Posts Tagged ‘HRW’

Detainees in the Emirates held in prison even after completing their sentence

April 13, 2023

On 12 April 2023 Human Rights Watch reported that United Arab Emirates are continuing to incarcerate at least 51 Emirati prisoners who completed their sentences between one month and nearly four years ago.

The prisoners are all part of the grossly unfair “UAE94” mass trial of 69 critics of the government, whose convictions violated their rights to free expression, association, and assembly. UAE authorities are using baseless counterterrorism justifications for continuing to hold them past their completed sentences.

Prisoners in the UAE94 case have already suffered tremendously after years in prison following a grossly unfair trail,” said Joey Shea, United Arab Emirates researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Emirati authorities should free them immediately and finally put an end to this decade-long ordeal. Prominent UAE partners, including the United States and COP28 organizers, should press UAE authorities for their immediate release.”

The prisoners were among 94 people detained beginning in March 2012 in a wave of arbitrary arrests amid an unprecedented crackdown on dissent. The case had a chilling effect on freedom of expression, assembly, and association.

In July 2013, Abu Dhabi’s Federal Supreme Court convicted 69 of the defendants, sentencing 5 to 7 years in prison, 56 to 10 years, and 8 in absentia to 15 years, with 25 acquitted. The verdict could not be appealed, in violation of international law, because it was issued by the UAE’s highest court. As of March 2023, 51 had completed their sentences but remain imprisoned with no clear legal basis, according to Emirati activists and court documents. Some prisoners completed their sentences as early as July 2019.

At least four of the 51 received a Public Prosecution letter saying that they were on Munasaha during what was supposed to be their last three months in detention, activists and family members told Human Rights Watch. After three months, these detainees were taken in front of a judge, who determined they still held “terrorist thoughts” and ruled that they needed further “rehabilitation.”

Under article 48 of the counterterrorism law, the public prosecutor may place someone convicted of a terrorist offense in a counselling or Munasaha program in the prison where they were serving their sentence, under counselling center supervision.

The counterterrorism law sets no time limit for continued incarceration and instead requires the state security public prosecution to report to the court every three months. The court may order a person’s release if it finds that “his or her condition so allows.” It is not clear if the defendant has any right to attend the hearing or see or challenge the evidence used to justify their detention.

The decade of unjust imprisonment has had devastating consequences for the prisoners’ families. A family member said that the young child of one of the prisoners still does not understand why her father was in prison. “She asks me, we love our country and our leaders, why are they are doing this to my father?” the family member said.

Many prisoners are being held in the notorious al-Razeen prison, and many are alleged to be in solitary confinement. A family member said, “All the prisoners are suffering there, they don’t have their rights and it is very hard to visit them.” Another family member said: “Throughout the years, the conditions are getting worse.”

Visits are irregular and difficult to procure, the family members said. Families often drive for hours to the prison in the middle of the desert, only to be denied a visit with no explanation. Family members also said that phone conversations are often cut off mid-call with no explanation. Some prisoners have not been able to speak with their family members by phone for years.

Other family members said there have been months-long periods in which a prisoner, as one family member said, “totally disappeared” with “no calls, no nothing,” leading the family to believe that “maybe he is dead.” Prisoners are also often denied books and pictures.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in article 15 prohibits retroactive criminal punishment. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its general comment on article 9 of the ICCPR, said, “if, under the most exceptional circumstances, a present, direct and imperative threat is invoked to justify the detention of persons considered to present such a threat, the burden of proof lies on States parties to show that the individual poses such a threat and that it cannot be addressed by alternative measures, and that burden increases with the length of the detention.”

“By arbitrarily extending the unjust sentences of peaceful critics using bogus counterterrorism justifications without due process, the UAE again shows its total disregard for the rule of law,” Shea said.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/04/12/uae-detainees-held-beyond-sentences

Vietnam should drop charges against Human Rights Defender Truong Van Dung

March 29, 2023
Truong Van Dung hold a sign that says, Request the Immediate Release of Nguyen Thuy Hanh. 

On 27 March 2023 7:00 Human Rights Watch said that the Vietnamese authorities should immediately release land rights activist Truong Van Dung and drop all charges against him. Police in Hanoi arrested Truong Van Dung in May 2022 on charges of “conducting propaganda against the state.” A Hanoi court on March 28, 2023 sentenced him to six years in prison.

