Posts Tagged ‘enabling environment’

« Older posts
Newer posts »

UN Rapporteur Michel Forst documents good practices in the protection of human rights defenders

March 7, 2016

A major new report by the UN Special Rapporteur on human Rights Defenders, Michel Forst, documents good practices and policies in the protection of defenders and makes concrete recommendations to States, business enterprises, national human rights institutions, donors, civil society organisations and other stakeholders to ensure a safe and enabling environment for defenders’ work (A/HRC/31/55).

Key among these is a recommendation that, in consultation with civil society, States should develop and implement specific national laws and mechanisms to protect defenders and to investigate and ensure accountability for threats and attacks against them. [ISHR’s work to develop a model national law on the recognition and protection of human rights defenders is specifically referenced in this regard.] [see also: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/two-more-side-events-on-human-rights-defenders-on-10-and-12-march/]

In addition to enacting laws, the Special Rapporteur recommends that States establish and adequately-resourced protection mechanisms, in consultation with civil society.

Through the report, the Special Rapporteur endorses a ‘holistic’ approach to the protection of defenders, engaging the responsibility of a range of actors. Key insights and recommendations included in the report include that:

  • States should publicly recognise the vital and legitimate work of human rights defenders, disseminate and raise awareness about the Declaration and actively respect and protect ‘the right to defend rights’.
  • National human rights institutions should develop concrete action plans to support and protect defenders and establish focal points to ensure effective implementation and evaluation of such plans.
  • Business enterprises have an important and influential role to play in protecting defenders and should be engaged in this regard: ‘The condemnation of violations by members of the business community not only legitimises defenders’ concerns but also builds opposition to bad business practices,’ the report says. ‘In addition, due to their economic and political influence, the support of business leaders can draw in wider support of society.’
  • Donors should provide long-term, sustainable, flexible financial support to defenders and their organisations and networks, providing for their ‘holistic protection’.
  • The UN itself should strengthen the protection of defenders and prevent violations against them, including through the ‘Rights Up Front’ initiative and the Sustainable Development Goals, and by strengthening its institutional response to cases of reprisals against those who for cooperate with UN human rights mechanisms. The need to prevent and ensure accountability for reprisals is particularly important given the Special Rapporteur’s finding that international and regional human rights mechanisms are increasingly being turned to and relied upon by defenders either to complement and strengthen domestic advocacy efforts, or because democratic institutions and the rule of law are weak or non-existent at the national level. [see also my ‘old’ post: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/zero-tolerance-for-states-that-take-reprisals-against-hrds-lets-up-the-ante/]

In addition to making concrete recommendations, the Special Rapporteur also articulates 7 key principles for all stakeholders that he considers should inform and underpin all policies and practices namely:

  • Principle 1: They should adopt a rights-based approach to protection, empowering defenders to know and claim their rights.
  • Principle 2: They should recognise that defenders are diverse and come from different backgrounds, cultures, and belief systems.
  • Principle 3: They should recognise the significance of gender in the protection of defenders and apply an intersectionality lens to the assessment of risks and to the design of protection initiatives.
  • Principle 4: They should focus on ‘holistic security’ of defenders, including physical security, digital security, and psychosocial wellbeing.
  • Principle 5: They should not focus on the rights and security of individual defenders alone, but also include the groups, organisations, communities, and family members who share their risks.
  • Principle 6: They should involve defenders in the development, choice, implementation and evaluation of strategies and tactics for their protection. The participation of defenders is key to their security.
  • Principle 7: They should be flexible, adaptable, and tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of defenders.

