On 20 June the ISHR Monitor published a portrait of Indonesian human rights defender Yuyun Wahyuningrum:
When human rights were included in the ASEAN Charter, which was adopted in 2008, Yuyun Wahyuningrum saw an opportunity to promote human rights discourse in the region through advocacy at ASEAN. Yuyun currently works as senior advisor on ASEAN and human rights for the Human Rights Working Group, a coalition of over 50 organisations working on human rights in Indonesia.
“Principles and values in human rights are something that we cannot negotiate” While the inclusion of human rights in the ASEAN Charter, and the creation of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) in 2009 were concrete steps forwards in terms of promoting a human rights discourse, they also threw up challenges. One challenge has been the attempt by ASEAN States to impose their own interpretations of human rights standards that veer away from universality. It is imperative, says Yuyun, that AICHR should focus on complementing the global human rights system rather than breaking away from the principle of the universality of human rights.
“The role of civil society in influencing the debate is imperative” “AICHR will only gain legitimacy and authority on human rights if it develops a stronger partnership with civil society”
As an intergovernmental body AICHR struggles to balance its roles as a political body and as a human rights commission. The representatives of States on AICHR are nominated by governments and can be removed by them at any time. This has led to a lack of independence and a lack of political will to engage with its stakeholders, including the victims of human rights violations. Furthermore, ASEAN member States have been reticent in providing financial and technical support for the body which severely limits its capacity….Currently, AICHR is developing its ‘Guidelines on AICHR’s relations with civil society organisations’, which is to set out the modalities by which civil society can engage with the Commission. However the drafting process has been completely non-transparent to the extent that not only is it unclear when the document will be finalised, but it also remains to be seen whether the guidelines will promote or close down engagement by civil society.
“There is no ASEAN community without protection of human rights, especially the rights of those who defend the human rights of others” AICHR is not making any effort to interpret its mandate creatively so as to give itself the tools it needs to promote and protect human rights, including the ability to receive and investigate individual petitions, conduct country visits, issue precautionary measures to States, establish an effective early-warning system and response to emergency situations, and appoint independent experts. One interesting initiative was in fact proposed by a State. Indonesia invited AICHR to hear its report on the human rights situation in the country. This was inspired by the practice of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Thailand has agreed to be the next State to report to AICHR in August 2014. The regularisation of this initiative would be one way for AICHR to gain information on the situation of human rights in ASEAN States, as it is mandated to do.
“After the first cycle of UPR the improvement of human rights in ASEAN countries still needs to be assessed in detail” As far as the international human rights system is concerned, and in particular the UPR and its impact on ASEAN States, the same resistance to international standards can be seen. For example, many of the recommendations accepted by ASEAN States are in those areas where they are most comfortable and confident that they have made progress such as the rights of persons with disabilities, human rights education, right to housing, women’s rights and children’s rights, amongst others. The recommendations most commonly raised by the international community, however, include torture, the protection of human rights defenders, freedom of opinion and expression, and cooperation with civil society at the national level, areas ASEAN States are reluctant to tackle. However, one improvement that has been seen in ASEAN countries through the UPR is a growing ratification rate of international instruments. While this may largely be because States see these as easy recommendations to satisfy, it does also provide tools for civil society in the struggle to ensure that universal human rights standards are not being diluted in the region.