Vietnamese authorities have convicted at least 163 people since 2018 for exercising their rights to freedom of expression or association under vague or over broad laws that criminalize protesting or criticizing the government. At least 18 others have been charged and are awaiting trial. The authorities have brought many of these cases using the propaganda charge, criminalized under articles 88 and 117 of Vietnam’s penal code.

“Truong Van Dung is the latest in a long line of human rights defenders silenced by the Vietnamese government for protesting against human rights violations and advocating for reforms,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Democratic governments forging closer ties with Vietnam need to speak out publicly and forcefully in his support and call on Vietnam to release all political prisoners and take genuine steps toward reform.”

Truong Van Dung, 65, first became active in land rights advocacy in the 2000s, campaigning against forced confiscation of his own house. In the early 2010s, he joined other activists and began to advocate for basic rights, including freedom of expression, association, and assembly. Between 2011 and 2018, he also participated in numerous anti-China and pro-environment protests. He joined a protest opposing Vietnam’s problematic 2018 law on cybersecurity and publicly boycotted Vietnam’s national “elections,” a process controlled by the Vietnam Communist Party which is neither free nor fair.

He also publicly voiced support for numerous political prisoners and detainees, including Nguyen Thuy Hanh [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/04/09/viet-nam-profile-of-human-rights-defender-nguyen-thuy-hanh-arrested-and-charged/], Pham Doan Trang, [see also: https://www.liv.ngo/content/files/2022/04/Pham-Doan-Trang_-UN-experts-call-for-release-of-Vietnamese-human-rights-defender-_-Hans-Thoolen-on-Human-Rights-Defenders-and-their-awards.pdf] Can Thi Theu, Nguyen Thi Tam, Trinh Ba Tu, Trinh Ba Phuong, Le Dinh Luong, Hoang Duc Binh, Nguyen Tuong Thuy, Pham Chi Dung, Le Huu Minh Tuan, Do Nam Trung, and members of Hoi Anh em Dan chu (Brotherhood for Democracy).

In December 2013, Truong Van Dung and other activists founded a humanitarian group, Hoi Bau bi Tuong Than (Association of Gourd and Squash Mutual Assistance), to provide financial and spiritual support for political prisoners, land rights petitioners, and their families.

After his arrest in May 2022, Truong Van Dung was held incommunicado for more than nine months. He was allowed to meet with his lawyer for the first time in March. His family has not been allowed to see him. Vietnam’s courts, controlled by the ruling Communist Party of Vietnam, are not independent and hearings and trials do not meet international standards. “How can Truong Van Dung get a fair trial when Vietnam’s legal system isn’t independent and the laws under which he is charged violate basic international human rights standards – and what he has been accused of shouldn’t even be crimes,” Robertson said.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/27/vietnam-drop-charges-against-human-rights-activist

Tirana Hassan to lead Human Rights Watch

March 29, 2023
Tirana Hassan

Tirana Hassan, a lawyer and veteran human rights investigator who has documented human rights abuses throughout crises and conflicts globally, has been named the next executive director of Human Rights Watch, the organization announced. Hassan was previously the Human Rights Watch chief programs officer and had been serving as acting executive director since September 2022, following the departure of its long-time leader, Kenneth Roth.

As new executive director of Human Rights Watch, Tirana Hassan brings impeccable credentials as a human rights practitioner and an ambitious vision for human rights solutions to the challenges the world is facing,” said Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, CEO and president of the International Peace Institute and the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. “A hugely experienced activist, Tirana will be a formidable leader and very much a force to be reckoned with!”

With decades of experience in the human rights and humanitarian fields, Hassan, who began her career as a social worker and spent many years working with women and children in conflict and crisis situations, first joined Human Rights Watch in 2010, covering emergencies across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. She went on to become Amnesty International’s director of crisis response before returning to Human Rights Watch as its chief programs officer in 2020, leading the organization’s research, advocacy, legal, and communications departments.

Tirana has the rare combination of wide-ranging investigative experience, strategic creativity, and a deep commitment to human rights principle that Human Rights Watch needs to tackle the complex human rights challenges the world is facing,” said Kenneth Roth, former executive director at Human Rights Watch, who stepped down in August 2022. “I am thrilled that she will lead Human Rights Watch into the future.”

When she headed Amnesty International’s crisis team, Hassan oversaw the development of innovative uses of technology to advance human rights investigations in Myanmar, Syria, and other crisis areas. She brings a proven track record of developing ambitious programs to address critical human rights issues and will lead the Human Rights Watch’s work with activists, survivors, and civil society to head off the rising threats to human rights around the world.

