang, and the situation of human rights defenders, lawyers, civil society, media, and journalists. The government also made the false claim that it protected “freedom of speech, association and assembly” and “the lawful rights of all citizens as equals“.
FIDH, HRIC, ICT, TAHR, and NKDB urge China’s government to reverse course and use the fourth UPR to address the concerns voiced by numerous UN member states without delay by implementing all the recommendations that are consistent with its obligations under international human rights law.
Below is an analysis of the government’s response to the UPR recommendations on selected human rights issues.
Human rights situation in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang
The government received 57 recommendations on human right issues in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang and accepted only 19 (33%) of them. With regard to Hong Kong, the rejected recommendations were overwhelmingly related to the National Security Law and its negative impacts. Rejected recommendations concerning the situation of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang included those that called for the implementation of the 2022 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) assessment on Xinjiang which China’s government called “illegal“. China rejected 70% of the unprecedented number of Tibet-specific recommendations it received – notably the ones calling for an end of the boarding school system for Tibetan children – often claiming they were based on “false information” despite many verified reports, including by UN experts. Other recommendations concerning the respect of cultural and religious rights in Tibet were listed as “accepted and already implemented” in a blunt misrepresentation of the reality on the ground. Many of the recommendations received by China’s government concerning the situation in Tibet echoed those contained in the joint submission made by FIDH and the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) for China’s fourth UPR.
Human rights defenders, lawyers, and civil society
The government accepted only 10 of the 25 recommendations it received on human rights defenders, lawyers, and civil society. It rejected recommendations that called on China’s authorities to end the harassment and arbitrary detention of human rights defenders and lawyers and to cease the restrictions on civil society. A submission by HRIC highlights how online rights and internet freedoms in Hong Kong have significantly deteriorated in the post-COVID era, especially after the promulgation of the National Security Law, and that women have been disproportionately affected, as evidenced by the online gender-based violence they experienced.
Media and journalists
The government rejected 10 of the 14 recommendations it received concerning the protection of media and journalists, claiming the authorities protect the right to freedom of speech.
Death penalty
The government rejected all 20 recommendations it received concerning the death penalty. It stated that the death penalty “should be retained with its application strictly and prudently limited” – a statement that clashes with the reality of a country that has consistently ranked as the world’s most prolific executioner.
The Israeli authorities continue to target human rights defenders in the Occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, through prolonged administrative detention without charge, humiliation and ill treatment, an independent expert said calling for an end to such treatment.
“UN Special Procedures experts, including myself, have raised similar concerns multiple times, and this time I want to bring to the attention of the Israeli government the recent cases of Mr. Bassem Tamimi, Mr. Omar al-Khatib, Ms. Baraa Odeh, Ms. Sumoud Mtair and Ms. Diala Ayesh,” said Mary Lawlor, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.
The five human rights defenders were arrested between October 2023 and March 2024, either from their home or as they returned from abroad. They were ordered to be held in administrative detention for periods ranging from four to six months, subject to unlimited renewal. Two of them have yet to be released.
Bassem Tamimi, from Ramallah, is an organiser of peaceful protests against the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands; Omar al-Khatib, from Jerusalem, campaigns against the forced eviction of Palestinian families from the Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah; Baraa Odeh, from Bethlehem promotes youth rights; Sumoud Mtair, from Hebron, is active in the Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign; and Diala Ayesh is a human rights lawyer who documents the detention conditions of Palestinian prisoners detained in Israel. All but al-Khatib and Ayesh were released at the end of their administrative detention periods.
“All five human rights defenders were arrested without warrant. They were not given any reason as to why there were being detained. They were all interrogated without the presence of a lawyer. They were not allowed contact with their families,” Lawlor said.
“Four of them were reportedly slapped, beaten, humiliated, sent from one prison to another in the space of one or two days, and made to sign documents in Hebrew they could not understand. The three women detainees have been held in deplorable conditions, in dirty cells and given insufficient and poor-quality meals.”
Óscar Calles is a journalist and human rights defender from Venezuela. Since 2019, he has been working for PROVEA, one of the country’s most prominent rights groups.
In an interview with ISHR, he recalled his experience of witnessing and broadcasting mass protests in his country in 2017, and how harshly these were repressed. This, he said, led him to take direct action in the defence of human rights and civil liberties.
Human rights organisations, activists and defenders only exist to ensure that all persons can live with dignity,’ says Oscar Calles. ‘Do not turn your backs on the hundreds of victims who are still awaiting justice to this day,’ he further urges States at the UN Human Rights Council, calling on to renew a key accountability mechanism for Venezuela.
