On 4 April 2025 a joint statement by 13 international, regional and national civil society organisations, strongly condemned violations of the right to protest in Turkey, including police brutality, ill-treatment that may amount to torture, mass arbitrary detentions, and the systematic persecution of human rights defenders.
Mass protests erupted across Turkey on 19 March 2025, following the detention of more than 100 individuals —including the Mayor of Istanbul, Ekrem İmamoğlu. These arrests, made as part of investigations into allegations of “corruption” and “terrorism”, and their timing have raised widespread concerns that the charges are politically motivated – just days before İmamoğlu’s expected presidential candidacy.
In the immediate aftermath of the arrests, authorities imposed sweeping restrictions, including days-long blanket bans on gatherings across multiple cities, restricted access to several social media platforms curbing access and preventing the dissemination of information, and shut down major public transportation routes in İstanbul, all in a systematic effort to suppress dissent and mobilisations.
Despite these measures, thousands have continued to gather in protest across the country since 19 March. While protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, journalists and civil society organisations have documented grave human rights violations in several locations, and particularly in Saraçhane, Istanbul, including an indiscriminate and disproportionate display of police violence and brutality that may amount to torture and other ill-treatment, including beatings with batons, demonstrators being kicked while subdued on the ground, close-range targeting with Kinetic Impact Projectiles (KIPs), as well as the indiscriminate use of chemical irritants and water cannons. Based on widely circulated footage and public testimonies, and in line with the UN Committee Against Torture’s recommendations to Turkey following its periodic review in 2024, the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (TİHV) has also denounced the use of restraint methods that inflict unnecessary pain, such as prolonged handcuffing behind the back and stress positions. These practices, known to cause serious health consequences, have at times been publicised by police officers themselves via personal accounts, seemingly as a tactic of intimidation.
Reports have stated that protesters who have been met with excessive police force have suffered grave and long-lasting injuries such as head trauma and eye damage due to tear gas cartridges and KIPs, burns and respiratory issues due to the indiscriminate and widespread use of tear gas and water cannons, which in some cases resulted in their hospitalisation. The full extent of the injuries, as well as the physical and psychological toll on protesters’ health, will only become clear in the following months.
According to the report of Human Rights Association (İHD), as of 27 March 2025, a total of 1,879 people—including children, lawyers, journalists, students, union leaders and human rights defenders—have been taken into custody during protests and house raids on the grounds of inciting protests, engaging in violence, concealing their faces with masks, and using bats or other objects. Over 260 of them have been placed in pre-trial detention, while judicial control measures have been imposed on 468 individuals simply for exercising their right to peaceful protest. Istanbul Bar Association Child Rights Committee reported that among the arrested in İstanbul, 20 were under the age of 18.
Progressive Lawyers Association (ÇHD) also highlights incidents of torture, ill-treatment and sexual violence in detention facilities. Lawyers have denounced the treatment of seven female detainees who were subjected to beatings as well as unjustified strip searches while in custody. According to a released testimony, another female victim reported being groped by a police officer while handcuffed behind the back and forcefully pinned to the ground and that she soiled herself out of fear during the ordeal. She was reportedly placed under house arrest after her testimony. The Turkish Medical Association has recalled the importance of medical examinations upon entry in custody and detention to prevent and document torture and other ill-treatment.
Human rights defenders, including those monitoring the protests, have also become targets of State repression during the protests. Journalists and media organisations covering protests have also been persecuted, infringing on the right to freedom of expression and the right to information. As of 28 March, at least 14 journalists were detained after covering the protest.
Lawyers representing those who were arbitrarily detained in the context of protests, were also targeted. At least 14 lawyers were detained, including the lawyer of İmamoğlu, demonstrating the State authorities’ disregard for the rule of law and the right to defence, due process and justice. In the midst of the protests as part of the general intimidation strategy against lawyers, on 21 March the Istanbul Bar Association’s executive board was dismissed by the decision of İstanbul 2nd Civil Court of First Instance- a move that raises serious concerns of further attacks on the independence of the legal profession and the detainees’ right to legal representation. Following the decision, police interfered as lawyers attempted to march from the courthouse in Çağlayan to the Istanbul Bar Association building in Taksim to protest the decision.
Signatories:
ARTICLE 19
Asociación Unidad de Defensa Jurídica, Registro y Memoria para Nicaragua (AUDJUDRNIC)
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
EuroMed Rights
Front Line Defenders
Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
ILGA-Europe
United Against Torture Consortium (UATC), through its following members:
The International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT)
Omega Research Foundation
Redress
And the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
Unidad de Protección a Defensoras y Defensores de Derechos Humanos – Guatemala (UDEFEGUA)
Within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders:
Thematic areas of interest… Acts of intimidation and reprisals ISHR remains deeply concerned about reprisals against civil society actors who engage or seek to engage with UN bodies and mechanisms. We call for all States and the Council to do more to address the situation. HRC55 is a key opportunity for States to raise concerns about specific cases of reprisals and demand that governments provide an update on any investigation or action taken toward accountability. An increasing number of States have raised concerns in recent sessions about individual cases of reprisals, including at HRC39, HRC41, HRC42, HRC43, HRC45, HRC51, HRC52, and HRC53, and HRC54. States raising cases is an important aspect of seeking accountability and ending impunity for acts of reprisal and intimidation against defenders engaging with the UN. It can also send a powerful message of solidarity to defenders, supporting and sustaining their work in repressive environments. We urge States to continue to raise the cases ISHR has campaigned on in the last two years in their statements. We also urge States to raise and follow up on individual cases of reprisals in the country specific debates taking place at this session. Further information on these cases can be found here or by contacting the ISHR team at s.hosseiny@ishr.ch
Other thematic debates
At this 55th session, the Council will discuss a range of economic, social and cultural rights through dedicated debates with Special Rapporteurs.