One of Hassan’s priorities will be to call out government selective applications of human rights obligations. The swift and bold response to the crisis in Ukraine including a UN Human Rights Council commission of inquiry and multiple condemnations by the UN General Assembly – has shown what is possible when governments work together, while the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin shows that no one is beyond the reach of justice. However, the same governments have often at best responded in a lukewarm fashion or at worst turned a blind eye to the plight of other victims. Hassan will focus on using all possible levers to push governments to realize their legal obligations to victims everywhere, including in Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine, Ethiopia, and Iran.

Hassan was born in Singapore to a Pakistani father whose family left India during partition and a Malaysian-born Sri Lankan and Chinese mother. Her family resettled in Australia in the 1970s after her father’s academic research on Singapore’s housing policies triggered the ire of the government, which was cracking down on dissent. She has said family stories of racism, prejudice, and repression helped shape her world view and contributed to her decision to work on behalf of rights for dispossessed people.

After receiving a bachelor’s degree in social work from the University of South Australia, Hassan worked as a social worker in Los Angeles, London, and Adelaide, counseling homeless young people before obtaining a law degree from the University of Adelaide. During her last year of law school, she co-founded the Woomera Lawyers Group, a refugee advocacy organization that provided legal services to asylum seekers detained in Australia’s notorious desert detention center. She represented refugees and asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran who were detained in the remote facility and later went on to work in the humanitarian sector. Hassan also holds a master’s degree in international human rights law from Oxford University.

She served as a specialist focusing on the need to provide protection for children and for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence in conflict areas and the natural disaster response across Asia and Africa, with Médecins Sans Frontières, United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, and Save the Children.

I’m honored and humbled to lead this exceptional organization at a moment when the defense of human rights feels more urgent than ever,” Hassan said. “I look forward to building on Human Rights Watch’s formidable foundation to uplift the human rights defenders we work with and the communities we serve to put pressure on those in power to realize a rights-respecting future for us all.

For more information on Tirana Hassan, please visit: https://www.hrw.org/about/people/tirana-hassan

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/27/tirana-hassan-lead-human-rights-watch

Pro-Israel lobby in USA seems to control Harvard’s human rights centre

January 10, 2023

Kenneth Roth wrote in the Guardian of 10 January 2023 “I once ran Human Rights Watch. Harvard blocked my fellowship over Israel. I was told that my fellowship at the Kennedy School was vetoed over my and Human Rights Watch’s criticism of Israel”.

Kenneth Roth said Harvard’s move was a reflection of ‘how utterly afraid the Kennedy School has become of any criticism of Israel’.

. ..If any academic institution can afford to abide by principle, to refuse to compromise academic freedom under real or presumed donor pressure, it is Harvard, the world’s richest university. Yet the Kennedy School’s dean, Douglas Elmendorf, vetoed a human rights fellowship that had been offered to me because of my criticism of Israel. As best we can tell, donor reaction was his concern.

Soon after I announced my departure from Human Rights Watch [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/04/27/after-almost-30-years-kenneth-roth-will-leave-human-rights-watch/], the Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy reached out to me to discuss offering me a fellowship. ..

.. in anticipation of my stay at the school, I reached out to the dean to introduce myself. We had a pleasant half-hour conversation. The only hint of a problem came at the end. He asked me whether I had any enemies.

It was an odd question. I explained that of course I had enemies. Many of them. That is a hazard of the trade as a human rights defender.

I explained that the Chinese and Russian governments had personally sanctioned me – a badge of honor, in my view. I mentioned that a range of governments, including Rwanda’s and Saudi Arabia’s, hate me. But I had a hunch what he was driving at, so I also noted that the Israeli government undoubtedly detests me, too.

That turned out to be the kiss of death. Two weeks later, the Carr Center called me up to say sheepishly that Elmendorf had vetoed my fellowship. He told Professor Kathryn Sikkink, a highly respected human rights scholar affiliated with the Kennedy School, that the reason was my, and Human Rights Watch’s, criticism of Israel.

That is a shocking revelation. How can an institution that purports to address foreign policy – that even hosts a human rights policy center – avoid criticism of Israel. Elmendorf has not publicly defended his decision, so we can only surmise what happened. He is not known to have taken public positions on Israel’s human rights record, so it is hard to imagine that his personal views were the problem.

But as the Nation showed in its exposé about my case, several major donors to the Kennedy School are big supporters of Israel. Did Elmendorf consult with these donors or assume that they would object to my appointment? We don’t know. But that is the only plausible explanation that I have heard for his decision. The Kennedy School spokesperson has not denied it.