In June 2024, Óscar was also one of 16 defenders who participated in ISHR’s Human Rights Defender Advocacy Programme (HRDAP)
On 1 July 2024 Arab News reported that Volker Turk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated rhat “when athletes use their voice to promote equality in sport, they are human rights defenders”. “They often speak out at great risk to themselves and to their careers, in a context that has not always been open to criticism from the inside. Because — as in other areas — power dynamics are still very much at play in the sporting world, and more is needed to dismantle them.” Turk, who did not name any athletes, said those who use their voice to address issues in their sport or in society should be protected and given “avenues to speak out and seek redress, safely and without fear of reprisals.” Turk was speaking at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on a panel alongside Thomas Bach, the president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), on human rights and the Olympics ahead of the Paris Summer Games.
On 27 June 2024 the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect published a summary of the UN Secretary-General’s 16th report on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), entitled “Responsibility to Protect: The commitment to prevent and protect populations from atrocity crimes.” Within the report the Secretary-General issues a stark warning about worrying global trends, including increasing violations and abuses of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL), and articulates challenges that UN member states and the international community have faced in upholding R2P over the past two decades. The Secretary-General asserts, however, that there are still opportunities to shift the current course of events through a more nuanced and strategic approach to prevention and protection by actors across all levels.
KEY POINTS
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect would like to highlight the following key points from the report:
SECTION II. GLOBAL PATTERNS IN THE ONGOING COMMISSION OF ATROCITIES
As requested by many member states during the 2023 UN General Assembly debate on R2P, the Secretary-General takes stock of current global trends with regard to the risk of and commission of mass atrocity crimes. This section highlights the dire trends across three main areas: violations of IHL in the context of growing violent conflict worldwide, violations of and failures to institutionalize protections for human rights and factors that create enabling environments for perpetrators to commit atrocity crimes.
Patterns of violations of international humanitarian law
In recent years the world has experienced a dramatic rise in violent armed conflicts. Throughout many of these crises, parties to the conflict have increasingly employed methods and means of warfare with complete disregard for human life and in flagrant violation of international law and various treaty obligations. The IHL principles of distinction, proportionality, necessity and precaution are routinely violated by both state and non-state actors. There has also been an escalating pattern in the indiscriminate use of explosive weapons in populated areas, as well as targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure and cultural heritage. Drawing upon the Secretary-General’s annual reports on other related issue areas – including the Protection of Civilians, Children and Armed Conflict and Conflict Related Sexual Violence – the section highlights further worrying trends in violations against civilian populations, as well as the targeting of civilians on the basis of their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, descent, gender and other identity factors. The Secretary-General further notes the man-made humanitarian consequences of these conflicts, including the global forced displacement crisis and the record number of people facing acute food insecurity.
Acts that violate IHL may also constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing or genocide. Depriving civilians of objects indispensable to their survival, including through blocking access to humanitarian aid, may amount to war crimes.
Patterns of violations and abuses of human rights
The Secretary-General recalls that throughout history, atrocity crimes have often been precipitated by serious violations and abuses of human rights by state and non-state actors. Many human rights violations and abuses may themselves constitute or amount to an atrocity crime if certain thresholds or conditions are met.
The report notes that in many situations, violations and abuses of human rights have risen alongside democratic backsliding and patterns of targeted attacks by governments against actual and/or perceived dissenting voices. As some governments have stripped societies of human rights protections, they have also increased attacks on political opponents, human rights defenders and civil society, the media and other critical voices, sometimes through arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and other violations in a manner that may amount to crimes against humanity. The Secretary-General particularly highlighted the regression in women’s and girl’s rights.
Environments conducive to atrocity crimes
Atrocity crimes do not occur in a vacuum; they are often preceded by structural, societal and political factors that create an enabling environment for their commission. Some factors may facilitate crimes by creating the means, motives and opportunities for perpetrators to act or may inhibit their mitigation. While cautioning that the list is not exhaustive, the Secretary-General highlights trends related to several key enablers of atrocity crimes, including the continuation and expansion of discriminatory policies and practices targeting populations on the basis of identity – such as threats and attacks against indigenous populations – unconstitutional changes of government, shrinking of civic space, the spread of non-state armed groups, the role of new and emerging digital technologies in proliferating hate speech and capacity for mass surveillance and the impacts of climate change.
