During the 58th regular session of the Human Rights Council, ISHR delivered a statement during the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders affirming that human rights, peace and security are deeply interconnected, and the importance of the international system to human rights defenders.
The international system – to which many human rights defenders turn for justice, solidarity and accountability – is under attack.
Already weakened by double standards by States from all regions, human rights and the rule of law are being destroyed by a cabal of authoritarian leaders and unaccountable corporations. We thank the Special Rapporteur and other experts for their 27 February statement on this issue.
It was gratifying to see the rapid solidarity of many States with Ukraine following Friday’s White House confrontation with one such authoritarian. It is disheartening that the shortsighted response of many of those same States to the existential human rights funding crisis is to increase security spending by reducing development assistance. Human rights, peace and security are deeply interconnected.
Of course, no single State can fill the US gap or counter its influence, but a diverse group of States with a shared interest in universal rights and the rule of law must do so. Human rights defenders globally need your increased political and financial support, now. Our common interests are not served by lawlessness and raw power.
Madame Rapporteur, thank you for endorsing the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders +25. Read with the 1998 Declaration, it elaborates authoritative standards on the rights of defenders, and State and non-State actors’ obligations to respect and protect them.
Finally, alongside 196 organisations, ISHR calls on States to support a strong Norway-led resolution on human rights defenders and technology at this session.
New and emerging technologies have become a fundamental tool for human rights defenders to conduct their activities, boost solidarity among movements and reach different audiences. Unfortunately, these positive aspects have been overshadowed by negative impacts on the enjoyment of human rights, including increased threats and risks for human rights defenders. While we see the increased negative impacts of new technologies, we do not see that governments are addressing these impacts comprehensively.
Furthermore, States and their law enforcement agencies (often through the help of non-State actors, including business enterprises) often take down or censor the information shared by defenders on social media and other platforms. In other cases, we have seen that businesses are also complicit in attacks and violations against human right defenders.
Conversely, lack of access to the internet and the digital gaps in many countries and regions, or affecting specific groups, limits the potential of digital technologies for activism and movement building, as well as access to information.
The Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted in 1998, does not consider these challenges, which have largely arisen with the rapid evolution of technology. In this context, and, as part of activities to mark the 25th anniversary of the UN Declaration on human rights defenders, a coalition of NGOs launched a consultative initiative to identify the key issues faced by human rights defenders that are insufficiently addressed by the UN Declaration, including on the area of digital and new technologies. These issues are also reflected in the open letter to States on the draft resolution on human rights defenders that will be considered during HRC58.
This side event will be an opportunity to continue discussing the reality and the challenges that human rights defenders face in the context of new and emerging technologies. It will also be an opportunity to hear directly from those who, on a daily basis, work with defenders in the field of digital rights while highlighting their specific protection needs. Finally, the event will also help remind States about the range of obligations in this field that can contribute to inform the consultations on the HRC58 resolution on human rights defenders.
Panelists:
Opening remarks: Permanent Mission of Norway
Speakers:
Carla Vitoria – Association for Progressive Communications
Human rights defender from Kenya regarding the Safaricom case (via video message)
Woman human rights defender from Colombia regarding use of new technologies during peaceful protests
Human rights defender from Myanmar regarding online incitement to violence against Rohingya people
Video montage of civil society priorities for the human rights defender resolution at HRC58
Moderator: Ulises Quero, Programme Manager, Land, Environment and Business & Human Rights (ISHR)
This event is co-sponsored by Access Now, Asian Forum for Human Rights & Development (FORUM-ASIA), Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa HRD Project), Huridocs, Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR), International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA World), International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), Peace Brigades International, Privacy International, Protection International, Regional Coalition of WHRDs in Southwest Asia and North Africa (WHRD MENA Coalition).
MENA Rights Group leads a coalition of 15 civil society organisations in urging the Arab Interior Ministers’ Council to cease its facilitation of arbitrary extraditions of peaceful dissidents and human rights defenders across Arab League countries and to align its legal framework and systems with international human rights law
From left to right: Ahmed Kamel, Abdelrahman al-Qaradawi, Salman al-Khaldy, Hassan al-Rabea, Khalaf al-Romaithi, Sherif Osman
February 17, 2025The undersigned organisations call on the Arab Interior Ministers’ Council (AIMC) to cease its facilitation of arbitrary extraditions of peaceful dissidents and human rights defenders across Arab League countries and to align its legal framework and systems with international human rights law.