Some defenders of the Israeli government have claimed that Elmendorf’s rejection of my fellowship was because Human Rights Watch, or I, devote too much attention to Israel. The accusation of “bias” is rich coming from people who themselves never criticize Israel and, typically using neutral sounding organizational names, attack anyone who criticizes Israel.

Moreover, Israel is one of 100 countries whose human rights record Human Rights Watch regularly addresses. Israel is a tiny percentage of its work. And within the Israeli-Palestinian context, Human Rights Watch addresses not only Israeli repression but also abuses by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah.

In any event, it is doubtful that these critics would be satisfied if Human Rights Watch published slightly fewer reports on Israel, or if I issued less frequent tweets. They don’t want less criticism of Israel. They want no criticism of Israel.

The other argument that defenders of Israel have been advancing is that Human Rights Watch, and I, “demonize” Israel, or that we try to “evoke repulsion and disgust”. Usually this is a prelude to charging that we are “antisemitic”.

Human rights advocacy is premised on documenting and publicizing governmental misconduct to shame the government into stopping. That is what Human Rights Watch does to governments worldwide. To equate that with antisemitism is preposterous. And dangerous, because it cheapens the very serious problem of antisemitism by reducing it to criticism of Israel. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/02/04/amnesty-joins-debate-on-apartheid-versus-palestinians-but-reactions-debase-struggle-against-real-antisemitism/

The issue at Harvard is far more than my own academic fellowship. I recognized that, as an established figure in the human rights movement, I am in a privileged position. Being denied this fellowship will not significantly impede my future. But I worry about younger academics who are less known. If I can be canceled because of my criticism of Israel, will they risk taking the issue on?

The ultimate question here is about donor-driven censorship. Why should any academic institution allow the perception that donor preferences, whether expressed or assumed, can restrict academic inquiry and publication? Regardless of what happened in my case, wealthy Harvard should take the lead here.

To clarify its commitment to academic freedom, Harvard should announce that it will accept no contributions from donors who try to use their financial influence to censor academic work, and that no administrator will be permitted to censor academics because of presumed donor concerns. That would transform this deeply disappointing episode into something positive.

See also the reaction by Gerald L. Neuman: https://hrp.law.harvard.edu/staff-reflections/hks-kenneth-roth-and-the-message-to-human-rights-defenders/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/10/kenneth-roth-human-rights-watch-harvard-israel

Now it is the turn of the Moscow Helsinki Group to be liquidated

January 3, 2023

Tanya Lokshina, Associate Director, Europe and Central Asia Division, reported on 21 December 2022 on how the Moscow Helsinki Group MHG), Russia’s oldest Human Rights Group, faces ‘Liquidation’

Moscow Helsinki Group’s logo
Moscow Helsinki Group’s logo.  © 2022 Moscow Helsinki Group

Last week, Russia’s Justice Ministry filed a petition with the Moscow City Court seeking “liquidation” of the Moscow Helsinki Group (MHG), a leading Russian human rights organization.

On 12 May Tanya Lokshina received one of MHG’s annual awards for contributions to human rights and the Russian human rights movement. She writes: “By then, in the aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the authorities had shut down Human Rights Watch’s Moscow office, along with the offices of 14 other foreign nongovernmental organizations. I had already left the country with the rest of our team, and my 9-year-old son received the beautifully framed award on my behalf. I first saw it several weeks later, when he joined me in Tbilisi, Georgia, where I had relocated to continue my work. I generally don’t display awards and diplomas, but receiving one from MHG was so special that it now hangs on my wall.”

MHG was founded in 1976 by Soviet dissidents to expose governmental repression. It lasted nine months before the government jailed or forced practically all its members into exile. After the USSR’s collapse, the group revived in the 1990’s under the leadership of Lyudmilla Alexeeva, a legendary human rights defender, and has been working tirelessly to expose abuses, build up a country-wide human rights movement in Russia, and advocate for the rule of law. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2018/12/10/russian-human-rights-defender-ludmila-mikhailovna-alexeeva-is-no-longer/]

The liquidation lawsuit is based on the Justice Ministry’s ad hoc inspection of MHG. The liquidation petition cites several supposed violations of Russia’s stifling legislation on nongovernmental organizations, including the group being registered in Moscow but operating elsewhere in Russia, and the group’s charter lacking information on the location of its executive body. These are obviously bureaucratic pretexts that could not justify such a drastic move.