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Defenders/A-HRC-31-55_en.pdf

See more at: http://www.ishr.ch/news/good-practices-protection-human-rights-defenders-major-new-report#sthash.VjHvu4uZ.dpuf

 

Posted in books, human rights, Human Rights Council, Human Rights Defenders, ISHR | 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Human Rights Defenders in India: democracy is not enough

February 23, 2016
India is often called the largest democracy on earth and it does merit praise for sticking to a fair degree of rule of law in spite of severe problems such as security and poverty. Still, regular and reliable reports on the fate of human rights defenders in India give us pause to think. What follows is a collection of just some recent cases, illustrating the well-argued piece by Srishti Agnihotri (a lawyer appearing in Trial Courts and the Delhi High Court, involved in research and advocacy on women and children) under the title “Who is defending the defenders in India: Human Rights” on 22 February 2016.

The article starts by mentioning the attack on Soni Sori (see more below on her). Reports suggest that oil paint mixed with chemicals was thrown on her face by unknown assailants. This attack, … and other reports of intimidation of persons such as lawyers and journalists working in the Jagdalpur area raises the question of the safety of human rights defenders and shows that there isn’t enough being done by the State machinery to defend the defenders….

Srishti Agnihotri then makes the interesting point that “it is not necessary to be correct to qualify as a human rights defender”. E.g. the criticism of Human Rights Defenders on a particular development project may not be legally correct. However, this does not and should not disentitle them to the protection of the State against violence and reprisals. The reason for this will become clear when we examine the role human rights defenders play in a society.

These Defenders face problems, in many parts of the world, and India is not an exception. Often the work being done by human rights defenders brings them in conflict with vested interests such as the land mafia, the mining lobby, or other corporations. A case in point is the story of Satyendra Dubey, an officer in the Indian Engineering Service, who lost his life due to exposing corruption in a highway construction project. At other times, the advocacy done by them requires them to be critical of the State action including in areas where there is considerable unrest….

This gives room for propaganda that human rights defenders or NGOs are ‘anti-development’ or even ‘anti-national’. It leads to them facing the wrath of more draconian security legislations, or attacks on them by vested interests. It is very easy to make the mistake of thinking ‘Why should we use state resources to protect those who are critical of the State? The obvious answer, is that the State may not always be correct. Given the great power state and corporate entities enjoy, their ability to make mistakes if unchecked is also correspondingly large. A hard reckoning of the work done by human rights defenders shows that they act as an essential check and balance on the State, and throw light on existing state-industry nexus, to protect the rights of people. The State derives its legitimacy from an implicit contract with its citizens, which necessitates a mechanism to check that the State adheres to this contract, and this is a function carried out by the human rights defenders. In this sense, human rights defenders are necessary for a healthy functioning democracy.

………

While there are general laws that can be (and are) used to protect these defenders, but those working for the enactment of a special law argue that the role of the law is also to play a certain ‘normative, expressive and educative’ function. By this, they mean that a special law to protect human rights defenders will also confer legitimacy on the work that they are doing, and create an enabling environment where they may do so peacefully.

Of course, the enactment of a special law is not adequate to ensure the protection of human rights defenders. It has to go hand in hand with better law and order, better legal services in areas where these defenders work, transparency in governance, toleration of dissent by the State machinery, and continued proactive action by the Focal Point for the protection of Human Rights Defenders, at the National Human Rights Commission.

This focal point is involved in providing assistance to such Rights defenders, and following alleged violations of their rights. Although there has been greater collaboration between the NHRC and Human Rights defenders, much needs to be done to ensure that defenders can work in a safe and enabling environment.

The Times of India of 10 February 2016 takes to task the State of Chhattisgarh – echoing Amnesty India  – that it should do more to protect a woman journalist, Malini Subramaniam, in Bastar. “This attack is another indicator of the increasingly hostile atmosphere in which journalists and human rights defenders operate in Chhattisgarh,” said Makepeace Sitlhou, Campaigner at Amnesty International India. Malini herself said: “This is not an attack on me as a person but as a journalist reporting incidents on the ground, something that they don’t want“. [The statement said, a group of over 20 people gathered outside the home of journalist Malini Subramaniam on February 7. They urged her neighbours to stone her house and chanted slogans suggesting that she was an agent for Maoist armed groups. Later that day, an anti-Maoist group released a public statement accusing her of presenting a distorted picture of Bastar and promoting Maoist ideology.]

