The new International Civil Society Network on Infrastructures for Peace (I4P) is launched today with its website: www.I4Pinternational.org
Many countries lack capacities and structures to deal adequately with on-going and potential violent conflict. This has emerged as a central obstacle to the attainment of equitable and sustainable development. In recent years, the number of conflicts has been increasing once again. What is needed – in the same way as for threatening natural disasters – is a comprehensive, inclusive and long-term approaches to peacebuilding, which involves the main stakeholders. Infrastructures for peace and Local Peace Committees can be important pillars to counter these dangerous developments or substantially reduce their impact. Several local peacebuilding NGOs and practitioners felt the need to exchange experiences and best practices about this approach and make I4P more recognised:the network was born and counts now some seventy members. There is an Interim Steering Committee with members from three continents.
Human rights and human rights defenders play a crucial role in this process – even if not spelled out in the main pages of the new website. The local peace groups mentioned as members however frequently refer to the need for human rights and social justice as they realise that lasting peace cannot be the ‘peace of the graveyard’. Moreover, it is the local Human Rights Defenders who suffer most from the absence of peace as this blog and many more sources regularly demonstrate.
Last Saturday, two distinguished human rights defenders in Saudi Arabia were sentenced to jail in Riyadh for establishing an unlicensed human rights organization. Mohammed Al-Qahtani and Abdullah Al-Hamad (or Hamid) established the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA) in 2009. The organization’s mission is to promote human rights awareness within the Kingdom. ACPRA called for political representation of Saudi citizens and creation of laws to protect minorities. The organization also worked on documenting human rights abuses within the Kingdom. Despite multiple efforts to license ACPRA, the organization’s petitions were rejected and the group was eventually banned by Saudi authorities. The two men were sentenced to 10 and 11 years in prison on accusations including the rather illiberal sounding “breaking allegiance to the King”, “disseminating false information through foreign entities” and “forming an unlicensed organization“. This trial and the ensuing heavy sentence are clearly linked to them exercising their rights to freedom of opinion and association.
Front Line report s that on 4 March 2013, human rights defender and prominent radio and television journalist Mr Julio Ernesto Alvarado announced his resignation from presenting the week night news commentary programme Medianoche on national radio station Radio Globo, due to serious fears for his life. Julio Ernesto Alvarado, who is also Director of Mi Nación, an hourly news programme transmitted nightly by television station Globo TV, has been subjected to continuous threats and surveillance since he began presenting the radio programme in 2011, the most recent incidents of which occurred on 1 and 2 March 2013.
On 1 March 2013, a vehicle prevented him from entering the tunnel which gives access to the car park of the premises of Radio Globo and Globo TV. The journalist was subsequently forced to park elsewhere. Upon entering the building, Julio Ernesto Alvarado was informed by security guards that an unknown man had entered the premises of Radio Globo. When the journalist went to investigate, he was unable to locate the individual. It is believed that the man had entered the building in order to inspect Julio Ernesto Alvarado’s work environment and system of security.
What is apparent from this blog, which has featured many cases of environmental Human Rights Defenders, has now been clearly stated (on 7 March 2013) by the United Nations Independent Expert on human rights and environment, John Knox. In his report to the Council of Human Rights, he highlighted the urgent need to clarify the human rights obligations linked to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Such clarification, he said, “is necessary in order for States and others to better understand what those obligations require and ensure that they are fully met, at every level from the local to the global.”……………….In his report Mr. Knox also identifies rights whose implementation is vital to environmental policymaking, such as the rights to freedom of expression and association, rights to receive information and participate in decision-making processes, and rights to legal remedies. “The exercise of these rights, makes environmental policies more transparent, better informed and more responsive to those most concerned.” “States should recognize the important work carried out by human rights defenders working on land and environmental issues in trying to find a balance between economic development and environmental protection, should not tolerate their stigmatization and should ensure prompt and impartial investigations into alleged violations of their rights,” he said.
John Knox was appointed as the Independent Expert on human rights and the environment in July 2012 by the United Nations Human Rights Council.
I would also like to refer now to an article by Lauri R. Tanner in the Oxford Press Journal of Human Rights Practice on the landmark environmental defenders cases by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: the milestone case of ‘Kawas v. Honduras‘ and the so-called ‘Mexican Ecologists case‘. In its first-ever ruling on environmental defenders, the Court found a positive obligation on the part of member states in the Hemisphere to protect environmentalists who are in serious jeopardy from human rights violations. The Kawas case is a paradigmatic example of the constant threats these activists encounter, both in the Americas and internationally, and states in the region are now on notice to ensure special protection to those most in danger of harm. The Court arrived at the remarkable juncture of ‘making visible and potentially punishable what heretofore has been invisible and unpunished’. In an epilogue Tanner addresses the subsequent ruling in the ‘Mexican Ecologists’ case, and offers recommendations to human rights and environmental defenders and practitioners both regionally and internationally.
On 8 March 2013 – probably timed to coincide with the debate in the UN Human Rights Council – the U.S. Department of State published an overview of it support for Human Rights Defenders. It reads in part:
Protecting and supporting human rights defenders is a key priority of U.S. foreign policy. The Department’s objective is to enable human rights defenders to promote and defend human rights without hindrance or undue restriction and free from fear of retribution against them or their families. The work of these brave individuals and groups is an integral part of a vibrant civil society, and our investment in and support of them is likewise an investment in and support of the rule of law and democracy. Every day, around the world, many in civil society turn to us for assistance in emergency situations and to help them achieve longer-term goals that will make their countries more just and democratic.