This year, Moscow courts liquidated four other major human rights groups in addition to Memorial, so it’s hard to find optimism for a fair trial for MHG. But it’s not hard to be optimistic about Russia’s human rights movement. It outlasted the Soviet Union; it will outlast today’s oppressors. See: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/12/12/foreign-agent-law-in-russia-from-bad-to-worse/.

And it goes on, the Andrei Sakharov Foundation, see: 24 January 2023 HRW post: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/01/24/russia-designates-another-rights-organization-undesirable

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/21/russias-oldest-human-rights-group-faces-liquidation

Foreign Agent law in Russia from bad to worse

December 12, 2022

A new law entered into force in Russia that drastically expands the country’s oppressive and vast “foreign agents” legislation, Human Rights Watch said on 1 December 2022. The law is yet another attack on free expression and legitimate civic activism in Russia, and should be repealed:

Adopted in July 2022, the law’s entry into force was delayed until December 1. The law expands the definition of foreign agent to a point at which almost any person or entity, regardless of nationality or location, who engages in civic activism or even expresses opinions about Russian policies or officials’ conduct could be designated a foreign agent, so long as the authorities claim they are under “foreign influence.” It also excludes “foreign agents” from key aspects of civic life. 

“For more than a decade, Russian authorities have used ‘foreign agents’ laws to smear and punish independent voices,” said Rachel Denber, deputy Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “This new tool in the government’s already crowded toolbox makes it even easier to threaten critics, impose harsh restrictions on their legitimate activities and even ban them. It makes thoughtful public discussion about Russia’s past, present, and future simply impossible.” See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/05/21/kasparov-and-khodorkovsky-are-now-also-foreign-agents/

In Russia, the term “foreign agent” is tantamount “spy” or “traitor.” The foreign agent designation remains extra-judicial, with no possibility to contest it in court before the designation is made. Those designated must comply with all requirements the day after the authorities add them to the registry, even if they challenge the designation in court.

When the first foreign agent law was adopted in 2012, only registered organizations could be designated “foreign agents.” Successive amendments gradually expanded the application from registered organizations, to media, to other categories of individuals, and to associations without legal entities.

The July law, On Control Over Activities of Entities/Persons Under Foreign Influence, replaces these with a consolidated, simplified, but endlessly broad definition to cover any person – Russian, foreign or stateless; any legal entity, domestic or international; or any group without official registration, if they are considered to have received foreign support and/or are considered to be “under foreign influence” and engaged in activities that Russian authorities would deem to be “political.” It also covers anyone who gathers information about Russia’s military activities or military capabilities, or creates or publicly disseminates information or funds such activities.

The law defines “foreign influence” as “support” from foreign sources that includes funding, technical assistance, or other undefined kinds of assistance and/or open-ended “impact” that constitutes coercion, persuasion, and/or “other means.”

Under this definition, any interaction with a foreign element can potentially be construed as “foreign influence,” Human Rights Watch said. There is also no requirement for any causal link between “foreign influence” and the “political” or other activities for the designation to be applicable.

Foreign sources include not only foreign states or foreign entities, but also international organizations, presumably including such multilateral organizations as the United Nations. The law considers Russian nationals or organizations “foreign sources” if they are respectively considered by the Russian authorities to be under “foreign influence” or to be beneficiaries of “foreign funding.”

To avoid the “foreign agent” label, an organization needs to ensure that no source of any donation was at any stage “tainted” by “foreign influence,” including indirectly.

In defining what constitutes “political” activities of a foreign agent, the law consolidates provisions of earlier iterations of “foreign agent” amendments to include “opinions about public authorities’ decisions or policies.” For example, a journalist who publishes a commentary about urban development plans could fall under the definition of foreign agent activity.

The new law also excludes “foreign agents” from key aspects of public life. These include bans on joining the civil service, participating in electoral commissions, acting in an advisory or expert capacity in official or public environmental impact assessments, in independent anti-corruption expertise of draft laws and by-laws, or electoral campaigns or even donating to such campaigns or to political parties.

Foreign agents are also banned from teaching or engaging in other education activities for minors or producing informational materials for them. They cannot participate in organizing public assemblies or support them through donations and are barred from a number of other activities.

The law expands the notion of a person or entity affiliated with a “foreign agent,” which was first introduced in 2021 in relation to electoral candidates. A person remains “affiliated” up to two years after they sever ties with the foreign agent, even if the “affiliation” started before the law entered into force, and even if the “affiliation” started before the entity was designated a foreign agent.