On 21 February 2016 Saurav Datta in Catchnews poses the question “Why is Chhattisgarh govt scared of human rights defenders?“.  Isha Khandelwal, Shalini Gera and Nikita Agarwal, all in their late 20s, keep looking furtively behind their backs while packing her bags from Jagdalpur in western India’s Chhattisgarh district. They are afraid that a posse of policemen may descend upon them and subject them to custodial torture. They also fear that that they would be implicated under various provisions of the Chhattisgarh Special Security Act, a law roundly criticised by civil liberties activists as being dangerously oversweeping in its scope and ambit. The moot question here is – why should be a ragtag coalition of lawyers, operating on a shoestring budget, be subjected to state repression? The piece then goes into the background of the Indian system of legal aid and how the state administration undercuts all this in practice.

Frontline NEWlogo-2 full version - croppedhas covered a lot cases in India including in the State of Chhattisgarh such as those of Malini Subramaniam and the members of the Jagdalpur Legal Aid Group mentioned above (https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/29909 and https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/306160).

 

Front Line – on 22 February 2016 – also reported the attack on human rights defender Soni Sori who was assaulted on 20 February by three unidentified men as she travelled from Jagdalpur to her home. The perpetrators halted the vehicle and threw a black substance on her face, resulting in intense burning and her hospitalization. She is a human rights defender who advocates for the rights of indigenous peoples in India, with a focus on women’s rights. She works in Chhattisgarh, where the long-term conflict between Maoists and government security forces has greatly affected the indigenous people in the area.  During the attack, the perpetrators threatened to carry out a similar assault on the daughter of Soni Sori, lest the human rights defender halt the efforts she had undertaken to bring justice against a high-ranking police official from the Bastar district of Chhattisgarh. Soni Sori had recently been attempting to file a complaint against the police official in relation to their involvement in an alleged extra-judicial killing in the Mardum area of Bashar. In July 2015, the police official in question allegedly called for the “social exclusion” of the human rights defender and members of her family. [Soni Sori has previously been targeted by the authorities on several occasions https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/taxonomy/term/18892 and https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/29351]

On 8 January 2016, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (a joint programme of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), called on the Indian government to release on bail and stop the ongoing judicial harassment of Mr. Ajimuddin Sarkar.  Mr. Sarkar is a renowned human rights defender who has investigated cases of human rights violations perpetrated by the police and Border Security Forces (BSF), and who has been instrumental in denouncing several other human rights violations in Murshidabad district. He was arbitrarily arrested on 22 September 22 and only on 8 December, 2015 released on bail, since the de facto complainant filed an affidavit stating that she did not bring any allegation of rape against Mr. Sarkar and she had no knowledge of the related criminal case against him.  Mr. Sarkar is currently receiving medical treatment, both physical and psychological, as his mental and physical health conditions deteriorated significantly during the past months in detention.[The Observatory recalls that it is not the first time Mr. Sarkar has been intimidated, judicially harassed and ill-treated by the police – see background information].

See also my earlier: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/india-human-rights-defenders-being-silenced-by-the-court/

Sources:

http://www.newsgram.com/who-is-defending-the-defenders-in-india-human-rights/ (first published at Kafila.org.)

Why is Chhattisgarh govt scared of human rights defenders?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/raipur/Chhattisgarh-must-act-against-intimidation-of-woman-journalist-in-Bastar-Amnesty-says/articleshow/50934124.cms

http://www.omct.org/human-rights-defenders/urgent-interventions/india/2016/01/d23556/

Posted in AI, FIDH, Front Line, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, OMCT | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

UN Rapporteur calls on Hungary to not stigmatize human rights defenders

February 16, 2016

“Human rights defenders in Hungary are increasingly working in a rather https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/attila-mraz-human-rights-defenders-in-hungary-have-their-work-cut-out/ and politicized environment,” said Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, at the end of his first visit to the country, according to the press release of the UN. Forst also criticized attempts to de-legitimize defenders and undermine their peaceful and legitimate activities through criminal defamation and excessive administrative and financial pressure, the press release added.