The report notes how each of these factors may impact societal resilience to atrocity crimes, particularly when combined with established trends in violations of IHL and IHRL. For example, in countries experiencing democratic backsliding and shrinking civic space, there are often corresponding human rights issues, including arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty, removal of due process guarantees and reversal of women’s rights, among others. Similarly, as the presence and capacity of non-state armed groups has expanded, their ability to perpetrate crimes against humanity and war crimes targeting populations has also increased. Moreover, efforts to regain territorial control and combat such groups have exacerbated fragile security situations and state actors themselves have perpetrated potential atrocity crimes in the name of counterterrorism.
SECTION III. ADVANCES AND CHALLENGES IN PREVENTING ATROCITY CRIMES AND PROTECTING POPULATIONS
This section focuses on advancements in prevention, protection and justice and accountability processes since the inception of R2P. It also reflects upon the numerous normative, conceptual and operational challenges that need to be confronted to improve the prevention of atrocity crimes and the protection of populations.
Advances in prevention and protection
The report acknowledges the progress made in understanding the processes that lead to atrocity crimes and in conceptually understanding early warning signs for atrocities, noting in particular the UN’s Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes, previous Secretary-General’s reports and work within the UN Peacebuilding Commission. Efforts have also been made by states, as well as networks, such as the Global Action Against Mass Atrocity Crimes and the Global Network of R2P Focal Points, to expand early warning expertise and capacities for response.
The Secretary-General notes the expansion of international investigative bodies and mechanisms mandated to assist in the collection, consolidation and preservation of evidence of potential atrocity crimes, as well as the monitoring and advocacy on country situations by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In this regard, the report acknowledges how some of these bodies have utilized the Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes in their assessments of situations with ongoing crimes or potential atrocity risks.
The section also acknowledges the progress made in transitional justice and memorialization as methods for dealing with the past and promoting truth, justice and non-recurrence. Moreover, the Secretary-General notes how national courts, international criminal courts and tribunals and the International Court of Justice have all played critical roles in holding perpetrators accountable for atrocity crimes.
Further challenges in prevention and protection
The advances highlighted by the Secretary-General demonstrate the depth of relevant information on risks, the existing potential to prevent their occurrence and the available institutional capacity to protect vulnerable populations and hold perpetrators of atrocity crimes accountable. They also expose the failure of the international community to prevent and protect populations from atrocity crimes. The report articulates four key challenges that contribute to the failure to realize the promise of R2P.
First, the international community has not capitalized on opportunities to start prevention initiatives before risk factors emerge. States and regional and international bodies need to more consistently take preemptive steps, such as instituting policies, systematic research, practices and structures that identify risk indicators and inform policy makers to enable societal resilience to atrocity crimes, including through the development of measures, laws and initiatives that protect the rights of all populations, prevent their marginalization and inhibit the development of the drivers of direct violence.
Second, improved understanding of the risk factors and gathering of early warning has not always translated into assessments and timely decision making. Due to the exceptional nature of atrocity crimes, patterns that lead to their commission are often not acknowledged or the potential trajectory of early warning information is not adequately anticipated, resulting in a lack of timely decision making.
Third, due to the lack of timely preventive action, discussions on response often occur when options are more limited and when decision-makers across all levels are more polarized.
Fourth, even when the risks are understood or clearly articulated, priority is not sufficiently given to develop adequate and appropriate measures to protect affected populations amidst other considerations decision-makers face in a particular situation. Moreover, the Secretary-General emphasizes the need to ensure that the knowledge and expertise of affected communities are centered in policy, practice and understanding.
SECTION IV. UNDERSTANDING EFFECTIVE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION
To address the challenges put forward in Section III, the Secretary-General highlights several aspects of prevention and protection that states and other actors should consider in order to bolster efforts to limit the occurrence and impact of atrocity crimes.
Prevention as a continuous process
The best way to disrupt the actions that lead to atrocity crimes is to approach prevention and protection as part of a continuous, permanent process. This includes not only a response to imminent and emerging risks, but also instituting policies, practices and structures that build long-term societal resilience to atrocity crimes. In this sense, the early prevention of atrocities is not significantly distinct from practices that support good governance: ensuring respect for the rule of law, supporting a competent and independent judiciary, protecting human rights, enabling civil society and the media to operate without interference or fear of reprisals and creating a political culture that favors tolerance and diversity. These are steps that governments can take to build the institutional architecture to prevent the drivers of atrocities from emerging.