Country-specific developments
Attacks against fundamental freedoms in relation to Palestine in Western Europe and North America (including Austria, France, Germany, Italy, United States, United Kingdom): Civil society and international experts have raised grave concern at the attacks on fundamental freedoms when advocating for the rights of Palestinians by authorities in Western Countries. The attacks on freedoms of expression, assembly and association being monitored since October 2023 are by no means a new trend. For example, in September 2023, Amnesty International issued a statement addressing ‘restrictions of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly through blanket, pre-emptive bans imposed on assemblies on the occasion of Nakba Remembrance Day in Berlin’ by the Berlin Assembly Authority. However there has been a notable escalation in the intensity of these attacks as well as the political and legal measures put forward to further curtail fundamental freedoms in relation to Palestine since October 2023. Western governments, who regularly call for strong protection of human rights and civic space, are emboldening Israel’s indiscriminate attacks by cracking down on free expression and peaceful assembly, online and offline. Authorities have resorted to banning the holding of demonstrations, cracked down on demonstrators, and arrested protesters. Moreover, individuals have been fired from their jobs for voicing opinions on social media. Individuals have also reported facing hate speech, censorship and self-censoring fearing reprisals, including discrimination and criminalisation for voicing their opinions online and offline. Special Procedures have concluded that the undue restrictions imposed by States, especially Western States, ‘on peaceful protests and civil society working to protect human rights and humanitarian law in the context of the Gaza war are contrary to States’ obligation under international law to prevent atrocity crimes, such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and apartheid’. They stressed ‘that inclusive and meaningful collaboration with civil society, human rights defenders, […] and protest movements is vital to end the cycle of violence and impunity […], dismantling apartheid and ensuring justice and accountability […]’. Special Procedures have also addressed how ‘risks of potential anti-Semitism have also been used as a justification by some States to ban and criminalise peaceful assemblies and expressions in support of Palestinians’ rights’. Civil society has for years deplored the misuse by Israel and Western States of this argument to suppress Palestinian rights advocacy through the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. The Arab Center Washington DC stressed that ‘conflation between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israeli crimes against Palestinian civilians (heightened by the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism by many States and organisations), leads to the silencing of Palestinian voices’. The normalisation of anti-Palestinian racism, rarely treated as equal human beings by the media or politicians, has also led to the dehumanisation of Palestinians as emphasised by the Special Procedures who stressed that ‘States have sought to justify these restrictions by referring to risks related to incitement to hatred and ‘glorification’ or ‘support of terrorism’, and potential risks to national security or public order. This approach is not only arbitrary, but it also dehumanises Palestinians by unjustly linking them as a whole to criminal endeavours and terrorism.’ Moreover, Special Procedures have stressed that ’employees in the public and private sectors should also not face reprisals, such as disciplinary measures or loss of employment, for speaking out’. They emphasised the importance for States and relevant academic institutions to respect academic freedoms, and ensure that students and teaching staff can freely associate, assemble and express their views with regards to the war in Gaza and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The European Legal Support Center (ELSC) has monitored 661 incidents of repression against the Palestinian solidarity movement or individuals advocating for Palestinian rights since 7 October : 219 took place in Germany, 172 in the UK, 72 in France, 45 in Italy, 16 in Austria and 137 in other European countries. These include legal action or threats of legal action; restriction of movement, harassment, intimidation or violence; smear campaigns; threats to citizenship of residency status; disciplinary investigation, loss of employment or suspension from position; threats to academic freedom; refusal or withdrawal of use of venue or cancelation of events; defunding or financial de-risking. Since 2014, Palestine Legal has responded to over 2200 incidents in the US of suppression of Palestinian rights advocacy aimed at intimidating Palestinians and their supporters into silence and inaction. Since October 7, Palestine Legal responded to over 1258 reports of suppression of Palestinian rights advocacy in the US. Palestine Legal and over 600 legal organisations and professionals based in the USA urged in a joint letter elected officials and institutional leaders ‘to take urgent measures to address the surging racist attacks and unlawful retaliation against advocates for Palestinian right They address ‘an unprecedented barrage of extreme attacks that Palestinians and their allies in the U.S. are facing, including violent assaults, hate speech, employment discrimination, severe harassment and doxxing of students, law enforcement visits, and censorship in different arenas of civic and social life’. The organisation stressed that ‘hundreds of incidents happening across the country signal a much broader effort to criminalise dissent, justify censorship, and incite anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, and anti-Muslim harassment, doxing and vigilantism against Palestinians and their allies. This is not a new phenomenon, but it is escalating at terrifying speed.’ In line with Special Procedures recommendations, we urge States, in particular Western States to: immediately and unconditionally release all arbitrarily detained individuals ‘for the exercise of their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, of association and of freedom of expression in the context in Israel/occupied Palestinian territory’. Put an end to the intimidation and criminalisation of ‘civil society and activists advocating for respect of Palestinians’ rights, including the right to self-determination, for boycotts, divestment and sanctions, international criminal accountability, and an end to the alleged crimes of apartheid and genocide against Palestinians’ Ensure that ‘legislation and policy measures designed to counter anti-Semitism or terrorism are not used to suppress fundamental freedoms or to restrict civil society’s access to resources and/or criminalize them for their legitimate work.’ Ensure that ‘civil society organizations, human rights defenders and academics, working on Palestinian rights can exercise the ability to seek, receive and use financial resources, including foreign funding; and that counter-terrorism laws, including financing laws, are not applied in a manner contrary to international standards.’
Algeria
The sustained repression against the pro-democracy movement and human rights defenders in Algeria was addressed in the end of session statements of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of association and assembly as well as the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders who conducted official visits to Algeria in 2023. These were the first visits since 2016 by UN mandate holders to the country. The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Assembly and Association addressed the ‘criminalisation of civil society work’, and the ‘suspension or dissolution of political parties and associations, including prominent human rights advocacy organisations’ (including RAJ and LADDH), as well as ‘overly restrictive laws and regulations’ hindering their work. The rapporteurs called for the amendment of laws used to curtail fundamental freedoms, including article 87 bis of the Penal Code, used to outlaw movements such as the Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylie (MAK) and the Islamic political movement Rachad, both declared terrorist entities, and to bring criminal charges against individuals for exercising their rights to expression and assembly. Following her visit and attending the trial of three Algerian human rights defenders who faced terrorism charges, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders ‘welcomed the acquittal of Jamila Loukil, Kaddour Chouicha and Said Boudour’. While this is a positive development, a big number of activists and HRDs remain arbitrarily detained in Algeria. The SR on HRDs addressed the arbitrary detention of Kamira Nait Sid, a WHRD and co-president of the World Amazigh Congress sentenced to three years in prison where she visited her. She was arrested and tried on charges of ‘undermining national unity” and “belonging to a terrorist organisation’. The Special Rapporteur also met with HRD Ahmed Manseri, was put in pre-trial detention following meeting the Special Rapporteur on FoAA, ‘a picture of him meeting the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Association and Assembly was included in his case file’. In line with the decision of the WGAD, Algeria should release arbitrarily detained HRD Mohamed BabaNadjar, detained since 2005 and serving a life sentence for his work on the rights of the Amazigh people. ISHR is alarmed at the level of self-censorship and risk of reprisals individuals face for engaging with the UN and its mechanisms. The SR on HRDs reported that individuals were self-censoring ‘for fear of being charged under Article 87 bis’. The SR on FoAA reported that activists told him that they were not willing to meet him ‘in person as they feared they could be subject to reprisals by authorities for undermining national security.’ The SR on HRDs also reported that some HRDs she intended to meet “refused or cancelled at the last minute, for fear of reprisals”. We urge all States to demand that Algeria, an HRC member, end its crackdown on human rights defenders and civil society organisations as well as put an end to all acts of intimidation and reprisals. We also call on States to call for the immediate release of all individuals arbitrarily detained, including woman human rights defender Kamira Nait Sid, and Mohamed BabaNadjar, and to urge Algeria to amend all legislation that hinders the work of civil society, including article 87 bis, regulations on funding, and other undue limitations to freedom of assembly and association.
Bahrain
Bahrain continues to imprison human rights defenders, including Abduljalil Al-Singace, Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja and Naji Fateel, despite their prolonged incarceration deemed arbitrary by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. High profile opposition figures such as Sheikh Ali Salman, Hassan Mushaima, and Abdulwahab Hussain also remain behind bars.
On 19 September 2023, the UN Secretary-General published their annual report naming five individuals who faced reprisals for cooperating with United Nations mechanisms. The death penalty continues to be used, with 26 individuals on death row, many alleging torture and coerced confessions. Death row inmates Mohamed Ramadhan and Husain Moosa have been detained for a decade and are at risk of imminent execution despite UNWGAD calling for their immediate and unconditional release and impending execution. Last year, over 800 political prisoners in Jau Prison launched a hunger strike to protest harsh conditions, discrimination and ill-treatment.
We call on States to urge Bahraini authorities to unconditionally release all those sentenced for their political opinions, including human rights defenders, stop reprisals for cooperating with the UN, and implement recommendations by UN Special Procedures.
China
China’s fourth UPR review on January 23 exposed strong international condemnation over grave abuses, and calls for unfettered access to the whole country for UN Special Procedures experts, including from the Global South. Numerous recommendations and advanced questions referred to the overwhelming evidence of grave abuses documented by UN bodies since 2018, compiled in a repository published by ISHR. This vast array of UN recommendations constitute an impartial benchmark to assess the Chinese government’s willingness and actions to address systematic and widespread human rights violations. Follow-up to these welcome steps must be ensured. To uphold the integrity of its mandate and put an end to China’s exceptionalism, the HRC must establish a monitoring and reporting mechanism on the country, as repeatedly called for by over 40 UN experts and hundreds of human rights groups globally. States should further urge the UN High Commissioner to strengthen follow-up action on his Office’s Xinjiang report, including through public calls for implementation, translation of the report, and an assessment of its implementation. States should ensure sustained visibility at the HRC of China’s abuse of national security and other cross-cutting abuses affecting Uyghurs, Tibetans, Hong Kongers and mainland Chinese defenders, including the latest crackdown on human rights lawyers. Finally, States should ask for the prompt release of human rights defenders, including feminist activists Huang Xueqin and Li Qiaochu, human rights lawyers Chang Weiping, Ding Jiaxi, Yu Wensheng and his wife Xu Yan, legal scholar Xu Zhiyong, Uyghur doctor Gulshan Abbas, Hong Kong lawyer Chow Hang-tung, and Tibetan climate activist A-nya Sengdra.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
The government must engage civil society in the drafting of the implementation, ensure it is in line with international standards and doesn’t further restrict the rights of defenders in the country. The United Nations Joint Human Rights Office (UNJHRO) must support the calls of civil society and ensure the protection and promotion of defenders is part of its support to the government of the DRC.