“In the context of the refugee crisis and the excessively manipulated fear of the ‘other’ in society, defenders face public criticism by government officials, stigmatization in the media, unwarranted inspections and reduction of state funding,” the special rapporteur noted.

“The drastic constitutional changes in Hungary have resulted in the weakened constitutional court and the centralization and tightening of government control over the judiciary, the media, religious organizations and other spheres of public life, directly or indirectly affecting human rights,” the press release cited him as saying in connection with Hungary.

During his nine-day visit, at the invitation of the Hungarian government, the expert met with state officials, members of the judiciary, the parliament, ombudsman as well as human rights defenders, representatives of civil society and the diplomatic community. Forst heard specific testimonies that defenders who criticize the Government or raise human rights concerns are quickly intimidated and portrayed as ‘political’ or ‘foreign agents’, according to the press release.

See also https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/attila-mraz-human-rights-defenders-in-hungary-have-their-work-cut-out/

Source: UN calls on Hungary to not stigmatize human rights defenders | The Budapest Business Journal on the web | bbj.hu

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, UN | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Latin America, Philippines most dangerous places for Human Rights Defenders

January 6, 2016

The latest statistical report released by Front Line Defenders revealed the appalling reality that human rights defenders all over the world are at great risk to be victims of extreme forms of violence. And based on the organization’s annual report, 157 human rights activists were killed or died in detention in 25 countries in 2015. Latin America, Philippines are named as most dangerous places for Human Rights Defenders. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Front Line, human rights, Human Rights Defenders | 6 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Erik-Aimé Semien: human rights defender from Côte d’Ivoire

December 26, 2015

 

Erik-Aimé Semien is a lawyer and human rights defender at Observatoire Ivoirien des Droits de l’Homme, a non-governmental organisation that aims to achieve human rights progress through capacity building and constructive dialogue with the authorities. On 9 July 2015 he talked with the Intern national Service for Human Rights about his work. ‘What we want’, Eric explains, ‘is to make them understand why human rights are important for the progress of our nation’.ISHR-logo-colour-high

Eric was first drawn to human rights when Cote d’Ivoire plunged into civil war in 1999, following a military-led coup d’etat. What followed were ten years of violence and sectarian strife. ‘We are a country coming out of ten years of civil war, but the main problems are not yet solved. It was widespread frustration and a lack of democratic institutions that caused the war; and it is for overcoming frustration and the creation of democratic institutions that we continue to struggle.’

Eric explains that frustration is caused when there is a lack of transparency in government work, when the president favours his regional or ethnic group over others, when there is impunity for war crimes, and when voices critical of the government are excluded from debate.

‘Take the national TV, a public service paid for by public taxes. If you watch TV in Cote d’Ivoire, you will receive the impression that the perspective of the president of the republic is the only perspective there is. It was the same for the former president. This means that if you disagree with government policy, National TV will no longer interest you, for you will find no expression of your opinion. This begs the question, if you disagree, where can you go? To whom can you speak? The result is frustration. The media outlets need to be open to everybody, to civil society, to the opposition, to everybody.’

In addition to advocating for more inclusive democratic institutions, Observatoire Ivoirien des Droits de l’Homme works to combat impunity. The war lasted ten years, but today, not only do many people on the winning side who committed human rights violations walk free, but they also enjoy appointments in the army and the administration.

‘After the war I think we should have a fair and equitable justice. What a victim wants is to see those who committed human rights violations behind bars. We organise victims and take their cases to court. We say to the judge, find out who did this and send them to prison. If they do this, it will release tension. The government recently set up a trust fund that provides financial compensation for victims. This is a positive step. But it needs to be accompanied by a clear message: whoever you are, in whatever position, you are not above the rule of law.’