After a short description of who are considered Human Rights Defenders and a quote from Hillary Rodham Clinton (as U.S. Secretary of State Krakow, Poland on July 3, 2010): “When NGOs come under threat, we should provide protection where we can, and amplify the voices of activists by meeting with them publicly at home and abroad, and citing their work in what we say and do.” The webpage sets out the way in which the State Department protects and supports human rights defenders, including:
On 10 January 2013 I posted something on the largest ever trial of internet dissidents in Viet Nam. On 8 March this issue was continued in the UN:
“We call upon the Council to press Vietnam to put an end to this repression,” said Vo Van Ai, speaking on behalf of Vietnamese campaigners and the International Federation of Human Rights. In a speech to the UN body he said a total of 32 bloggers and other cyber-dissidents were behind bars in Vietnam, either sentenced or awaiting trial. They face prison terms of up to 16 years.
“Such repression does not serve to protect national security, as the Vietnamese authorities claim, but to stifle the voices of an emerging civil society speaking out on corruption, power abuse, the plight of dispossessed peasants and farmers, human rights and democratic reforms,” he said. He condemned Vietnam’s use of Ordinance 44, a 2002 ruling which authorises the detention of suspected national security offenders without due process of the law and which is increasingly deployed against bloggers, sometimes in psychiatric hospitals.
Fellow-campaigner Penelope Faulker, with the French-based group Work Together for Human Rights, noted that after a 2009 United Nations review (UPR), Hanoi had pledged to uphold freedom of information. “However, in the past year alone, scores of bloggers, online journalists and human rights defenders in Vietnam have been harassed, intimated, subjected to police abuse, or condemned to extremely harsh prison sentences simply for expressing their peaceful views on the Internet,” she told the Council. The southeast Asian country has been branded an “enemy of the Internet” by freedom of expression watchdog Reporters Without Borders.
15 Zimbabwean Civil Society Organizations, on 9 March 2013 issued a joint statement condemning the sustained and escalating assault on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved in civic education, human rights monitoring, public outreach and service provision by the State. The cite as the latest example the charging of Jestina Mukoko on which AI issued a separate alert on 8 March: “Prominent Zimbabwe human rights defender hunted down through the media”.
The criminalization of the work of civil society by the Government of National Unity is in direct contradiction with the letter and Spirit of the Global Political Agreement. It appears to us that the persecution of Jestina, who is not at anytime a fugitive from justice, is a direct victimization of an individual, who has been a victim of abduction by State security agents. State actions against Jestina were condemned by the Supreme Court and her prosecution quashed.Read the rest of this entry »
( Ane Tusvik Bonde of HRHF and Intigam Aliyev with the Homo Homini Award received on 4 March 2013)
In its intervention on 5 March 2013 at the Human Rights Council, the Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF) welcomed the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, including the one to the General Assembly on legislation affecting human rights defenders. HRHF stated that they are concerned, as is the Special Rapporteur, by the fact that more and more countries misuse or design legislation in order to impede or even criminalise the work of human rights defenders, or to label them as “foreign agents” such as in the Russian Federation.
HRHF especially welcomed the communications re Azerbaijan, as published in the addendum to the Rapporteur’s report, including the communication about the closure of the Azerbaijan Human Rights House on 16 March 2011 and the warnings against two NGOs threatened to be closed for their online publications on 5 March 2012. This communication has still not been answered. HRHF also regretted that Azerbaijan has not to date replied to the communication of the Special Rapporteur in relation to the arrest of photographer and blogger Mehman Huseynov, a case it already brought to the attention of the Council in July 2012.
Azerbaijan continues to use detention of human rights defenders as a tool to silence them. Most recently, on Saturday 26 January 2013, Intigam Aliyev was amongst 47 other demonstrators arrested for peacefully protesting in Baku. He was awarded the Homo Homini Award in Prague on 4 March, for his exceptional and courageous work in favour of human rights. Intigam Aliyev’s remains disbarred and his NGO blocked. In relation to this protest of 26 January, Emin Milli was sentenced to administrative detention for 15 days for promoting the protest on Facebook in violation of article 298.1 and 298.2 of the code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Emin Milli was previously detained for 16 months along with Adnan Hajizade for publishing a critical video on Youtube. http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/19109.html
Just an example of how politics and elections interact with the role of human rights defenders, always a touchy subject:
After the Zambian Police arrested and charged Zambia’s opposition leader, Hakainde Hichilema, on 27 January 2013, seven 7 Civil Society Organisations in Zambia have called upon the Zambia’s Human Rights Commission, Southern African Development Community (SADC), the African Union, the Commonwealth and “other human rights defenders” to review Zambia’s human rights record and denounce the violations by the Zambian Government. The organisations have also called upon the Electoral Commission of Zambia to cancel by-elections in Livingstone and Mpongwe in accordance with Section 28 of the Electoral Act No. 12 of 2002. Reading the statement during the Press Briefing at FODEP House in Lusaka on behalf of the 7 organisations the Young African Leaders Initiative President Andrew Ntewewe, called on the Deputy Inspector General of Police to immediately resign for violating fundamental political rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution of Zambia when he banned political rallies in the Livingstone. With a strong sense of exaggeration the organisations have advised the Zambian Police Command to resist the temptation of “turning the Police Service into a unit similar to NAZIs Gestapo under Hitler in Germany”. The 7 organisations have lambasted the Zambia Police for their continued unprofessionalism in handling matters that border on freedom of expression, assembly, movement and association. The organisations that appended their signatures to the statement included; Foundation for Democratic Process (FODEP), Operation Young Vote (OYV), Anti-Voter Apathy Project (AVAP), Southern Centre for Construction Resolutions of Disputes (SACCORD), Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI), the Zambia Centre for Inter-party Dialogue (ZCID) and the Zambia National Womens Lobby Group (ZNWLG).
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 