The Council will consider oral updates with the High Commissioner and the team of international experts on the DRC on 3 April, followed by General Debate.
According to human rights organisations, at least 251 defendants were rotated to new cases in 2023, and another 620 defendants in 2022, demonstrating the continued involvement of the judicial authorities in violations of the right to fair trial and undermining the rule of law.
The Human Rights Committee also called on Egypt to ‘ensure that court proceedings in terrorism cases are fully in line with articles 14 and 15 of the Covenant to ensure fair trials and put an end to the use of mass trials that are inherently not aligned with international standards’. UN Special Procedures have raised their concerns with Egypt on the ‘Terrorism Circuit Courts and allegations of their incompatibility with international due process guarantees, as well as alleged violations of fundamental rights of many individuals, including human rights defenders, who have been tried, or are still waiting to be tried, before these courts’. According to the Egyptian Front for Human Rights’ annual report, the Terrorism Circuit Courts ordered the release of only 3 defendants, approximately 0.1% of the 35966 cases of detention renewals under its consideration in 2023. The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) has also documented this pattern of what is commonly referred to as ‘hearings of detention renewals’ by the Terrorism Circuit Courts, including most recently renewals of detention of almost 900 defendants on 21 and 22 January 2024. Since the Committee against Torture (CAT) reached ‘the inescapable conclusion‘ in 2017 that ‘torture is a systematic practice in Egypt,’ the Egyptian government has not taken any serious steps to address the issue. In a new report submitted to the CAT, REDRESS and a coalition of Egyptian and international civil society organisations – including the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms, Dignity, and the International Commission of Jurists – conclude that the widespread and systematic use of torture by the Egyptian authorities amounts to a crime against humanity under customary international law. ISHR reiterates the calls of more than 100 NGOs from around the world in urging the HRC to create a monitoring and reporting mechanism on the ever-deteriorating human rights situation in Egypt.
Guatemala
Guatemala is living historic and hugely challenging times. The undermining of Guatemala’s State institutions over many years has led to a collapse in the rule of law and a worsening human rights crisis. The judicial system has been largely stripped of its independence and attacks and threats against human rights defenders and justice operators have been rife. Currently at least 45 former justice operators have been forced into exile, with at least 10 facing criminal proceedings against them in the country. Guatemala’s new President, Bernardo Arévalo, has promised to re-establish the rule of law, fight against corruption and impunity and address poverty. At this session under General Debate 2, the Council will consider the High Commissioner’s report on OHCHR activities including in Guatemala. This is the opportunity for States to speak of their support for effective measures to address corruption, impunity and for the respect of human rights under the new Presidency, and to continue their commitment to monitoring government actions. States should call on Guatemala to use UPR and treaty body recommendations as a road map for the necessary reforms to reintroduce the rule of law, fight impunity and uphold human rights. States should call on Guatemala to commit to and accept visits of Special Procedures as a means to institute a regime of rights monitoring and recommendations. They should welcome the good news of the three year renewal of the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner in Guatemala and suggest that the High Commissioner for Human Rights visit the country at his earliest convenience. States should urge the government to guarantee the security of indigenous communities and leaders and institute an ongoing dialogue with indigenous communities to hear and respond to their demands. In that regard, Guatemala should sign and ratify the Escazú Protocol as a matter of urgency. States should call on Guatemala to put the protection of defenders at the heart of the new government’s actions, including through the implementation of the public human rights defenders public protection policy, ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2014.
Israel/OPT
The Council will hold an interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner on ensuring accountability and justice in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem on 29 February and an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the oPt on 26 March. ISHR welcomes South Africa’s proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the situation in Gaza as an important step towards effective measures and accountability for atrocity crimes committed by Israel in the context of its decades long colonial apartheid imposed over the Palestinian people, including its latest war on Gaza. It also upheld international law in the face of decades of double standards during which the international community failed to take effective measures to ensure Israel complies with international law and the numerous UN resolutions and recommendations by UN special procedures, treaty bodies, and investigative mechanisms. Civil society organisations stressed that by ‘drawing on the nature of Israel’s military action, and ‘dehumanising’ statements by Israeli government officials, the Court found that Israel’s actions in Gaza are plausibly genocidal’, pending its final decision. These provisional measures which have a legally binding effect, ‘cannot be carried out without a full cessation of hostilities’, thus can only be effective with a ceasefire. In a joint statement from January 2024, Special Procedures deplored that they had raised the alarm of the risk of genocide several times and for months, ‘reminding all governments they have a duty to prevent genocide’ and stressing that ‘not only is Israel killing and causing irreparable harm against Palestinian civilians with its indiscriminate bombardments, it is also knowingly and intentionally imposing a high rate of disease, prolonged malnutrition, dehydration, and starvation by destroying civilian infrastructure’. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination raised ‘serious concerns regarding the obligation of Israel and other State parties to prevent crimes against humanity and genocide.’ Responding to arguments of Israel and other States, the Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel reiterated that article 51 which ‘provides for the use of force by a State in self-defense of the Charter […] is not applicable’. Special procedures expressed their profoundly concern about ‘the support of certain governments for Israel’s strategy of warfare against the besieged population of Gaza, and the failure of the international system to mobilise to prevent genocide’. ISHR and over 180 organisations, deplored the continued transfer of arms to Israel by States, including the US, the UK, Germany, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, and stress that the provision of military equipment and military support to Israel with knowledge that they are likely to be used in serious violations of international law, including international crimes, invites charges of complicity. ISHR also denounces the defunding civil society organisations and UNRWA by Western States, a strategy implemented by Israel and discursively imposed by some States to silence the work of human rights defenders and ensure the demise of the Palestinian refugee issue and with it the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. We call for an immediate and unconditional release of all Palestinians deprived of liberty without due process, and all Israeli hostages; and the lifting of the 17 year-old illegal blockade and closure of the Gaza Strip, which constitutes collective punishment. In line with the ICJ provisional measures, and based on the obligations of States under international law, including the Genocide Convention, we urge States to take immediate and effective measures to: Impose a ceasefire and ensure that Israel provides immediate and unhindered delivery of aid to the Gaza Strip; Implement a two-way arms embargo on Israel; Ensure that internally displaced Palestinians return to their areas of previous residence and are provided with safe shelters in accordance with IHL provisions; Support the work of the CoI to investigate the root causes of the situation on both sides of the Green Line, including through providing sufficient resources for the mechanism, to ensure accountability and redress; and Restore funding of UNRWA and civil society organisations working to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid in the context of starvation and genocide as well as document human rights violations, respectively.
Mali
In Mali the human rights situation continues to deteriorate, with the government increasingly cracking down on media and opposition voices, significantly narrowing civic space. During the presentation of his last report at the 52nd session of the Human Rights Council, the Independent Expert highlighted the threats, physical assaults and attacks on their property defenders faced because of their opinions.