One of the challenges Eric faces is a lack of awareness in the government of what human rights defenders are and what they do.

‘In Cote d’Ivoire certain authorities don’t have a clear idea of the role of civil society. They think we are causing a disturbance when all we want is the progress of our nation. But I have to admit that the situation is improving. Previously the authorities were closed but now they are much more open. They listen to us more and we are allowed to participate in meetings.’

One remarkable result of this increased openness on the government’s part is the adoption in June 2014 of a law that protects human rights defenders. ‘In the build up to the drafting of this law, we clearly explained why protecting human rights defenders was important. Many human rights NGOs were involved in the process. We had several meetings with parliament representatives and even at the national assembly. We had to explain who human rights defenders were and why protecting them is important. I am proud of Cote d’Ivoire that we have adopted this law, which is the only law of its kind on the African continent.’

The law, although still largely unknown, has already had a positive impact. In 2014 the leaders of a public assembly protesting the high costs of grocery goods were arrested. But the Observatioire Ivoirienne intervened and showed the prosecutor the law. The protesters were subsequently freed. ‘Now, whenever we have a problem with authorities, we can show them this law, and they will see that we are protected. This will make our work much easier and less dangerous. In a democracy, in a rule of law state, the government should engage with civil society. The role of civil society is that of counter balance. We don’t want to antagonise the authorities needlessly nor do we seek power. We would like to see change coming from the inside and genuinely inclusive democratic institutions and not just superficial engagement. I am proud of Cote d’Ivoire for the progress we have made, of which this new law is tangible proof, but we still have some way to go. The frustration that causes war needs to be eliminated for good.

Source: Erik-Aimé Semien: Human rights defender from Côte d’Ivoire | ISHR

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, ISHR | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Iduvina Hernandez: Human Rights Defender from Guatemala

October 8, 2015

The newsletter of the ISHR of 7 October 2015 carries an interview with Iduvina Hernandez, co-founder of Association for the Study and Promotion of Security in Democracy in Guatemala.

Iduvina Hernandez founded the Association for the Study and Promotion of Security in Democracy (SEDEM), together with US citizen Rachel Garst in 2000. As journalists, Iduvina and Rachel had studied the behaviour of armed forces and intelligence services which were linked to numerous human rights abuses. The organisation initially questioned the meaning of ‘oversight’ and ‘accountability’ of security services for the public as Guatemala was having raging debate about security forces and intelligence sources. In order to expand this discussion, the organisation started building citizen networks in the provinces providing them with training so as to enable them to conduct independent oversight of State security forces actions in their region.

Guatemala’s public security is handled by the military and dominated by a national security doctrine. Extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances have been documented in a country still haunted by genocide. Civil society organisations have suggested that the militarisation of public security makes human rights abuses more probable, a fact that Iduvina’s organisation aims to change.

‘In a true democracy the military has nothing to do with citizen security.’

Iduvina believes human rights work is in her DNA since she grew up in a family where solidarity was a critical value. She remembers seeing people hidden in her home when she was a child, her father explaining that these people’s lives were in danger. At that point, Iduvina already felt like part of the framework working to protect them.

‘We can always do something for anyone, in any place, in any way.’

From an early age Iduvina was part of the student movement, working for student rights and then became  a student leader for the University Students Association from 1976 to 1981. She lost many friends along the was due to disappearances or killings. She was even forced into exile but returned to the country as soon as she got the opportunity.

Challenges and threats to human rights defenders

One of Iduvina’s major challenges is linked to personal issues. As director of her own organisation she works on a volunteer basis and is therefore forced to have several jobs in order to sustain herself.

As for security conditions in Guatemala they expose human rights defenders to serious risks throughout their work. This usually includes being targeted by various Government actors and former members of the military often linked to the Government.