On Sunday, February 16, 2025, the AIMC held its 42nd annual conference in its headquarters in Tunis. Often misleadingly referred to as “Arab INTERPOL”, the AIMC is an Arab League body tasked with enhancing cooperation among Arab states in the fields of internal security and crime prevention. Through its Department of Criminal Prosecution and Data, the AIMC circulates state-requested warrants to liaison divisions in Member States and facilitates wanted individuals’ extradition.
Although extraditions for “crimes of a political nature” are explicitly prohibited by the AIMC’s legal framework, specifically article 41 of the Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation, they still occur in practice. Lacking an oversight body to prevent the abuse of its systems, the AIMC has become the perfect tool for Arab League states to request politically motivated extraditions.
Between 2022 and 2025, MENA Rights Group has documented the unlawful extraditions of four individuals: Khalaf al-Romaithi, Hassan al-Rabea, Salman al-Khaldy, and Abdulrahman al-Qaradawi. Currently, one individual is facing an imminent risk of extradition: Ahmed Kamel.
Ahmed Kamel is an Egyptian national currently detained in Saudi Arabia, where he had been living for a decade. In reprisal for peacefully protesting during the Arab Spring in Cairo in 2011 and 2014, Kamel faces imminent extradition to Egypt, where he may be subjected to human rights abuses including torture.
Despite their prohibition, Arab states continue to request and fulfil politically motivated extraditions, weaponising domestic laws which conflate peaceful criticism and human rights activism with terrorism or threats to state security.
Furthermore, the AIMC’s legal framework makes no reference to international human rights standards. More specifically, it fails to mention the principle of non-refoulement, enshrined in article 3 of the UN Convention against Torture, which provides that individuals must not be extradited to a country where they would face torture.
UN Special Procedures mandate holders have raised concerns over the AIMC’s operations in a communication addressed to the Arab League, notably raising the impossibility for individuals to access their criminal file and challenge their arrest warrant. However, the UN experts have been provided with no response, and the Council has yet to undertake any reform.
As the AIMC continues to facilitate grave human rights violations across the Arab region, substantial change is required to ensure peaceful dissidents and human rights defenders are not at risk of transnational repression.
The undersigned organisations therefore urge the AIMC to immediately halt its facilitation of politically motivated extraditions, and undertake urgent reforms, in consultation with civil society, to align its legal framework and systems with international human rights law.
Twenty-three human rights organizations have called for the immediate release of İstanbul Bar Association executive board member Fırat Epözdemir, who was arrested last week over alleged ties to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the Media and Law Studies Association reported February 3, 2025,
Advocacy groups condemned his detention as unlawful and part of a broader crackdown on human rights defenders and legal professionals in Turkey.
The Human Rights Defenders Solidarity Network (İHSDA) issued a statement denouncing Epözdemir’s arrest and urging authorities to drop the charges. The statement, signed by multiple rights organizations, emphasized that targeting lawyers and human rights advocates with judicial harassment is unacceptable.
Epözdemir was arrested Saturday by an İstanbul court on charges of “membership in an armed terrorist group” and “disseminating terrorist propaganda.”
Prosecutors in İstanbul accuse Epözdemir of joining a PKK-linked WhatsApp group in 2015, during the peak of clashes between Kurdish militants and Turkish security forces in the country’s predominantly Kurdish southeast.
The PKK has waged an armed insurgency against the Turkish state since 1984, a conflict that has left more than 40,000 people dead.
Epözdemir’s legal team has faced severe restrictions in accessing case files due to a confidentiality order, preventing them from reviewing the evidence against him. Authorities also imposed a 24-hour ban on lawyer visits without providing a clear justification, raising concerns of due process violations.
The joint statement criticized the prosecution’s reliance on a decade-old public event and phone conversations as grounds for Epözdemir’s arrest, calling the charges baseless and politically motivated.
His detention, rights groups argue, is an attack on the legal profession and human rights advocacy in Turkey. They linked his arrest to broader efforts to suppress dissent, noting that members of the İstanbul Bar Association have faced mounting pressure after issuing a statement regarding two journalists killed in Syria.
“Lawyers and bar associations must not be criminalized for their advocacy and defense of fundamental rights,” the statement said. “We reject all attempts to silence human rights defenders and demand the immediate and unconditional release of Fırat Epözdemir.”
Among the signatories were the MLSA, the Human Rights Association (İHD), Civil Rights Defenders, the Turkish Human Rights Foundation (TİHV) and numerous other civil society organizations.