Additionally, he recognised that the progress recently made towards the return to constitutional order may not lead to credible, free, fair and inclusive electoral processes unless appropriate measures are taken to address the shrinking civic space in the country. Since the adoption of the defenders’ law in 2018, Mali is yet to fully guarantee the protection of the rights of defenders through its implementation. In 2020, Mali finally adopted its implementation decree for the HRD law shortly followed by the decision adopted by the Malian government which establishes the characteristics, procedures for granting and withdrawing the professional card of human rights defenders. ISHR continues to ask the independent expert what support he planned to give to the Malian government to ensure the full implementation of the defenders law and its protection mechanism. The HRC must keep the scrutiny on Mali to ensure that defenders in the country are protected in line with the UN Declaration and not restricted by the limitation imposed by a card defining the status of defenders. The Council will hold an interactive dialogue with the independent expert on 28 March. Nicaragua
The human rights situation in Nicaragua comes back on the agenda against this session with two planned debates. On 29 February the Group of Human Rights Experts will present its report followed by an interactive dialogue. On the 4 March there will be an oral update of the HC on the situation of human rights in Nicaragua followed by a general debate. At the Council’s last interactive dialogue on Nicaragua, on 18 December 2023, the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights said of Nicaragua: ‘Every day the country deviates further from human rights.’ The last months have shown how true this remains. Upcoming regional elections on the Caribbean Coast (4 March) have provided a context for government crackdowns on opponents. The main indigenous and Afro-descendant political party in the country, YATAMA, has had its legal status revoked and two of its leaders, National Assembly legislator and YATAMA party chair Brooklyn Rivera and YATAMA legal representative Nancy Elizabeth Henríquez were arrested. The whereabouts of Brooklyn Rivera remain unknown. These arrests have been followed by increased militarisation in the territories on the Caribbean coast. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and its Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression have expressed concern about these and other attacks against indigenous communities in the country. Many Nicaraguan human rights defenders remain in exile with no possibility of return. These include Rolando Álvarez, sentenced to 26 years in prison after strongly criticising government repression last year and expelled from the country in mid-January 2024 alongside 17 other clerics. Repression against defenders continues. States must call on Nicaragua to immediately release all arbitrarily detained people including Freddy Quezada, subject of precautionary measures by the IACHR; to provide immediate information about the whereabouts of all those disappeared, including poet Carlos Bojorge, detained and disappeared one month ago, and Brooklyn Rivera. States should express firm support of the work of the Group of Experts on Nicaragua and OHCHR and call on Nicaragua to take urgent steps to meet the recommendations made to it by the Group of Experts, as well as OHCHR and – in the words of Nicaraguan HRD Cristina Huerta made in December at the Council – to call on Nicaragua to ‘put an end to the State violence against women and civil society and retake the path to democracy’. ISHR is co-organising a side event ‘The situation for exiled Nicaraguan activists a year after being released and stripped of nationality’ on 5th March, 15.30-16.30pm Geneva time, Room XXVII Palais de Nations. Co-organisers include the Permanent Missions of Argentina, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Paraguay, as well as NGOs CCPR, Race and Equality and PBI.
Occupied Western Sahara In October 2023, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention requested the immediate release of 18 Gdeim Izik prisoners from Western Sahara, held for over 13 years in Moroccan jails. In the last six years, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has rendered at least 11 decisions highlighting a systematic pattern of violations of the right to due process and fair trial, arbitrary arrests, torture, as well as violations to the right to freedom of expression, discrimination based on language, ethnicity and religion, especially targeting Saharawi activists advocating for the right to self-determination of Western Sahara. Prior, UN CAT issued five decisions on the Gdeim Izik prisoners, including in the case of Human rights activists Enaâma Asfari. Western Sahara is a former Spanish colony that remains under Moroccan occupation (despite a 1992 UN governed agreement for a referendum on independence, which Morocco continues to fail to comply with). In 1990, the General Assembly had reaffirmed that Western Sahara was a question of decolonisation
which remained to be completed by the people of Western Sahara. We urge States to call on Morocco to implement the decisions of the CAT and the WGAD and unconditionally release the Gdeim Izik arbitrarily detained activists, and all arbitrarily detained journalists and human rights defenders, while putting an end to all forms of harassment and reprisals against prisoners and their family. We further urge States to call on Morocco to put an end to its crackdown on civil society, particularly Saharawi human rights defenders in the occupied territory, ensure they are able to conduct their human rights work, and provide access to occupied Western Sahara to human rights bodies, including OHCHR, special procedures, and human rights organisations. As a member of the Human Rights Council and its president, and in line with resolution 60/251, Morocco should ‘uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights’ and ‘fully cooperate with the Council’. In his update to the Council in March 2023, High Commissioner Turk highlighted that his Office has not been granted access to Western Sahara for the last eight years. Local human rights organisations report that international organisations and observers are barred from entering the territory to carry out meaningful human rights documentation and that human rights defenders trying to document and ensure monitoring are being targeted by the State.
In a joint statement, Special Procedures decried ‘the systematic and relentless targeting of human rights defenders in retaliation for exercising their rights to freedom of association and expression to promote human rights in Western Sahara’. They urged Morocco to ‘stop targeting human rights defenders and journalists standing up for human rights issues related to Western Sahara, and allow them to work without reprisals’.
Saudi Arabia According to ALQST’s annual report, despite the Saudi authorities’ recent efforts to open up to tourism and host international events, a prevailing climate of closure prevails – independent monitors are denied access to the country, the prison system is shrouded in secrecy, and trials are held behind closed doors.
In this ominous atmosphere, and following the almost complete diplomatic rehabilitation of crown prince and de facto ruler Mohammed bin Salman, widespread violations persist, including but not limited to: further decades-long prison sentences, and even a death sentence, meted out for peaceful social media use; the prosecution of women for their choice of clothing and advocacy for women’s rights; prisoners of conscience held incommunicado beyond the expiration of their sentences; arbitrary travel bans imposed on detainees and their family members in a form of collective punishment; and the execution of 172 individuals carried out over 2023, with several young men at imminent risk of execution for alleged crimes committed as minors.
In light of these alarming developments, ALQST and ISHR call on the Council to adopt a resolution mandating an independent international monitoring and investigative mechanism to address the human rights violations perpetrated in and by Saudi Arabia.
Sudan The humanitarian crisis in Sudan is dire, with millions displaced, widespread attacks on civilians including systematic SGBV as a weapon of war, amidst lack of global attention and adequate funding to respond to the crisis. Sudan faced a total communication blackout on 7 February 2024, following earlier disruptions at the end of January. These shutdowns severely endanger women human rights defenders and their work, hindering their ability to document atrocities and access essential resources such as mobile banking apps. Since the attack on Wad Madani in December 2023, WHRDs have lost resources, faced displacement, and enormous challenges searching for safe locations across states and neighboring countries. Dozens of women defenders were harassed, detained, summoned and threatened by both warring parties during the last few weeks. In recent months, the Sudanese Military Forces have intensified attacks on human rights defenders, journalists, and humanitarian workers in their controlled areas. Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have arrested civilians, engaged in looting, and perpetrated sexual violence systematically. WHRDs struggle to operate in these areas as the risks of sexual violence are expanding, with at least 5 WHRDs and first responders detained, summoned, or harassed recently. The attacks, which have resulted in the deaths of 4 WHRDs including 2 journalists and 11 women health workers, have occurred in territories controlled by both warring factions. Threats against medical services by both the RSF and the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) continue to be reported including killings and kidnappings of health workers, attacks on hospitals and theft of medical supplies; exacerbating the humanitarian crisis for millions internally displaced without access to necessities and healthcare, and at risk of diseases such as outbreak of cholera. Sudanese rights groups have documented more than 2000 cases of enforced disappearances in Khartoum and other affected regions since the start of the war, with victims often detained by RSF or SAF, some killed under unclear circumstances. Detainees endure inhumane conditions, lacking medical care, proper food, and subjected to torture and sexual violence. Authorities in safer regions of Northern and Eastern Sudan dissolved resistance committees, active since the 2018 protests. Governors of five states prohibited information dissemination on social media, detaining journalists and activists in three states. Peaceful civic activities are banned or unauthorized in several states, creating hostile environments for WHRDs. The civic space in Sudan is closed with increasing militarization of the state and communities. During the last three months, Sudanese authorities launched a mobilization campaign to arm civilians, leading to unprecedented threats to women, peace and security and GBV in the areas out of the fighting zones. The Council will hold, on 1 March, an enhanced interactive dialogue on the comprehensive report of the HC, presented with the assistance of the designated Expert on human rights in the Sudan, on the situation of human rights in the Sudan. During the debate, States should reiterate joint civil society calls on the warring parties for an immediate ceasefire and the prompt creation of safe corridors for humanitarian aid organisations and groups, and to guarantee the safety of their operations; an immediate restoration of telecommunications across the country; and cease attacks on health facilities, medical supplies, and health workers, and uphold obligations under international humanitarian law. States should also declare their support for joint civil society calls on States to create an immediate long-term protection program for WHRDs; provide support for the FFM and other international mechanisms mandated to document human rights violations in Sudan, including by ensuring that these entities have the necessary resources to carry out their work effectively; support local initiatives providing humanitarian support to local communities as well as support services to victims, and to support civil society’s documentation and reporting efforts so that the evidence obtained can be used for future judicial proceedings; to call for the disclosure of the whereabouts of the disappeared and the release of detainees, and to urgently address the issue of enforced disappearances and grave violations in detention centers, including GBV; and to call for the reinforcement and protection of medical staff in accordance with international humanitarian law.