Since the adoption of the first “foreign agents” law, hundreds of civic groups and activists, including those that work on human rights, the environment, election monitoring, and anti-corruption, have been designated “foreign agents.” A large number of organizations had to close down because they either sought to avoid the toxic label or were unable to bear the hefty fines imposed for not complying with the law’s burdensome, arbitrary labelling and reporting requirements. The authorities used the “foreign agents” law as a legal pretext to close down other groups, such as the human rights group Memorial, one of the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize laureates. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/12/29/russias-supreme-court-orders-closure-emblematic-memorial/

This new ‘foreign agents’ law is an unrestrained attack on Russian civil society aimed at gagging any public criticism of state policies,” Denber said. “It should be scrapped.”

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/01/russia-new-restrictions-foreign-agents

ECOSOC plenary to finally break deadlock on recognition of NGOs?

December 7, 2022

On 6 December 2022 Louis Charbonneau of Human Rights Watch wrote about the need to unblock the accreditation of NGOs which are stuck in the NGO Committee of ECOSOC. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/02/14/towards-a-fairer-selection-of-ngos-to-participate-in-the-un-human-rights-debate/ These applications have been stuck in limbo due to several countries including China, Russia, and India obstructing the accreditation process.

On December 7, ECOSOC’s 54 members will vote on whether to grant UN consultative status to the Gulf Centre for Human Rights, the International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN), the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, Coptic Solidarity, the Arab-European Center of Human Rights and International Law, the Andrey Rylkov Foundation for Health and Social Justice, the World Union of Cossack Atamans, Man and Law, and World Without Genocide. These nine groups are among hundreds whose applications were on hold due to interminable questioning from some members of the UN Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (the “NGO committee”). UN accreditation gives organizations access to many UN buildings, officials, and agencies – and to formally participate in numerous UN activities.

At its September session, the NGO committee rejected the nine groups’ accreditation applications and deferred action on 319 other organizations’ applications.

India has been instrumental in blocking IDSN, which advocates for the elimination of caste discrimination and other forms of discrimination around the world. According to the International Service for Human Rights, IDSN’s application was deferred for 15 years – a record for blocking an organization. The IDSN says it received over 100 questions from the committee, and despite responding promptly to all of them, was always deferred.

The only way out of this limbo is if individual member countries rescue the applications from the NGO committee and force a vote in an ECOSOC plenary meeting, where civil society groups stand a better chance of success. That is what will happen on December 7.

And on 8 December followed the good news:

After years of delay, the U.N. body overseeing economic development and social issues voted Wednesday to give nine human rights and minority groups the right to raise concerns and participate in its discussions, overriding objections from Russia, China, India, Arab nations and others.

The Economic and Social Council approved a U.S. draft decision giving a green light for the nine groups to get “special consultative status” with the 54-nation U.N. body by a vote of 24-17 with 12 abstentions.

The vote accredited Arab-European Center of Human Rights and International Law; Bahrain Center for Human Rights; Coptic Solidarity; Gulf Centre for Human Rights; International Dalit Solidarity Network; and the interregional rights group Man and Law.

https://apnews.com/article/china-india-united-nations-government-states-51d74ad5f9743ead51122c2668d13584

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/06/un-member-countries-should-accredit-blocked-human-rights-groups

See also: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/ngos-face-uphill-battle-to-gain-access-to-the-un/48318440

Criticizing Kremlin leads to treason charges

October 8, 2022
Opposition activist Vladimir Kara-Murza in Moscow.
Opposition activist Vladimir Kara-Murza in Moscow. © 2021 AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko

On 7 October 2022 Human Rights Watch criticised sharply the Russian charge of high treason against an opposition politician, Vladimir Kara-Murza. It is “a blatant attempt to quash any criticism of the Kremlin and deter contact with the international community“, Human Rights Watch said. 

This is the third baseless criminal charge against Kara-Murza since he was detained in April 2022. He has already been indicted for spreading “fake news” about the Russian Armed Forces because he publicly criticized Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and for alleged involvement with an “undesirable” foreign organization. He now risks an additional sentence of up 20 years if convicted on high treason charges. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/04/14/human-rights-defender-vladimir-kara-murza-arrested-in-russia/]

Vladimir Kara-Murza is a longstanding proponent of democratic values and has been a vocal opponent of Vladimir  Putin and Russia’s war on Ukraine,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “It is painfully obvious that the Kremlin sees Kara-Murza as a direct and imminent threat.  These charges against him and his prolonged detention are a travesty of justice. Russian authorities should immediately and unconditionally free Kara-Murza and drop all charges against him.” See also: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/34e43b60-3236-11ea-b4d5-37ffeeddd006

Vadim Prokhorov, Kara-Murza’s lawyer, said the high treason charges relate to Kara-Murza’s  public criticism of the Russian authorities in international forums.