The suspension and, in some cases the termination, of US foreign aid is having profound and adverse human rights impacts, threatening the very existence says Phil Lynch of ISHR in his Director’s update: “Impact of US funding freeze on human rights defenders and ISHRe of many human rights defenders, organisations and institutions“.
ISHR is directly affected by the US funding freeze. The suspension of US government funds means we’ve already had to terminate, defer or reduce activities to support human rights defenders working in highly restrictive contexts.
Together with announced and anticipated reductions in support for human rights organisations from some other governments and institutional philanthropy, it has also required that we take a number of significant anticipatory cost-saving measures, reducing our capacity to support human rights defenders globally.
The US funding freeze is also very adversely affecting a number of our national NGO partners, including those supporting human rights defenders in countries such as Afghanistan, China and Venezuela, among others. If you are in any position to support these organisations we would be delighted to connect you.
As I have recently written together with incoming and outgoing ISHR Board Chairs Taaka Awori and Vrinda Grover, we simply can’t afford to give up hope in our shared work for freedom, equality and justice. But we will not win and cannot survive on starvation rations.
We need investors – governments, foundations, corporations and individuals – to join us and create the resources that enable us to be sustainable, innovative and impactful. We particularly need medium and small States to step up investment, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because their interests are not served by the law of the jungle where might is right.
This investment needs to be made in civil society at the national, regional and international levels, as well as in the international human rights system to which frontline defenders increasingly turn when justice and accountability are denied at the national level. The realisation of human rights will provide an unmatched return on investment.
The Boston-based Patrick J. McGovern Foundation has announced on 23 December 2024 grants totaling $73.5 million in 2024 in support of human-centered AI.
Awarded to 144 nonprofit, academic, and governmental organizations in 11 countries, the grants will support the development and delivery of AI solutions built for long-term societal benefit and the creation of institutions designed to address the opportunities and challenges this emerging era presents. Grants will support organizations leveraging data science and AI to drive tangible change in a variety of areas with urgency, including climate change, human rights, media and journalism, crisis response, digital literacy, and health equity.
Gifts include $200,000 to MIT Solveto support the 2025 AI for Humanity Prize; $364,000 to Clear Globalto enable scalable, multilingual, voice-powered communication and information channels for crisis-affected communities; $1.25 million to the Aspen Instituteto enhance public understanding and policy discourse around AI; and $1.5 million to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) to advance ethical AI governance through civil society networks, policy frameworks, and knowledge resources.
Amnesty Internationalto support Amnesty’s Algorithmic Accountability Lab to mobilize and empower civil society to evaluate AI systems and pursue accountability for AI-driven harms ($750,000)
HURIDOCSto use machine learning to enhance human rights data management and advocacy ($400,000)
“This is not a moment to react; it’s a moment to lead,” said McGovern Foundation president Vilas Dhar. “We believe that by investing in AI solutions grounded in human values, we can harness technology’s immense potential to benefit communities and individuals alike. AI can amplify human dignity, protect the vulnerable, drive global prosperity, and become a force for good.”
On International Human Rights Day, the Open Society Foundations reaffirmed their vision for a shared humanity where everyone can thrive, continuing the philanthropy’s role as the world’s largest private funder promoting rights, equity, and justice.
Under the leadership of Chair Alex Soros, the philanthropy is streamlining its programming to support new voices and approaches that align with today’s emerging forms of organizing and leadership. The Foundations will pursue targeted time-bound efforts, provide long-term institutional support, and retain the flexibility to respond to crises through rapid response funds.
Binaifer Nowrojee, president of the Open Society Foundations, said:
Across the world, we are seeing inspiring and powerful movements working to shape a future framed by human rights. Standing with them as allies, we will deepen, broaden, reimagine, and catalyze efforts to advance a new vision of human rights that is not bounded by historic double standards, exclusions, and inequities.
We are crafting and implementing thoughtful, future-focused strategies for change that will leverage gains made through key openings and convert them into wins. Our investments will aim to work with groups to build on and sustain these wins over time. We are committed to listening and to being informed by the needs of allies leading the fights for rights, equity, and justice.
