Phil Lynch, Director of the International Service for Human Rights, wrote an insightful post on URG Insights that is a must. It describes with concrete examples how the current Human Rights Council – and especially its Bureau – is failing to uphold the acquired right of NGOs to speak freely in the UN and – when necessary – mention names of offending countries. It seems like a complete throwback to the early 80’s when in the then Commission on Human Rights NGOs were restricted in mentioning countries by name. This let to untenable and even comical situations where NGOs would describe in detail atrocities and then say that they were talking about a big country in the south of Latin America, only to be asked by the Chair to say which country they had in mind. When the obvious answer came: “Argentina”, the NGO was ruled out of order! That States now feel that the time is right to try again to muzzle NGO criticism became already clear last year with China’s elaborate efforts to silence the ‘one minute silence’ for Cao Shunli [https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/china-in-the-un-human-rights-council-manages-to-silence-cao-shunli-as-well-as-ngos/] and the worryingly broad support it got for its procedural wrangling. Thus it would be crucial that the whole NGO movement and the States that support them take a clear stand. In meantime Lynch’s “Human Rights Council President, Bureau and Member States must respect the role and rights of NGOs” is giving the right background and follows here in toto:
“The right, and indeed the responsibility, of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to critique governments, expose and pursue accountability for human rights violations, and advocate for changes in law, policy and practice should be uncontroversial and uncontested. This is particularly the case at the UN Human Rights Council, the world’s apex body for human rights debate and dialogue, the mandate of which includes promoting and protecting the right to freedom of expression.
After a long holiday break there is probably no better way to start again covering developments relevant to human rights defenders than by referring to the views of the new Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Michel Forst, who shared his vision with the International Service on Human Rights on 16 July 2014. Michel Forst – appointed in June 2014 – is an experienced human rights lawyer. He was Secretary-General of France’s national human rights commission, and was a Board member of several international human rights NGOs. In an interview with ISHR, he sets out his vision and priorities in the post of Special Rapporteur on HRDs. Read the rest of this entry »
In September 2014, Navanethem (Navi) Pillaywill finish her term as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Since her appointment in 2008, she has been a principled and dedicated advocate for universal human rights, the protection of human rights defenders, accountability for perpetrators of human rights violations, and access to justice for victims. She has encouraged her staff to speak out and has done so herself courageously. Unanimity about her performance should not be expected – for that the topics she had to deal with are too controversial – but the human rights world generally has seen her as a ‘champion’ and one of them.
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/
The Treaty Body that oversees the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, composed of independent experts, recently completed its review of China‘s compliance. In its conclusions (called ‘Concluding Observations’), the UN committee expressed serious concern about ‘instances where labour and human rights activists, and their lawyers, have been victims of repression and reprisals while taking up cases of violations of economic, social and cultural rights’ and said that China is obliged under international law ‘to protect human rights and labour activists, as well as their lawyers, against any form of intimidation, threat and retaliation‘.
[TheISHR had briefed the treaty body experts on the case of Chinese human rights defender, Cao Shunli, on of the 3 Final Nominees of the MEA 2014, who died in detention after being denied access to adequate health care. In its briefing, ISHR also expressed concern at ongoing intimidation and reprisals against other human rights defenders, saying, ‘The Chinese Government again restricted human rights defenders from travelling to Geneva to attend this session, a pattern which is widespread. We call on the Committee to recommend that the government immediately cease its harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders, and that it guarantee the right of everyone to safely access and communicate with international bodies, such as this Committee. Further, we request that the Committee remain vigilant about reprisals, and that it recommend that the Government investigate all cases of alleged reprisals, and hold perpetrators to account.’] [http://www.ishr.ch/news/china-un-committee-demands-respect-human-rights-activists-and-end-reprisals]
Two days earlier, 26 May, the NGO Chinese Human Rights Defenders reported that Chinese authorities have detained a top rights lawyer and questioned dozens of activists and family members of victims of the 1989 military crackdown on the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement after they held a seminar to mark the sensitive 25th anniversary.
Under the title “From threats to opportunities: Business and Human Rights Defenders” the International Service for Human Rights [ISHR] organises a side event on Friday 13 June 2014, 12h15 – 13h45 in Room IX of Palais des Nations, Geneva. Note that it will be the first public appearance of the new Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Michael Forst. (https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/finally-it-is-final-michel-forst-the-new-rapporteur-on-human-rights-defenders/). For those unable to attend, a live webcast will be available at www.ishr.ch/webcast. You may also follow the event on Twitter @ISHRGlobal, using the hashtag #HRDs.
On 16 May 2014 the International Service for Human Rights [ISHR] reports that the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has designated a high-level focal point to document and follow up on cases of intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders that cooperate with the African human rights system. The spokesperson of the ISHR, Clement Voulé, welcomed the move and said: ‘The UN and its Member States should take note of the African Commission’s initiative and approve the designation of a high-level UN focal point’…‘Delegations in New York should also heed the call led by Botswana and joined by 56 States in Geneva in March to expedite this process and ensure a comprehensive, system-wide response to reprisals.’ While this is in itself good news and a step in the right direction, some caution is needed:
(1) The tasks of documenting, monitoring and encouraging effective Commission follow up on reprisals has been delegated to the existing African Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Reine Alapini-Gansou [‘By designating me as a focal point, the Commission has acted on the need to strengthen its response to reprisals by monitoring cases and working with States to prevent recurrence and promote accountability’]. However, there is no indication that Commissioner Alapini-Gansou is given additional powers or resources.
Still, I hope we can all share the ISHR’s passionate statement that “Any other outcome will signal support for impunity for the perpetrators of reprisals and a betrayal of human rights defenders and others who engage with the human rights system”.
This is a fundraising appeal which this blog normally would not relay but as (1) it is done jointly by two organisations, (2) comes with images, and (3) has such a clear focus on human rights defenders, I make an exception. It was published on 8 May 2014by the International Service for Human Rights and the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, to ensure that human rights defenders have the skills and resources they need. To donate, go to www.ishr.ch/donate.
“Civil society loses as repressive States win election to regulate NGO access to UN” is the headline of a rightly alarming report on 23 April 2014 by the New York desk of the International Service for Human Rights [ISHR]. It calls on States that value and respect a vibrant civil society should do more to support non-governmental organisations to have their voices heard at the United Nations. The call comes after very few such States stood for election to an important UN committee that regulates civil society access to the UN, leaving the field to repressive States whose intolerance for civil society at home looks set to further restrict NGO access to the UN.Read the rest of this entry »
In the crucial battle for better protection of human rights defenders who give information to the UN, there is a small victory. The Committee on Enforced Disappearances has responded to the issue of intimidation and attacks against human rights defenders by creating a rapporteur on reprisals. This comes after other UN treaty bodies, including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture and the Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture also took some steps to better protect human rights defenders who contribute to their work.
In its message of 22 April 2014 the Geneva-based International Service for Human Rights refers to its submission – together with Child Rights Connect, the Center for Legal and Social Studies, FIACAT, the International Movement Against all forms of Discrimination and Racism and Al-Karama – identifying ways in which the Committee could better facilitate access and engagement by NGOs. ‘ISHR welcomes this development, which sends a clear signal that the Committee takes the danger of reprisals seriously and understands the need to address this threat,’ said ISHR’s Heather Collister, but she rightly points out that cases of reprisal will continue to occur as long as there is no means of holding States accountable for the safety of the defenders who engage with regional or international human rights systems. See my earlier post advocating stronger measures against States that take reprisals: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/zero-tolerance-for-states-that-take-reprisals-against-hrds-lets-up-the-ante/
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 