Kara-Murza has called for sanctions against the Kremlin and has spoken in person before national political bodies throughout Europe and in the United States, and at many international and intergovernmental forums, including at the United Nations. He was a key figure advocating for the US Magnitsky Act that gave rise to the Global Magnitsky sanctions regime for serious human rights violations.

Kara-Murza was also a close friend of the murdered Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov. He survived two near-fatal poisonings, in 2015 and 2017, which Bellingcat investigative journalists reported was most likely orchestrated by the Russian Federal Security Service and which the Russian authorities have failed to investigate. 

Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine started in February, the Russian authorities have expanded their repressive toolbox. In March, Russian authorities criminalized calls for sanctions against Russia, and in July also criminalized “confidential cooperation” with foreign states, international or foreign organizations as well as public calls for action that are “against national interests.”

These new provisions cannot be applied retroactively to the years of advocacy by Kara-Murza, Human Rights Watch said, and so he is being charged with high treason under Russia’s criminal code, which was expanded in November 2012. The definition was expanded to include consultations or any other assistance to a foreign state or international or foreign organizations…

Russia’s rules on prosecution and trial of treason cases also breach human rights safeguards, in particular fair trial guarantees. For example, the criminal case materials in such proceedings are classified so that the defense team may not have access to key pieces of evidence, and the trial takes place behind closed doors, preventing public scrutiny.

Ivan Safronov, a journalist, was recently convicted of high treason and sentenced to 22 years in maximum security prison and given a substantial fine for his journalistic investigations of defense contracts, spotlighting how treason cases are handled.  He was tried behind closed doors, key evidence obtained by fellow journalists was not accepted by the court, and his defense team came under immense pressure. Two of his lawyers had to flee the country, and a third was detained on accusations of spreading false information and remains in detention.

“Sadly, it is unrealistic to expect that fair trial standards will be observed in Kara-Murza’s case,” Williamson said. “By jailing leaders like him, Russian authorities are attempting to instill fear in the Russian people and eradicate any opportunity for civil society to mobilize and oppose the Kremlin and its war.” 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/10/07/russia-first-treason-charges-criticizing-kremlin

Uyghur issue at the UN Human Rights Council: will there be even a debate?

October 5, 2022

The controversial issue of the treatment of Uyghurs is continuing to play out at the UN Human Rights Council. A resolution is being considered this week to discuss the report’s findings awhich is being strongly resisted by China who is leaning heavily on smaller states to oppose it. If these efforts are successful, they could deal a severe blow to the legitimacy of the UN Human Rights Council. Groups such as CIVICUS, Human Rights Watch have been following this issue closely and are urging Member States to support a decision to AT LEAST discuss the report in the interests of transparency and accountability. But then the big disappointment: on Thursday 6 October at the Human Rights Council the motion was rejected in a tight vote of 19 states against, 17 in favour and 11 abstentions.

On 3 October 2022 CIVICUS is urging UN Human Rights Council member States to do the right thing by voting in support of a resolution to debate the human rights situation in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR).

The resolution follows the release of a major UN report which affirms that the rights of Xinjiang’s Uyghur Muslim population are being violated through an industrial-level programme of mass incarceration, systemic torture and sexual violence. The report attracted intense criticism from the Chinese government before it was released on 31 August 2022, minutes before the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet ended her term. SEE: See: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/09/01/finally-the-long-awaited-un-report-on-china/.

The report concludes that the actions of the Chinese government in XUAR including arbitrary detention, cultural persecution and forced labour may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity. Recommendations include the taking of prompt steps to release all individuals arbitrarily imprisoned in XUAR, a full legal review of national security and counter-terrorism policies, and an official investigation into allegations of human rights violations in camps and detention facilities.  

China’s government has rejected the findings and called into question the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  The Office of the High Commissioner has asserted that the report is based on a rigorous review of documentary evidence with its credibility assessed in accordance with standard human rights methodology.

A proposed resolution to hold a debate on the report’s findings at the next session of the UN Human Rights Council is being resisted by China which is also said to be pressuring states that make up the 47-member Human Rights Council not to support the resolution.