The commitments include multiyear investments across a broad range of issues and geographies, including:
Rights protection: Supporting human rights advocacy as well as protection of rights defenders at risk, particularly environmental and women’s groups
Inclusion: Ensuring marginalized and vulnerable groups can fully exercise their rights without fear of violence or discrimination
Public safety: Promoting communities-centered approaches to tackling repressive or militarized responses to violence and public safety
Accountability: Supporting human rights–based litigation in national, regional, and international courts
Political participation: Supporting new champions and nonpartisan movements of inclusive and accountable democratic practice in specific countries and globally
Economic rights: Developing and promoting new state-led economic models for a green transformation to advance economic and social rights
In 2025, Open Society will be approving further programming to promote rights, equity, and justice.
Open Society has also approved funding across other areas, including ideas, impact investing, advocacy, and higher education.
Dear Dr. Gillett, Dr. Yudkivska, Ms. Gopalan, Dr. Estrada-Castillo, and Dr. Malila,
We are writing, as a coalition of human rights organisations, regarding the urgent submission made to you, as members of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD), on behalf of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, the award-winning British-Egyptian writer and activist. Alaa Abd el-Fattah remains arbitrarily detained in Egypt and we strongly urge you to announce your opinion on his case at the earliest opportunity.
An international counsel team, led by barrister Can Yeğinsu, filed an urgent appeal with the UNWGAD on behalf of Mr. Abd el-Fattah and his family one year ago, on 14 November 2023, submitting that his continued detention is arbitrary and violates international law. Shortly afterwards, on 23 November 2023, 34 freedom of expression and human rights organisations sent a letter to the UNWGAD supporting that submission and urging the UNWGAD promptly to issue its opinion on this matter. On 17 April 2024, 27 freedom of expression and human rights organisations sent a follow up letter to the UNWGAD, enquiring whether there was any update in respect of this urgent appeal.
Alaa Abd el-Fattah’s case remains of significant concern to our organisations. He has spent much of the past decade imprisoned in Egypt due to charges related to his writing and activism. He was most recently arrested in September 2019 and was sentenced in December 2021 to five years’ imprisonment, having already spent two years in pre-trial detention. Despite completing his unjust and arbitrary five-year sentence on 29 September 2024, the Egyptian authorities have refused to release him, ignoring the time he spent in pre-trial detention. This defies international legal norms and contradicts Egyptian law. Alaa Abd el-Fattah is currently being held at Wadi al-Natrun prison near Cairo and continues to be denied consular visits, despite his British citizenship. His mother, Laila Soueif, has been on hunger strike since 29 September 2024 in protest against her son’s unjust and prolonged detention.
In November 2022, UN Experts joined the increasing number of human rights voices demanding Alaa Abd el-Fattah’s immediate release. Yet two years later, having fully served his five-year sentence, he remains in prison.
Despite his ongoing incarceration, Alaa Abd el-Fattah’s writing and activism continue to be recognised worldwide: most recently, in October 2024, he was announced as the joint winner of the 2024 PEN Pinter Prize with Arundhati Roy, and recognised as the 2024 Writer of Courage, eliciting the following encomium from Naomi Klein at the ceremony:
Alaa Abd El-Fattah embodies the relentless courage and intellectual depth that Arundhati Roy herself so powerfully represents, making her selection of him as the Writer of Courage profoundly fitting. Despite enduring a series of unjust sentences that robbed him of over a decade of freedom, his liberation continues to be denied. This prize, shared between two vital voices, reminds us of the urgent need to continue to raise our own in a call to ’Free Alaa’ at long last.
Our organisations continue to call for Alaa Abd el-Fattah’s immediate and unconditional release and we request that the UNWGAD urgently announce its opinion on his case.