For more information on the work of Yuyun and the Human Rights Working Group see http://www.hrwg.org/
Didier Burkhalter (r), OSCE-Chairperson-in-Office and Swiss Foreign Minister, alongside Janez Lenarčič, Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, at a conference on human rights defenders, Bern, 10 June 2014. (FDFA)
The two-day conference “The OSCE and Human Rights Defenders: The Budapest Document 20 Years On” brings together national human rights experts, human rights defenders and civil society representatives from across the OSCE region. Opening the conference, the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office and Swiss Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter, stressed the role of political will in supporting the work of human rights defenders: “The implementation of human rights norms first and foremost needs one thing: political will … Allowing the voices of human rights defenders and civil society to be heard – even when these are uncomfortable voices – is at the basis of a well-functioning democracy,” .. “These men and women working to increase awareness and respect for human rights often take high risks to help their fellow citizens be able to live their lives in dignity. They need and deserve our support.” In his keynote address, Stavros Lambrinidis, the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, told participants that human rights have never been a battle between different cultures, but within them. He added that human rights have always been the universal language of the powerless against the relativism of the powerful: “Freedom of expression makes sense when we disagree, and especially when we strongly disagree,” Lambrinidis said. “Governments don’t have the obligation to agree with civil society; they have clear obligations, including providing human rights defenders with a safe and enabling environment. Strong confident countries speak to human rights defenders.” The first day of the conference saw the launch of the ODIHR Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a publication designed to assist OSCE participating States in promoting security for human rights defenders, in light of the increasing risks they face in carrying out their work. Ambassador Janez Lenarčič, Director of ODIHR, stressed that the approach presented in the Guidelines to ensuring such protection has to be based on co-operation. “The Guidelines will only prove as effective as their implementation will be,” Lenarčič said. “I believe the key to success is precisely that genuine partnership that the Budapest Document spoke of 20 years ago. It has to include all those involved in efforts to protect human rights defenders – from States and civil society to regional and international governmental organizations. This remains as important today as it was two decades ago.”
This week, the UN Human Rights Council adopted its annual resolution on human rights defenders. The resolution, led by Norway and Ireland, was co-sponsored by 74 nation-states and adopted by consensus. The new emphasis – in line with the latest report by the departing Rapporteur, Margaret Sekaggya – is on the importance of domestic law and administrative provisions which protect human rights defenders from criminalization, stigmatization, impediments, and obstructions contrary to international human rights law. The misuse of national security and counterterrorism legislation to crackdown on human rights defenders is also explicitly warned against. The resolution explicitly refers to the impact of how a country’s laws can be used by a government to further or impede the work of human rights defenders within the country.
In March, Margaret Sekaggya will finish her term as the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders. For more than five years the Ugandan Margaret Sekaggya has served the mandate with dedication and commitment, and has played an integral role in promoting the work of and furthering protection for human rights defenders around the world.
Also it has been announced that the new Special Rapporteur will be Michel Forst , from France.
He is a lawyer by training and the Secretary General of the Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme de la Republique Française. From 2008 – 2013, he was the Independent Expert of the United Nations on the situation of human rights in Haiti. He was Director General of Amnesty International in France and worked in the human rights department of UNESCO. Mr. Forst is also a founding trustee of Front Line Defenders.
In short, Margaret Sekaggya did a great job – like her predecessor Hina Jilani – and the credentials of the new Rapporteur give all reason to hope that the level of knowledge and commitment will be maintained. Glad to report something good coming out of the Council!
“States that commit or tolerate reprisals against #HRDs for cooperation with #UN should loose their voting rights says@thoolen“ is what Michael Ineichen twitted about my intervention in a meeting in Geneva organized by the ISHR. on 11 March. And that is basically correct. However, a bit more explanation of my rather ‘extremist position’ may be in order:
The topic of reprisals against persons who cooperate (as witnesses) with the UN and its various office holders has been raised by many, including this blog. [see: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/protecting-human-rights-defenders-from-reprisals-crucial-issue-with-timely-article-and-side-event-on-24-september/ and https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/conclusions-of-side-event-on-reprisals-against-human-rights-defenders/.] When at the very well-attended side event organized by the International Service for Human Rights in the margin of the UN Council of Human Rights, the issue of reprisals came up again, I said that the international community is perhaps a bit too timid in its reaction to the increase in reprisals against Human Rights Defenders who testify to or cooperate with the United Nations. I stated that ‘messing with witnesses’ is considered by judges in almost all legal systems as an extremely grave thing. Or taking another analogy from legal thinking: a crime is considered a ‘qualified crime’ or ‘aggravated crime’ (and punished more severely) when certain circumstances are present, including when there is a dependency link between the victim and the perpetrator (think of murder or rape by the a custodian, a teacher or a doctor).