Tunisia
Since 25 July 2021, President Saied has dismantled Tunisia’s democratic institutions, undermined judicial independence, stifled the exercise of freedom of expression and repressed dissent. In June 2023, the High Commissioner urged Tunisia to ‘change course’, ‘respect due process and fair trial standards in all judicial proceedings, cease trying civilians before military courts and release all those arbitrarily detained’. He expressed ‘deep concern at the increasing restrictions on the right to freedom of expression and press freedom in Tunisia’, noting that vague legislation is being used to criminalise independent journalism and stifle criticism of the authorities. He further addressed the ongoing crackdown ‘against judges, politicians, labour leaders, businesspeople and civil society actors’. The situation has since further deteriorated. Authorities have continued to escalate their crackdown on free speech and peaceful dissent, using unfounded conspiracy, terrorism and expression-related charges against opposition figures, journalists, lawyers, judges and businesspeople. Public remarks from the president about the prosecution of perceived critics has continued to undermine judicial independence. At least 20 people have been in pretrial detention for long periods of time (8 months to more than two years). In November 2023, civil society organisations warned that the draft law on associations submitted to the Tunisian Parliament on 10 October 2023 would violate the right to freedom of association and endanger civic space in Tunisia. The draft law would grant the government pervasive control and oversight over the establishment, activities, operations and funding of independent groups, which are one of the last remaining counterweights to President Kais Saied’s autocratic rule. We urge States to call on Tunisia to refrain from adopting the proposed draft law and, instead, commit to safeguarding the right to freedom of association as enshrined in Decree-law 88 and under international human right law binding on Tunisia. The authorities should ensure that associations are able to operate without political interference, intimidation, harassment or undue restrictions. Moreover, Special Procedures have raised alarm at the collective expulsions targeting sub-Saharan migrants from Tunisia as well as ‘violence and racist hate speech, including perpetrated by the country’s top leadership and law enforcement officials’. While collective expulsions started being documented in early July, they are ongoing and target asylum seekers, refugees and children, to Libya and Algeria.
ISHR reiterates the recommendations by Tunisian civil society, Special Procedures and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to put an end to these practices, and for the authorities to investigate, provide remedies to victims, and hold perpetrators accountable. Ukraine Two years on from the launch of Russia’s full scale invasion and war of aggression against Ukraine, the perpetration of which has involved the widespread commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, it is vital that the Council continue to mandate mechanisms to investigate violations, promote accountability, support victims, and address root causes of conflict.
At the March session of the Council, this should include renewing the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry, the work of which is essential to promote accountability for atrocity crimes in Ukraine, as well as address root causes such as the repression and criminalisation of human rights defenders and independent journalists in Russia itself. The Council will hold an interactive dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on 19 March. The Council will also hold an interactive dialogue on the OHCHR report on Ukraine on 2 April.
Venezuela The Human Rights Council session just as that Venezuela has suspended OHCHR activities in the country and ordered personnel to leave the country and amid a context of a foretold pre-electoral increase in threats and attacks against defenders.
The arbitrary detention and disappearance of human rights defender Rocío San Miguel, president of NGO Control Cuidadano, on 9 February is evidence of this and of a wider pattern of attacks against defenders, as noted by the UN fact-finding mission on Venezuela. The re-activation of the process related to a highly restrictive and much criticised NGO bill at the start of this year, is a sign of the government’s interest in restricting civil society’s ability to operate. This is no time to reduce efforts to demand the respect of human rights in the country including the respect of the rights of human rights defenders, and to express support for ongoing monitoring and reporting work by OHCHR in the country and by the UN Fact-Finding Mission. Venezuela will be the focus of two specific debates during the session. On 19 March, the High Commissioner will present an oral update informed by the conclusions and recommendations of his team in the country. The UN fact-finding mission will provide an oral update on the 20 March. Both of these updates will be followed by interactive dialogues. During this session, States must be of one voice in calling for the reactivation of the work of OHCHR in the country. Also, the immediate release of Rocío San Miguel and that of Javier Tarazona, arbitrarily detained almost three years ago. States must also express deep concern at the re-introduction of the NGO bill and call on the government to cease threats and attacks against defenders in the country. States should restate the importance of the work of Venezuelan defenders and commit to support their work politically and, where possible, financially. States must insist on the reestablishment of an effective OHCHR presence in the country and speak to the essential, ongoing work of the UN fact-finding mission, stressing upon Venezuela the importance of its cooperation with all the UN bodies and mechanisms with mandates related to Venezuela and with all Special Procedures. States’ participation in the two interactive dialogues on Venezuela – through individual and joint statements – is key to making evident that the human rights situation in the country and the UN’s monitoring and reporting mechanisms remain a priority and reassuring those demanding accountability for human rights violations in Venezuela that they are being heard.
Yemen In 2023, Mwatana documented the continuation of human rights violations committed by various conflicting parties in Yemen, including ground and aerial attacks, attacks on vital facilities, child recruitment, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, and torture, sexual violence, attacks on African migrants, denial of humanitarian access, as well as the the impact of the widespread presence of landmines and explosive devices. In 2023, over 40 civil society organisations, victims and survivor associations from Yemen launched the Yemen Declaration for Justice and Reconciliation, in which they set forth their common vision for achieving justice that is inclusive, victim-centred, and includes accountability, reparations, and redress.
ISHR calls on the international community to address the demands made by Yemeni civil society, including for an independent, impartial, and fair accountability for all crimes under international humanitarian law and international human rights law committed in Yemen, by all parties to the conflict. Failure to address atrocities in the past has led to a culture of impunity throughout generations. We urge the international community to take effective measures to assess the full extent of civilian harm in coordination with local civil society and call on parties to the conflict to ensure reparation and redress.