Iduvina highlights that though the social movement recently overthrew the former president, disappointingly there has not been any significant change in the political sphere.

‘The new person in charge is a fascist and very old. His policies, as well as his security policies, will be the same. We are afraid because we have a Government that does not respect human rights and certainly does not defend human rights.’

Iduvina states that the dangers that human rights defenders face in Guatemala stem from: Government action; Government policies; Government tolerance towards perpetrators; perpetrators’ actions; corruption; the composition of the judicial sector; and impunity.

The legislative framework for NGOs and human rights defenders

A restrictive law against NGOs was introduced in 2003 which imposed new conditions and limitations on NGOs – especially those working for the promotion of human rights. While registering a NGO used to be a simple process (only requiring registration at the  city hall office) the 2004 amendment to the Constitution now requires NGOs to register at the Minister of Interio. This has become a real obstacle for human rights defence as NGOs now need approval to work legally and even to change their board membership. This particularly targets ngos working for the promotion of human rights. Iduvina’s organisation once had to wait  6 months to be registered, whilst another organisation not involved with human rights was registered in 10 days.

‘An organisation working against genocide was required to maintain the same board and president as they were not granted approval to change the legal representation. If you are not registered you cannot deal with the banks, you cannot receive donations, you are on standby.’

No specific law in Guatemala protects the work of human rights defender though there are a number of institutionstasked with their protection. Iduvina believes that oversight over the process of registering NGOs must be removed and thinks it necessary to have a law  to protect the work of human rights defenders. Yet she believes it would be easier and more achievable to introduce a chapter on human rights defenders into the Special Ombudsman Law. With the composition of the current political system – dominated by right-wing ideas – this is still something she knows will be difficult to strive for. Attempting to implement such changes now would likely restrict human rights defenders further.

National and International Advocacy Goals

At the national level Iduvina is currently working on a draft national policy for the protection of human rights defenders. This includes the creation of  focus groups and the use of  workshops and interviews to identify the real needs of  grassroots defenders.

At the international level, Iduvina says it is essential that the international community bears in mind that Guatemala is not a consolidated democracy and that human rights defenders continue to be at high risk.

‘It is more important today than it has ever been. The movement to overthrow the Government suggested that things were going to change in Guatemala. We need to make clear to the international community that although the demonstrations were a huge success, the root problems have not changed, not yet. We still need the international community’s eye on the country, especially as the new President is in many ways worse than the last – coming from the armed forces and involved in the genocide. He is an enemy of democracy.’

Iduvina would like the Special Rapporteurs on the situation on human rights defenders and on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, to visit Guatemala. She would also welcome visits from other special procedures and treaty bodies, in particular those working to protect the rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of opinion and expression

The Future for Human Rights Defenders in Guatemala

The future for human rights defenders in Guatemala is two sided, says Iduvina. On one hand the social movement has helped to extend their work and in some spaces of society they will now achieve more respect and understanding for their work. On the other hand if the political system does not change, human rights defenders will be confronted with new threats and new levels of risks.

Source: Iduvina Hernandez: Human Rights Defender from Guatemala | ISHR

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, ISHR | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Human Rights Defenders are too often forced to play ‘whack-a-mole’

September 22, 2015

On 18 June 2015, Rachel Ball, Director of Advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre in Australia, reflects on a cross-regional consultation of human rights defenders facilitated by ISHR:

There’s a game that you sometimes find at amusement arcades called whack-a-mole. Toy moles rise out of their holes at random and the player uses a large mallet to whack the moles on the head and force them back into their holes. A successful player needs vigilance, composure and a quick eye. 

For human rights defenders, the protection of civil society space is a lot like a game of whack-a-mole. Threats arise without warning and valuable time, resources and energy are spent opposing them. 

Almost one year ago, the Human Rights Council passed a resolution urging States to ‘create and maintain, in law and in practice, a safe and enabling environment in which civil society can operate free from hindrance and insecurity’. In too many cases the Human Rights Council’s resolution has not translated into domestic action and last week in Geneva ISHR convened a group of expert whackers from around the world to share their experiences of threats to civil society space and strategies to counter those threats.