The resolution establishing the new Human Rights Council – replacing the previous Commission – states that “members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.” And one of the novelties touted was that the General Assembly, via a two-thirds majority, can suspend the rights and privileges of any Council member that it decides has persistently committed gross and systematic violations of human rights during its term of membership.
The chilling effect that reprisals can have – especially when met with impunity – is potentially extremely damaging for the whole UN system of human rights procedures and will undo the slow but steady process of the last decades. Taken together with the above-mentioned seriousness of the aggravating character of reprisals, a powerful coalition of international and regional NGOs could well start public hearings with the purpose of demanding that States that commit reprisal be suspended.
If States can lose their right to vote in the General Assembly if they do not pay their fees for several years, there is in fact nothing shocking in demanding that States, who persecute and intimidate human rights defenders BECAUSE they cooperate with the United Nations, are not allowed to take part in the proceedings of the UN human rights body.
In a post earlier in the day I mentioned that I would restrict myself to announcing Side Events to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva that are specially focused on Human Rights Defenders, but that seems not be much of a restriction with two more interesting events scheduled for next week:
1. “Human Rights Defenders and the Shrinking Space for Civil Society” on Monday 10 March 2014 from 14 to 15h00 in Room XX Palais des Nations. Speakers:
Navi Pillay UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Halah Eldoseri – Saudi Arabia [researcher on women’s health services; blogs (Saudi women’s rights) to educate women about the country’s international obligations towards women; writes and organises lectures and workshops in Saudi Arabia for activists and the public]
Maksym Butkevych – Ukraine [radio and TV journalist working with “Hromadske Radio” (“Public Radio”) in Kiev; Co-Founder of “No Borders” project of the NGO “Social Action Centre”, which works on anti-discrimination issues; organised an independent radio station to directly cover the events in Ukraine; Co-Ordinator of the Independent Civic human rights violations Investigation Commission]
Mary Lawlor Director of Front Line Defenders [Chair]
Co sponsors: Troicare, International Commission of Jurists, Permanent Mission of Ireland.
———————————————————
2. “Global Trends for Human Rights Defenders” on Wednesday 12 March from 09h30 -12h00 in the office of International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), Rue de Varembé 1. This Roundtable brings together human rights defenders, practitioners, academic scholars, intergovernmental officials, government representatives, and donors to discuss innovation and the way forward to improve understanding and protection of HRDs, specially to foster an enabling environments for human rights defenders. This discussion will draw upon:
Recommendations made in the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders to the Human Rights Council on 10 March 2014,
For those who think that large international human rights meetings tend to take place in the ‘western’, you should check out the programme and website of the WORLD HUMAN RIGHTS FORUM which was held in Brasilia from 10 – 13 December 2013: http://www.fmdh.sdh.gov.br/index.php/en/program [representatives from 74 countries, more than 500 different activities and over 9.000 participants].
One such activity was the seminar “Comparative experiences for the protection of human rights defenders at the international level” chaired by Luciana García, director of the Department of Defence of Human Rights, from the Brazilian Human Rights Secretariat. Luis Enrique Eguren, President of Protection International, shared the table (picture above) with experts from other organisations, such as: Andrea Rocca of Front Line Defenders, Laura Tresca of Article 19, and Michelle Morais de sa Silva, General Coordinator for Accompaniment in Projects of International Cooperation.