Other country situations The High Commissioner will provide an oral update to the Council on 4 March. The Council will consider updates, reports on and is expected to consider resolutions addressing a range of country situations, in some instances involving the renewal of the relevant expert mandates. These include: Interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan Enhanced interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Eritrea ID with the Special Rapporteur on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and a presentation of the report of the High Commissioner Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner on Belarus Interactive dialogue on the High Commissioner oral update on Myanmar, and interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Iran and Interactive Dialogue on the comprehensive report of the independent international fact-finding mission Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on Syria Enhanced interactive dialogue on the comprehensive written report of the Commission on Human Rights’ South Sudan and the participation of the High Commissioner, and an interactive Dialogue on the OHCHR report on South Sudan High-level Dialogue with the Independent Expert on Central African Republic Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner and the Independent Expert on Haiti Interactive Dialogue with the International Expert on Colombia, and presentation of the report on the OHCHR activities in Colombia under General debate 2
Resolutions to be presented to the Council’s 55th session At the organisational meeting on 12 February the following resolutions were announced (States leading the resolution in brackets): Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief (Pakistan on behalf of the OIC) Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the obligation to ensure accountability and justice (Pakistan on behalf of the OIC) Right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (Pakistan on behalf of the OIC) Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan (Pakistan on behalf of the OIC) Human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan (Pakistan on behalf of the OIC) Human rights and the environment (Costa Rica, Maldives, Morocco, Slovenia, Switzerland) – mandate renewal Prevention of genocide (Armenia) The right to work (Egypt, Greece, Indonesia, Mexico, Romania) The right to food (Cuba) Promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for cultural diversity (Cuba) – mandate renewal The effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights (Cuba) The right to adequate housing (Brazil, Finland, Germany, Namibia) Combating violence, discrimination, and harmful practices against intersex persons (Australia, Chile, Finland ,South Africa) Human rights in Ukraine stemming from the Russian aggression (Ukraine) The role of States in countering the negative impact of disinformation on the enjoyment and realization of human rights (Ukraine, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, UK, US) The right to privacy in the digital age (Austria, Brazil, Germany, Liechtenstein, Mexico) – mandate renewal Cooperation with Georgia (Georgia) Situation of Human Rights in the Republic of South Sudan ( Albania, Norway, UK, US) – mandate renewal The human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, the Netherlands, Qatar, Turkiye and the United States of America) – mandate renewal Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Denmark) Promoting and strengthening a culture of peace (Gambia, Lesotho, Chile, Mozambique, South Sudan, Côte d’Ivoire, Kazakhstan, Botswana) The rights of persons belonging to minorities (Austria, Slovenia, Mexico) The right of persons with disabilities (New Zealand and Mexico) The situation of human rights in Belarus (European Union) The situation of human rights in the DPRK (European Union) – mandate renewal The situation of human rights in Myanmar (European Union) – mandate renewal Freedom of religion or belief (European Union) Rights of the child (EU and GRULAC) Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iceland, Moldova, North Macedonia, United Kingdom) and the deteriorating situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, especially with respect to women and children (Iceland and Germany) – two mandate renewals in one resolution. Furthermore, according to the voluntary calendar for resolutions, it is possible that more resolutions could also be presented at this session. Read the calendar here.
Adoption of Universal Periodic Review (UPR) reports During this session, the Council will adopt the UPR working group reports on Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Djibouti, Germany, Russian Federation, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan. ISHR supports human rights defenders in their interaction with the UPR. We publish and submit briefing papers regarding the situation facing human rights defenders in some States under review and advocate for the UPR to be used as a mechanism to support and protect human rights defenders on the ground.
ISHR is organising a side event on 6 March at 13:00 (CET) on the role of defenders in fostering accountability for atrocity crimes. Further information will be published on ISHR’s website.
ISHR is co-organising a side event ‘The situation for exiled Nicaraguan activists a year after being released and stripped of nationality’ on 5 March, 15.30-16.30pm (CET), Room XXVII, Palais de Nations. Other co-organisers include the Permanent Missions of Argentina, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Paraguay, as well as NGOs CCPR, Race and Equality and PBI. ISHR is co-organising a side event, ‘Resisting Exile: Voices of Human Rights Defenders’ on 5 March, 2pm Palais de Nations, along with CCPR and Race and Equality.
In Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK, authorities have responded to climate protests with mass arrests, the passing of draconian new laws, the imposing of severe sentences for non-violent protests and the labelling of activists as hooligans, saboteurs or eco-terrorists. The crackdowns have come in spite of calls by senior human rights advocates and environmental campaigners to allow civic space for the right to non-violent protest, after a summer of record-breaking heat in southern Europe that is attributed to the effects of climate breakdown.
The UK has led the way in the crackdown, experts say, with judges recently refusing an appeal against multi-year sentences for climate activists who blocked a motorway bridge in east London. The three-year jail terms for Marcus Decker and Morgan Trowland earlier this year are thought to be the longest handed out by a British judge for non-violent protest.
“Since my appointment I have been travelling to many countries in Europe and there is a clear trend,” Forst told the Guardian. “We can see an increasing number of cases by which these climate activists are brought to court more and more often and more and more severe laws being passed to facilitate these attacks on defenders.”
He added: “I’m sure that there is European cooperation among the police forces against these kinds of activities. My concern is that when [governments] are calling these people eco-terrorists, or are using new forms of vilifications and defamation … it has a huge impact on how the population may perceive them and the cause for which these people are fighting. It is a huge concern for me.”
Amnesty International said it was investigating a continent-wide crackdown on protest. Catrinel Motoc, the organisation’s senior campaigner on civil space and right to protest in Europe, said: “People all around the world are bravely raising their voices to call for urgent actions on the climate crisis but many face dire consequences for their peaceful activism.
“Peaceful protesters are left with no choice but to stage public protests and non-violent direct actions because European countries are not doing enough to tackle the climate crisis.
“There’s alarming evidence of criminalisation, harassment, stigmatisation and negative rhetoric towards environmental defenders.”
In June, Dunja Mijatović, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, also called for an end to crackdowns on environmental activists. Last December, Volker Türk, the UN’s high commissioner for human rights, appealed to governments to protect the “civic space” for young environmental activists, and “not crack down in a way that we have seen in many parts of the world”.
There was widespread outrage this summer when France’s interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, used one of the state’s most-powerful tools to order the banning of one of the country’s leading environmental protest groups. Les Soulévements de la Terre, a collective of local environmental campaigns, had staged a series of protests, with tactics including sabotage, that ended with violent confrontations with police, and Darmanin denouncing the activists as “far left” and “ecoterrorists”.
In the Netherlands, one of a series of roadblock protests on the A12 highway in The Hague in May was dispersed by police using water cannon, with more than 1,500 arrested. Seven climate activists were convicted of sedition – a charge that had never before been levelled against climate protesters – in relation to online posts calling for people to join an earlier demonstration.
In Sweden, about two dozen members of the Återställ Våtmarker [Restore Wetlands] group were convicted of sabotage for blocking highways in the capital, Stockholm. Others were held on remand for up to four weeks for taking part in protests.
In Germany in May, police staged nationwide raids against the Letzte Generation (Last Generation) group, whose supporters had glued themselves to roads on a near-weekly basis for months, as well as targeting art galleries and other cultural spaces. On a police directive, the homepage of the group was shut down and possessions belonging to members were seized.
At the most recent count, supplied by the activists, police had made more than 4,000 arrests of supporters of Last Generation taking part in road blocks in Berlin alone.
Authorities in Italy have used anti-organised crime laws to crack down on protests, where the Ultima Generazione (also Last Generation) group has staged road blocks since last year. The Digos police unit, which specialises in counter-terrorism, in April justified the use of anti-Mafia laws to target the group by saying its civil disobedience actions had not taken place spontaneously, but were organised, discussed and weighed up by an internal hierarchy. This came along with new, stiffer penalties for protests, with activists facing fines of up to €40,000 for actions targeting artworks and other cultural heritage.
Richard Pearshouse, director of the environment division at Human Rights Watch, said: “These restrictions on environmental protest across Europe and the UK are incredibly short-sighted. These governments haven’t grasped that we all have a huge interest in more people taking to the streets to demand better environmental protection and more climate action.
“Governments need to respect the rights to assembly and expression, and ramp up their own environmental protections and climate ambitions. That’s the only way we have a chance to get out of this climate crisis with our democratic institutions intact.”
A spokesperson for the UK Home Office said: “The right to protest is a fundamental part of our democracy but we must also protect the law-abiding majority’s right to go about their daily lives.
“The Public Order Act brings in new criminal offences and proper penalties for selfish, guerrilla protest tactics.”
The French interior ministry said local officials had the right to ban demonstrations with a serious risk of disturbing public order. “These one-off bans, of which there are very few in absolute terms, are not imposed because of the reason for the demonstration.”