Participants discussed anti-protest laws, restrictions on the establishment and funding of civil society organisations, constraints on the work of journalists, and national security and counter-terrorism laws that unduly restrict freedom of association and assembly. Each of these restrictive practices constitutes a current threat to civil society space in my country, Australia, and it was both troubling to see the regularity with which these laws and policies arise around the world, and encouraging to be exposed to the skill and dedication of human rights defenders working to defeat them.

We discussed and debated strategies for protecting civil society space, including building and maintaining strong coalitions, engaging with UN human rights mechanisms and other international actors, working with Governments and legislatures, strategic litigation, monitoring and reporting and working with the media and social media. We shared stories of success as well as failure.  

What was abundantly clear during the ISHR convening was that human rights defenders should not be spending their time whacking moles. Beyond our work protecting civil society space, we are engaged in issues like persecution on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, militarisation, sustainable development, climate change and refugee rights, to name a few.

The contribution of civil society actors to human rights challenges like these is vital. As the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, told the Human Rights Council at the opening of its 30th session last week, ‘When ordinary people can share ideas to overcome common problems, the result is better, more healthy, more secure and more sustainable States. It is not treachery to identify gaps, and spotlight ugly truths that hold a country back from being more just and more inclusive. When States limit public freedoms and the independent voices of civic activity, they deny themselves the benefits of public engagement, and undermine national security, national prosperity and our collective progress. Civil society – enabled by the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly – is a valuable partner, not a threat.’ 

In addition to enabling civil society through the proper protection of freedom of expression, assembly and association, States should make public commitments to support civil society and protect civil society space. Those commitments should be backed up by legal and institutional protection against intimidation and reprisals, support for the establishment and operation of non-government organisations and mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability.

Human rights defenders will return home from ISHR’s consultation, training and advocacy program with their mallets at the ready, but really it would better if we didn’t have to use them at all.

You can follow Rachel on Twitter at @RachelHRLC.

Source: Civil society space and whacking moles | ISHR

see also: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/tag/civil-society-organisations/

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, ISHR | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Guidelines issued to protect human rights defenders in Sri Lanka

September 7, 2015

The Colombo Gazette of 17 July 2015 carried an article that is interesting in the light of efforts to create an enabling national environment for Human Rights Defenders in Sri Lanka:

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has issued guideline for state authorities to ensure the protection of Human Rights Defenders (HRD) including ensuring their freedom of association.

The Human Rights Commission noted that Human Rights defenders act as the voice of vulnerable person or group or community or society and engage to ensure universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms.

“They work very hard, for example; they document violations, reveal the human rights violations and help to redress these violations by peaceful means. HRDs are facing challenges in diverse political and social context at national, regional and international levels. Sometimes their activities are neglected or underestimated or seen as something negative by some of the authorities. Therefore they undergo severe risk when they carry out the activities to promote and protect human rights,” the Human Rights Commission said.

It said that the protection of HRDs is a corporate responsibility of the State, Civil societies and international communities. Although, State authorities have primary responsibility to protect the HRDs and ensure a conducive working environment where HRDs can operate free from hindrance and insecurity. All of them respect the rights of HRDs and support the activities of the HRDs to promote the overall enjoyment of human rights.

Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) as a National Human rights Institution (NHRI) has to perform as a defender of HRDs. HRCSL has serious concern for the Protection of HRDs. For this purpose the HRCSL has developed guideline for state authorities. These guidelines will assist the state authorities to protect the HRDs and ensure the internal dignity of the HRDs.

The guidelines call on State authorities to recognize the activities of the HRDs to protect and promote all human and fundamental freedoms which are guaranteed by the Sri Lankan laws including the Constitution of Sri Lanka and International human rights laws, be mindful of the fact that HRDs activities have the true intention to protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedom, are transparent, visible and accountable, are not a threat to state sovereignty, national unity and national security and are activate through peaceful means. 