The WFHR is an initiative of the Human Rights Secretariat of the Presidency of the Brazilian Republic, whose main objective is to promote a space for the public debate on Human Rights in which the progress and challenges are addressed with respect for the differences and social participation, with the aims of reducing inequalities and fighting against human rights violations…The Minister Maria do Rosário, from the Human Rights Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic of Brazil: “We organise this forum in Brazil because we think governments must always be opened to dialogue with civil society, precisely because this strengthens democracy …..We learn with Mandela that it is ourselves who must be the actors for the promotion of peace”.
At the closing ceremony of the World Human Rights Forum it was announced which countries will host the next events: Morocco in 2014 and Argentina in 2015.
“Defenders issued Card to local HRA” was the proud headline when Abdul Qadeer Dar, Executive Director of Voice of Victims and Chairman of the Peoples Rights Movement in Srinagar, Kashmir, received his card labeling him as a human rights defender. This announcement, dating back to April 2013, is just to illustrate how certain tools for human rights defenders work in practice. The Dublin-based NGO Frontline Defenders has been issuing ‘identity cards’ to local human rights defenders for years. The cards do not have legal status and do not empower the holders to represent Front Line defenders. The card is intended to demonstrate that its holder is human rights defender with whom front Line Defenders has a working relationship.
On 4 December 2013 I reported on the setback in the establishment of a focal point against reprisals in the United Nations. The disappointing vote in the Third Committee could theoretically have been reversed by the General Assembly but that miracle did not happen. On 19 December the General Assembly also put on hold a Human Rights Council initiative to strengthen the protection of human rights defenders from attacks and reprisals. A group of African States, together with China, Cuba, and Russia, successfully put forward a resolution to defer the appointment of a senior UN official tasked with coordinating the protection of human rights defenders. This is despite the Human Rights Council overwhelmingly passing a resolution in September calling on the UN Secretary-General to appoint ‘a United Nations-wide senior focal point’ to combat reprisals and intimidation.‘ The vote had a narrow margin of only three votes: 83 – 80.
[In the face of an African Group position, only two African States had the courage to abstain from the vote: Chad and Morocco.]
Lawyers, former diplomats and rights activists at a dialogue on 16 November 2013 in Dhaka, Bangladesh, stressed that media should use national and international mechanisms in reporting on human rights issues. They also pointed out that pressuring the government by international mechanism and pressure groups, such as diplomats and international media, could help improve the human rights situation in the country. Former ambassador Harun Ur Rashid, Dhaka Tribune editor Zafar Sobhan, Sayeed Ahmad of Forum Asia, Tahmina Rahman of Article 19, lawyer Jyotirmoy Barua, Nur Khan of Ain o Salish Kendra were the panelists at this dialogue entitled “Journalists as human rights defenders working together for the promotion and protection of human rights” organised by the human rights group Ain O Salish Kendra. Ambassador Harun ur Rashid said the media played an important role in creating awareness as well as acting as a pressure group to uphold human rights.“Individuals are now recognised not only in the national law but also in the international laws, so when his/her rights are violated, both state and the UN can intervene to protect the individual,” Harun ur Rashid added. Dhaka Tribune Editor Zafar Sobhan said the government had a tendency to act unresponsively on human rights violations until the issue was being picked up by international media or watchdogs. “Still, the media is playing a great role here. Ultimately the international watchdogs and media mostly gather information from news published in local media,” he said, adding that media persons also have the duty to respect victim’s privacy and rights. Sayeed Ahmad of Forum Asia observed that accountability was much more needed than creating awareness on human rights among the government institutions and law enforcement agencies such as Rapid Action Battalion, police and armed forces to ensure human rights. Echoing Sayeed, Tahmina of Article 19 said if such groups always enjoy exemption from the laws in the country, a culture of impunity is hard to eliminate.
He is a lawyer by training and the Secretary General of the Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme de la Republique Française. From 2008 – 2013, he was the Independent Expert of the United Nations on the situation of human rights in Haiti. He was Director General of Amnesty International in France and worked in the human rights department of UNESCO. Mr. Forst is also a founding trustee of Front Line Defenders.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 