The Italian interior ministry referred to a statement from the culture minister Gennaro Sangiuliano in April, who said attacks on monuments cause economic damage to the community that is is expensive to clean up. “Those who cause damage must pay personally.”
The German interior ministry declined to comment. The Bavarian interior ministry referred the Guardian to the public prosecutor’s office in Munich, which provided a statement from June in which it confirmed it had authorised the tapping of phones for six of seven Last Generation members under criminal investigation.
The Swedish interior ministry declined to comment. The Dutch ministry of justice did not respond to requests for comment.
Khine Rola in the Irrawaddy of 22 December 2020 relates what happens when you demonstrate peacefully during international human rights day in Myanmar.
Rakhine State police have opened a case against three activists under Article 19 of the Peaceful Assembly and Procession Law over a human rights demonstration in the state capital, Sittwe, earlier this month.
The three – Ko Min Bar Chay (also known as Ko Than Hla), Ko Naing Naing Tun and Ma Khaing Mrat Thu from the Rakhine Youth New Generation Network — led other protesters to mark Human Rights Day on Dec. 10. The three were detained as they protested on Strand Road in Sittwe and released on bail later that evening.
However, Sittwe Township police chief, Major Zaw Naing, said the three organized the event without seeking approval from the authorities when he filed the charges on Monday. The three insisted that the event was too important to cancel because the authorities failed to grant approval. At the event, the activists held placards calling for human rights, women’s rights and to end terrorism.
The three suspects leave court on December 21. / Khine Rola / The Irrawaddy
Ma Khaing Mrat Thu said: “It was Human Rights Day and Myanmar has ratified the International Human Rights Declaration. What we organized was not a protest but a campaign. We are very sad that the government filed a lawsuit against us instead of appreciating the citizens who respect human rights.”
Ko Zaw Zaw Min, a lawyer at the Arakan Human Rights Defenders and Promoters Association, said: “They just expressed their opinions on Human Rights Day. They should have freedom of expression. They marked the event to protect human rights. Treating such activities as a sensitive issue and taking legal action will only disrupt justice.” The next court hearing is scheduled for December 30.
On 29 July, 2020 Just Security published a lengthy interview of World Justice Project Executive Director Elizabeth Andersen with Christof Heyns, Professor of Human Rights Law at the University of Pretoria and member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. This is particularly important as a new new General Comment was issued just this week by the United Nations Human Rights Committee providing guidance on this topic at a critical moment, with protest movements on the rise across the globe, and many countries grappling with the appropriate response—something that has become even more complicated with the COVID-19 pandemic and public health restrictions on large gatherings.
The audio podcast is available at WJP. For those who pefere to read there is text version in the link below. Here a teaser:
Christof Heyns [00:13:17] I think the main idea is that peaceful assemblies are a legitimate use of the public and other spaces. If one thinks on a very sort of practical level, streets are used for vehicles, but they also are used for marathons and for markets and so forth. And they’re closed off on a Saturday or whatever the case may be for that purpose. And peaceful assemblies, like these other social gatherings, are a legitimate use of space. So a number of domestic courts–Spain and Israel and others–have said the public space “is not only for circulation but it’s also for participation”. And I like that quote; even in the translation it comes across. So that’s the underlying idea. It is, as you say, part of democracy.
It is also part of the message of the General Comment that peaceful assembly is an individual right. So one should not in the first place think about the entire assembly exercising the right — and is it violent or is it not, or does it cause damage, and as a result that everybody’s responsible — the focus is on the individual. And even if there are some individuals in a larger group who are, in an isolated way, engaged in violence, this cannot be attributed to the group as a whole. Every individual has that right. As far as possible, they should be treated as individuals.
I think also the underlying philosophy is to say that the right of peaceful assembly should be dealt with by the authorities in a “content neutral” way. As you will know, this idea is strongly present in the US jurisprudence, for example. So the idea is, even if those who are engaging in assemblies are your political opponents or you don’t like their particular message for whatever reason, they are still allowed to do so. There may be some exceptions and maybe we can talk about that. But in principle, the approach should be content neutral.
People should be allowed also to exercise the right “within sight and sound” of their target. So by doing that, they can demonstrate to others that they feel strongly enough about this to gather around this. But they can also, for themselves, see what is the support that they have. So if you organize an assembly, if you think you’re going to have a million people and it’s only yourself who shows up, that’s a message to yourself about the popularity and the support for your idea. In fact, Gandhi had this idea that what he did were “experiments with truth”. And I think to some extent that’s true for peaceful assemblies today. It’s a way of testing ideas and then seeing what is the response. Putting your toe in the water, putting up a trial balloon. And in many cases, this can diffuse a situation. So the society as a whole can take note and they can internalize the fact that there are people who feel very strongly about a certain cause and then they can do something about it. So it’s almost the idea of precaution. Even if I’m not persuaded, now, I know that these people feel like that, and I can do something about it instead of it blowing up into a massive problem.
….
Elizabeth Andersen [00:21:06] Well, it’s certainly an ambitious project you undertook and covers a lot of ground, with lots of standards and recommendations detailed. I think it’s interesting to think about how that all plays out in a concrete setting. And so you mentioned the Black Lives Matter movement and current protests, particularly here in the United States where I’m from. I’d be interested if you can share with our listeners how you see the Committee’s guidance helping us evaluate the response to that protest movement here in the United States. What’s appropriate? What’s not?
Christof Heyns [00:21:53] Well, I think a number of the themes of the General Comment are relevant in the United States and in other societies now as well. So the starting point is that this is an individual right. If there are members of a particular group of an assembly who are engaging in violence, this cannot be attributed to all members. In some cases, interventions are needed, not only permitted but actually required, if there is danger to the lives of people, for example, or to property. The state has a duty to protect, but that should be targeted as far as possible to the individuals concerned. These should be targeted interventions
I think the other overriding issue is the one of de-escalation. There are two approaches. One is to escalate the situation and to show superior force, so to speak. And, of course, if that’s done by the state, the other side also tries to show superior force, and it escalates. But the police themselves, and also the politicians, have a duty of de-escalation and to accommodate, to tolerate, some level of disruption, and to work towards preventing the situation from getting out of hand.
Perhaps more particularly, the General Comment also focuses on the use of military staff to do law enforcement – and I think much of that applies to paramilitaries as well. We don’t say this can never be done. But if it’s done, it is under exceptional circumstances, if there is no other way of doing it, and it should be on a temporary basis. And those who are involved must have the necessary training, including the human rights training, because, of course, the training of police and military staff differs very much. And then in the last place, they are bound by human rights standards. So the same standards that apply to the police also apply to military and paramilitary staff.
There’s also the issue of plainclothes police officers and the question of wearing identification. The General Comment emphasizes that law enforcement officials must wear clear identification. This is important for accountability purposes. If plainclothes police are used — and again, it’s not completely excluded, it may be the only way to have a positive intervention — before they use any force or arrest anybody, they have to identify themselves…..
Chadema party MPs Halima Mdee, Ester Matiko and Ester Bulaya attend a press conference after being released from Segerea prison in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on March 12. PHOTO | AFP
According to BOB KARASHANI in the East African of 4 April 2020 Tanzania‘s Foreign Affairs ministry has hit out at the United Nations Human Rights Office for criticising the country’s human rights record as it heads to the October general election. According to the ministry’s Permanent Secretary Col Wilbert Ibuge, the statement issued by the Geneva-based UN agency on March 17, was biased, with unsubstantiated allegations, and an attempt to both malign Tanzania’s international reputation and intrude on its sovereignty. Col Ibuge said that before going public, the agency should have first raised its concerns with the government for clarification “which would have been duly and graciously provided.”
The UN recently called the sentencing of several opposition leaders on charges including sedition and unlawful assembly “further troubling evidence” of a crackdown on dissent and stifling of public freedoms in the country. It accused the government of using the country’s criminal justice system to target its critics, and called on Tanzania to “immediately lift” a four-year ban on political rallies ahead of the October election. “The democratic and civic space has shrunk to almost nothing in Tanzania,” the agency said.