The UN report affirms testimonies of victims belonging to the Uyghur community who have endured extreme forms of oppression. Human rights researchers and civil society groups have for years documented abuses and sounded the alarm to the international community about the situation in Xinjiang,” said Mandeep Tiwana, CIVICUS Chief Programmes Officer. “Yet the Chinese state is going to extraordinary lengths to suppress the findings and cover up its actions.

In June 2020, 50 UN Special Rapporteurs and human rights experts issued a joint statement, that catalogued concerns over the treatment of ethnic minorities in XUAR and Tibet, alleging excessive force against protesters, as well as in Hong Kong, and reports of retaliation against people voicing their concerns publicly over COVID-19 pandemic policies.  The experts urged the Human Rights Council to convene a special session on China; consider the creation of a Special Procedures mandate; and appoint a UN Special Envoy or a panel of experts to closely monitor, analyse and report annually on the human rights situation in China. 

Sophie Richardson of HRW stated: ‘This week the credibility of the United Nations Human Rights Council is on the line over an extraordinarily modest request: to hold a debate on a recent report from the UN high commissioner for human rights on abuses in the Xinjiang region of China. Member states would not be obliged to take a position on the issues at hand, the government in question, or even seek a particular outcome. But the debate is an opportunity to stand together to ensure the council fulfils its bare minimum mandate.

https://www.civicus.org/index.php/media-resources/media-releases/6070-global-civil-society-alliance-urges-human-rights-council-members-to-support-debate-on-uyghur-abuses-report

https://www.civicus.org/index.php/media-resources/op-eds/6072-uyghur-violations-a-litmus-test-for-global-governance-and-rules-based-international-order

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/10/03/un-rights-body-should-debate-xinjiang-report

Human rights defenders in Greece, my adopted country: not doing well

July 28, 2022
OHCHR | Ms Mary Lawlor

Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor, conducted an official visit to Greece from 13 to 22 June 2022, to assess the government’s efforts towards creating an enabling environment for those seeking to protect and promote human rights.

Human rights defenders in Greece, particularly those working on migration, operate in an environment of pervasive fear and insecurity, concluded Mary Lawlor. “I am concerned about the increasing criminalization of humanitarian assistance in Greece. Solidarity should never be punished and compassion should never be put on trial,” she said while presenting her preliminary findings at the end of a 10-day mission in the country.

With Greece facing intense international criticism over unlawful pushbacks of migrants at its borders and wider human rights concerns related to migration and asylum, the Greek government has moved to silence groups and individuals documenting these abuses. While acknowledging Greece’s migration challenges and government efforts to address them, Lawlor criticized burdensome rules for the registration of nongovernmental organizations working on migration, introduced in 2019, calling them discriminatory and in violation of Greece’s international human rights obligations. See my earlier: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/11/17/greeces-mistaken-deterrence-migrants-and-aid-workers-facing-heavy-prison-sentences/

The UN expert noted that human rights defenders not only face criminal sanctions for their activities, but are operating in an increasingly hostile environment where the general public is influenced by negative rhetoric from high-ranking officials and their unfavorable portrayal in the media, which often conflates their activities with traffickers and criminal networks.

Greece fell 38 positions within a year in Reporters Without Borders’ 2022 report on the Press Freedom Index, with the organization marking it the lowest-ranked European Union country for press freedom. “Journalists who counter the government’s narrative on the management of migration flows are often under pressure and lack access to mainstream media outlets.… Journalists reporting on corruption are sometimes facing threats and even charges,” Lawlor said. She noted that journalists have very limited or no access to facilities where migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers are being held, further contributing to a general lack of transparency regarding the government’s policies in this area.

See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/02/18/greek-court-fails-human-rights-defenders-on-antisemitism/

Lawlor will present a detailed report with her findings at the March 2023 session of the UN Human Rights Council. The government should listen to what the UN expert has to say and champion human rights defenders. The European Commission, which noted in July last year the narrowing space in Greece for groups working with migrants and asylum seekers, should step up its engagement on the issue and press Greece to stop harassing civil society groups and activists.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/media-advisories/2022/06/un-human-rights-expert-visit-greece-assess-situation-human-rights

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/06/greece-migration-policy-having-suffocating-effect-human-rights-defenders

https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/europe-and-central-asia/greece/report-greece/

see also later:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/31/greece-should-face-more-checks-over-asylum-seeker-treatment-eu-official

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/31/i-was-close-to-death-syrian-man-tells-how-greek-officials-pushed-refugees-back-out-to-sea

And on 7 November : https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/11/07/greeces-surveillance-scandal-puts-rights-risk

and then: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/16/un-expert-slams-greece-over-civil-society-curbs