The guidelines also note that all the human rights defenders or groups or organs of society shall be treated equally according to Article 12(2) of the Constitution which ensures “No citizen shall be discriminated against on the grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion, and place of birth or any one of such grounds”. Any special or unequal treatment or discrimination will be an express violation of Article 12 of the Constitution.

State authorities have also been told to recognize the freedom of association of human rights defenders or group or organs of society for a common purpose or joint action towards protecting and promoting human rights and fundamental freedom. Unreasonable restriction, suppression, dismissal, prohibition, negatively viewed or any such ways will be a sign of violation of the freedom of association which is guaranteed by Article 14 and 12 of the Constitution and other domestic laws.

State authorities should respect, protect and ensure the right of freedom of speech and expression of HRDs related to protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedom. Restrict, prohibit, show contempt, deform, criticize, comment negatively or any such ways will be an expression of violation of Article 14 and 12 of the Constitution.

HRCSL also notes that State authorities must ensure the right of movement of human rights defenders or groups or organs of society to meet the vulnerable groups particularly their rights violated or peaceful parade or travelling for peaceful gathering and seek, obtain and receive information for the purpose to facilitate the victim to seek appropriate remedies. If the movement of HRDs is unlawfully or unjustifiably restricted it violates article 14 of the Constitution.

https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/important-human-rights-council-side-event-on-11-march-to-be-followed-on-internet/

Guidelines issued to protect human rights defenders | Colombo Gazette.

Posted in books, human rights, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Draft laws on civil society restrictions also pending in Kyrgyzstan and Cambodia

May 21, 2015

Human rights defenders find it difficult to function with a fair and functioning legal regime for the creation and administration of associations (NGOs). In my post of yesterday on Russia I drew attention to the draft law declaring some NGOs ‘undesirable”. Today Human Rights Watch (HRW) called on Kyrgyz lawmakers in the coming days not to follow Russia’s bad example of passing a Foreign Agents law [see also my earlier: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/kyrgyzstan-follows-bad-example-set-by-russia-foreign-agents/].

And also today Front Line and the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (a joint OMCT-FIDH programme) ask the Cambodian Government to withdraw its draft law on civil society which would create many uncertainties and restrictions. The NGOs trace the lack of consultation in the process of law- making (since 2010) and conclude that the draft law as it stands will be used arbitrarily to restrict the legitimate work of human rights organisations.

The text of the Open Letter by the Observatory can be viewed at:  Open Letter – Cambodia : Draft law on civil society.

https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/russia-human-rights-ngos-likely-to-become-officially-undesirable/

Posted in FIDH, Front Line, HRW, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, OMCT | 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

UN consultation on space for civil society

May 19, 2015

The High Commissioner for Human Rights is putting together a report of practical recommendations on how to create and maintain the space for civil society to work freely and independently. The freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly etc are at the heart of civic activity and good laws and rules to guarantee public freedoms, as well as ways to monitor and protect them are of course a necessary condition. But also needed are:

  • a political and public environment that values civil society’s contributions
  • free flow of information
  • long-term support and resources
  • space for dialogue and collaboration

The OHCHR is interested to hear from you about your experience.  Please share:

  1. your examples and illustrations of these and other ways to maintain space to work
  2. if there are limitations, how do you continue to carry out your activities
  3. useful links, tools, resources, guides (whatever the language)

And forward this Note to others who should know about it!!

Please send information before 30 June 2015 by email to: civilsociety@ohchr.org, with in the subject heading “Civil Society Space Report – Input”.

For the full text of the resolution of the UN Human Rights Council, see: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/27/31

Consultation – updated 21 April 2015.doc – Google Docs.

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Council, Human Rights Defenders, OHCHR, UN | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

« Older posts
Newer posts »