The climate of fear and repression in the Philippines is nicely demonstrated by the arrest (followed by a quick release order) of a 71-old year Australian nun Patricia Fox.
Metro Manila (CNN Philippines) — The Bureau of Immigration (BI) has ordered the release of Australian nun Patricia Fox after a day in detention.
Officers of the Bureau of Immigration (BI) arrested Sister Patricia Fox, Philippine superior of the international Catholic congregation Sisters of Our Lady of Sion, at her convent in Quezon City on April 16. Although the prosecutor in charge, “found no probable cause” for her arrest and ordered the nun’s “release for further investigation,” immigration officials insisted on the nun’s detention. They said Sister Fox failed to surrender her passport to the bureau. The nun said her documents were with a travel agency. Sister Fox was being detained at the bureau’s intelligence division. Immigration officials have accused the nun, who has worked in rural communities for 27 years, of being an “undesirable alien” for joining protest rallies and visiting political prisoners.
In a statement Tuesday afternoon, the BI said Commissioner Jaime Morente approved Fox’s release “after it was established that the Australian nun holds a valid missionary visa and, thus she is a properly documented alien.”
The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) said Fox recently joined the International Fact-Finding and Solidarity Mission in Mindanao. In 2013, she was also detained for joining protests in Hacienda Luisita but was released without charges. ..Various groups staged a protest Tuesday, condemning Fox’s arrest and calling for her immediate release. They said her arrest was part of the government’s crackdown against critics and human rights defenders.
On 2 March 2016 the ISHR published a profile of human rights defender Park Lae-goon who promotes freedom of assembly and association while combating against State impunity. With 28 years of experience, he has been detained multiple times for participating in demonstrations demanding justice. Mr Park has become a symbolic figure fighting for victims of State violence in South Korea. In my next post I will devote attention to the new South Korean Act on Human Rights which aims more on North Korea. Read the rest of this entry »
Egypt’s Abdel Fattach El Sisi is due to meet German chancellor Wednesday 3 June
On the eve of the visit to Germany by Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi a number of leading international human rights organisations (AI, HRW, EMHRH, OMCT and Front Line) wrote an open letter to the German chancellor Ms Angela Merkel. It reads in essence: Read the rest of this entry »
Aye Aye Win, of Associated Press, describes in an interesting way the changes in Myanmar (Burma): human rights defender Htin Kyaw is ‘free’ to march and protest in public but in every city where he passes he is being sentenced for disturbing public order. He has now accumulated 11 of such sentences and is slated to spend the next 12 years and four months behind bars, according to his wife, Than Than Maw.
Stay up-to-date by following 
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 
Christof Heyns discusses new UN Comment on Right of Peaceful Assembly
July 30, 2020On 29 July, 2020 Just Security published a lengthy interview of World Justice Project Executive Director Elizabeth Andersen with Christof Heyns, Professor of Human Rights Law at the University of Pretoria and member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. This is particularly important as a new new General Comment was issued just this week by the United Nations Human Rights Committee providing guidance on this topic at a critical moment, with protest movements on the rise across the globe, and many countries grappling with the appropriate response—something that has become even more complicated with the COVID-19 pandemic and public health restrictions on large gatherings.
The audio podcast is available at WJP. For those who pefere to read there is text version in the link below. Here a teaser:
Christof Heyns [00:13:17] I think the main idea is that peaceful assemblies are a legitimate use of the public and other spaces. If one thinks on a very sort of practical level, streets are used for vehicles, but they also are used for marathons and for markets and so forth. And they’re closed off on a Saturday or whatever the case may be for that purpose. And peaceful assemblies, like these other social gatherings, are a legitimate use of space. So a number of domestic courts–Spain and Israel and others–have said the public space “is not only for circulation but it’s also for participation”. And I like that quote; even in the translation it comes across. So that’s the underlying idea. It is, as you say, part of democracy.
It is also part of the message of the General Comment that peaceful assembly is an individual right. So one should not in the first place think about the entire assembly exercising the right — and is it violent or is it not, or does it cause damage, and as a result that everybody’s responsible — the focus is on the individual. And even if there are some individuals in a larger group who are, in an isolated way, engaged in violence, this cannot be attributed to the group as a whole. Every individual has that right. As far as possible, they should be treated as individuals.
I think also the underlying philosophy is to say that the right of peaceful assembly should be dealt with by the authorities in a “content neutral” way. As you will know, this idea is strongly present in the US jurisprudence, for example. So the idea is, even if those who are engaging in assemblies are your political opponents or you don’t like their particular message for whatever reason, they are still allowed to do so. There may be some exceptions and maybe we can talk about that. But in principle, the approach should be content neutral.
People should be allowed also to exercise the right “within sight and sound” of their target. So by doing that, they can demonstrate to others that they feel strongly enough about this to gather around this. But they can also, for themselves, see what is the support that they have. So if you organize an assembly, if you think you’re going to have a million people and it’s only yourself who shows up, that’s a message to yourself about the popularity and the support for your idea. In fact, Gandhi had this idea that what he did were “experiments with truth”. And I think to some extent that’s true for peaceful assemblies today. It’s a way of testing ideas and then seeing what is the response. Putting your toe in the water, putting up a trial balloon. And in many cases, this can diffuse a situation. So the society as a whole can take note and they can internalize the fact that there are people who feel very strongly about a certain cause and then they can do something about it. So it’s almost the idea of precaution. Even if I’m not persuaded, now, I know that these people feel like that, and I can do something about it instead of it blowing up into a massive problem.
….
Elizabeth Andersen [00:21:06] Well, it’s certainly an ambitious project you undertook and covers a lot of ground, with lots of standards and recommendations detailed. I think it’s interesting to think about how that all plays out in a concrete setting. And so you mentioned the Black Lives Matter movement and current protests, particularly here in the United States where I’m from. I’d be interested if you can share with our listeners how you see the Committee’s guidance helping us evaluate the response to that protest movement here in the United States. What’s appropriate? What’s not?
Christof Heyns [00:21:53] Well, I think a number of the themes of the General Comment are relevant in the United States and in other societies now as well. So the starting point is that this is an individual right. If there are members of a particular group of an assembly who are engaging in violence, this cannot be attributed to all members. In some cases, interventions are needed, not only permitted but actually required, if there is danger to the lives of people, for example, or to property. The state has a duty to protect, but that should be targeted as far as possible to the individuals concerned. These should be targeted interventions
I think the other overriding issue is the one of de-escalation. There are two approaches. One is to escalate the situation and to show superior force, so to speak. And, of course, if that’s done by the state, the other side also tries to show superior force, and it escalates. But the police themselves, and also the politicians, have a duty of de-escalation and to accommodate, to tolerate, some level of disruption, and to work towards preventing the situation from getting out of hand.
Perhaps more particularly, the General Comment also focuses on the use of military staff to do law enforcement – and I think much of that applies to paramilitaries as well. We don’t say this can never be done. But if it’s done, it is under exceptional circumstances, if there is no other way of doing it, and it should be on a temporary basis. And those who are involved must have the necessary training, including the human rights training, because, of course, the training of police and military staff differs very much. And then in the last place, they are bound by human rights standards. So the same standards that apply to the police also apply to military and paramilitary staff.
There’s also the issue of plainclothes police officers and the question of wearing identification. The General Comment emphasizes that law enforcement officials must wear clear identification. This is important for accountability purposes. If plainclothes police are used — and again, it’s not completely excluded, it may be the only way to have a positive intervention — before they use any force or arrest anybody, they have to identify themselves…..
https://www.justsecurity.org/71736/interview-with-christof-heyns-unhrc-general-comment-37-on-the-right-of-peaceful-assembly/
Posted in books, Human Rights Defenders, UN | 1 Comment »
Tags: Christof Heyns, Comment, Elizabeth Andersen, freedom of assembly, freedom of demonstration, Just Security, peaceful protest, podcasts, UN Human Rights Committee, USA, World Justice Project