Embodying prevention as a continuous process also includes consistent monitoring and assessment of risks amidst societal transformation and, when necessary, instituting necessary reforms to confront those risks.
A unique framework for atrocity crimes prevention
The Secretary-General invokes the atrocity prevention lens as a strong framework for enabling actors to better understand and more adequately respond to the drivers of crimes. Application of this lens includes identifying factors and indicators and assessing dynamics as they pertain to the risk and potential commission of atrocity crimes, guiding the necessary action at the domestic, regional and international level to prevent their perpetration and to effectively protect populations. This lens compels actors to reframe analysis and intelligence-gathering in order to recognize patterns of behavior and dynamics that may enable or precede atrocity crimes. The atrocity prevention lens also assists in identifying specific vulnerabilities of certain populations – including ethnic and religious minorities, women, populations with distinct sexual orientations and gender identities, children, disabled populations and others – and detects factors that may put them at particular risk to atrocity crimes.
The atrocity prevention lens may also represent an added value for existing conflict prevention, conflict resolution and protection agendas as it compels decision-makers to devise political strategies to counter threats and to avoid solutions that may exacerbate societal cleavages, structural exclusion or violence among groups. As it provides a more tailored understanding of the broader political landscape and how it relates to the threat to populations at risk, stakeholders can better understand what factors in the political process may act as triggers for wider violence or atrocities and what actions by state and non-state actors may exacerbate vulnerabilities faced by certain populations or regions of the country.
Prevention and protection: a cooperative effort
The report emphasizes that effective protection is only possible when informed by preventive assessments. The best outcomes will be reached when prevention and protection are implemented together.
Multiple forms of protection in action
When populations need protection, there are a variety of effective and complementary international instruments that can be utilized. Diverse entities within the UN, national governments and regional bodies, as well as independent human rights institutions, human rights defenders, civil society, and independent media, can all play a critical role in documenting and drawing attention to violations and abuses of human rights, threats to the physical integrity of populations and patterns in attacks.
Legal protection At the heart of prevention and protection of atrocity crimes lies the legal guarantee of protection provided by states through constitutional and legislative policies, as well as through compliance with international protection instruments, including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other rights-based instruments. Domestic legal frameworks should be designed in a manner that protects all populations by ensuring equal access to public services and full human right protections. The UN and other states parties to various conventions can also provide legal protection by reminding states of their obligations to populations under the respective conventions and, when necessary and permitted by the relevant treaty body, issue formal complaints about non-compliance.
Preventive diplomacy, good offices and mediation Preventive diplomacy and mediation aimed at reducing tensions, averting violent escalations and negotiating among parties to conflicts or disputes is a necessary component of ensuring the long-term success of protection efforts. Negotiations among trusted leaders have prompted conflicting parties to step back from violent rhetoric and escalatory action, make political commitments to halt abuses and rethink the tactics utilized in protected civilian spaces. Domestic actors, such as local community and religious leaders, civil society activists and women’s and youth groups, also play a crucial role in de-escalating situations and in engendering dialogue between warring parties or groups.
Physical protection The Secretary-General notes that a security sector that is community-based and respects international norms and standards on prevention is one of the most important actors in ensuring physical protection of all populations from atrocity crimes. This is particularly the case if the security sector is equipped with knowledge of the atrocity prevention lens and an understanding of the unique vulnerabilities of populations they may be protecting. When necessary, the UN Security Council may authorize regional or international forces to provide physical protection. However, the Secretary-General cautions that states should consider the use of force as a last resort because military action may have a devastating impact on populations.
Humanitarian aid and humanitarian protection Many of the situations where atrocity crimes are ongoing have resulted in dire man-made humanitarian emergencies as populations flee en-masse and, in some cases, civilian infrastructure is attacked and humanitarian aid blocked. It is essential that humanitarian actors be provided access to all populations, including those in conflict areas, and that there be accountability for any actor who blocks or diverts aid. The Secretary-General further notes that there is growing recognition of the importance of developing a long-term, comprehensive plan and integrated framework to bridge the divide between humanitarian relief, development assistance and peacebuilding.
SECTION V. UPHOLDING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT: CONCLUSION AND THE WAY FORWARD
The Secretary-General concludes by reminding states that next year will mark 20 years since the adoption of R2P at the 2005 World Summit and emphasizing the need to produce more tangible results in preventing atrocities and protecting populations. The Secretary-General further encourages states, regional bodies and UN entities to assess and further develop their capacities to prevent mass atrocities.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 