Yours sincerely,
Alejandro Mayoral Baños, Executive Director, Access Now
Ahmed Samih Farag, General Director, Andalus Institute for Tolerance and Anti-Violence Studies
Quinn McKew, Executive Director, ARTICLE 19
Neil Hicks, Senior Director for Advocacy, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
Gypsy Guillén Kaiser, Advocacy and Communications Director, Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Chris Doyle, Director, Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU)
Jillian C. York, Director for International Freedom of Expression, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Ahmed Attalla, Executive Director, Egyptian Front for Human Rights
Samar Elhussieny, Programs Officer, Egyptian Human Rights Forum (EHRF)
Daniel Gorman, Director, English PEN
Rasmus Alenius Boserup, Executive Director, EuroMed Rights
James Lynch, Co-Director, FairSquare
Khalid Ibrahim, Executive Director, Gulf Centre for Human Rights
Mostafa Fouad, Head of Programs, HuMENA for Human Rights and Civic Engagement
Matt Redding, Head of Advocacy, IFEX
Baroness Helena Kennedy LT KC, Director, International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)
Alice Mogwe, President, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
Liesl Gerntholtz, Managing Director, PEN/Barbey Freedom To Write Center, PEN America
Mark Allen Klenk, Writers at Risk Committee Chair, PEN Austria
Grace Westcott, President, PEN Canada
Romana Cacchioli, Executive Director, PEN International
Rupert Skilbeck, Director, REDRESS
Antoine Bernard, Director of Advocacy and Assistance, Reporters Sans Frontières
Ricky Monahan Brown, President, Scottish PEN
Ahmed Salem, Executive Director, Sinai Foundation for Human Rights (SFHR)
Menna Elfyn, President, Wales PEN Cymru
Gerald Staberock, Secretary General, World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
States have an obligation to pay UN membership dues in full and in time. The failure of many States to do so, often for politically motivated reasons, is causing a financial liquidity crisis, meaning that resolutions and mandates of the Human Rights Council cannot be implemented. This is a breach of legal obligations, a betrayal of victims and survivors of violations and abuses, and a waste of the time and resources we have collectively invested over the last 4 weeks. The cuts to Special Procedures’ activities, including fewer country visits and the cancellation of the annual meeting, greatly limit rights holders’ ability to engage with mandate holders and it hinders their access to situations on the ground, and their engagement with domestic authorities for human rights change. Pay your dues!
We deplore the double standards in applying international law and the failure of certain States to push for accountability and ending impunity for all atrocity crimes, when these involve geopolitical interests, despite the clear relevance to thematic principles they endorse. We also deplore initiatives and threats by some States to undermine or sanction the vital work of international justice and accountability bodies, including the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. This undermines the integrity of the framework, the legitimacy of this institution, and the credibility of those States. From Afghanistan to China, to Eritrea to Myanmar, to Palestine to Sri Lanka, to Sudan to Ukraine, resolving grave violations requires States to address root causes, applying human rights norms in a principled and consistent way. States promoting or supporting thematic resolutions must apply these same principles universally, including in their approach to country-specific issues. The Council has a prevention mandate and States have a legal and moral duty to prevent and ensure accountability and non-recurrence for atrocity crimes, wherever they occur. We urge all States to implement resolutions consistently, both nationally and internationally, and to align their actions with the universal human rights standards they claim to uphold, especially in responding to atrocity crimes. We urge States to enhance objective criteria for action, with predictable parameters, consistent actions and a demonstrable way forward to addressing human rights crises.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Expert Mechanism to Advance Racial Justice and Equality in the Context of Law Enforcement (EMLER) by consensus. We welcome the resolution’s request to strengthen the administrative and substantive support to the Mechanism, and to provide the resources necessary for it to effectively fulfill its mandate. This renewal is a recognition of the value of its unique work over the past three years, as well as the need for experts to continue investigating States’ law enforcement practices and their impact on Africans and Afrodescendant people and communities, including the legacies of colonialism and transatlantic slave trade in enslaved Africans. As recognised by the resolution, systemic racism particularly, against Africans and people of African descent needs a systemic response. In this regard, EMLER’s reports offer a powerful tool for much-needed transformation that governments everywhere should implement. We urge States to ensure full cooperation with EMLER towards the effective fulfillment of its mandate, including by implementing its recommendations and responding promptly to its requests for information and country visits.
This session was again marked by increasing attempts at retrogression on well-established human rights standards pertaining to sexual and reproductive rights and other thematic issues related to gender and sexuality. Nevertheless, civil society organisations continue to work together across movements to ensure the resilience of the multilateral system and the upholding of human rights standards. Out of the 26 draft resolutions presented this session, 5 had a stronger focus on gender and sexuality issues and took important steps in developing human rights standards in these areas. Specifically, we welcome the adoption of the resolution on HIV, the resumption of the tradition of adopting this resolution by consensus and the inclusion of a reference to sexual and reproductive health and rights. We welcome the adoption of the resolution on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and girls requesting human rights-based, gender-responsive and intersectional approaches to poverty reduction; while also expressing concern at the multiple attempts to weaken the resolution which the strongest human rights standards on women and girls are reflected, including through amendments. We also welcome the new resolution on Technology-facilitated gender-based violence, the procedural resolution on Accelerating progress towards preventing adolescent girls’ pregnancy and the resolution on menstrual hygiene management, human rights and gender equality.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on Eritrea, renewing the Special Rapporteur’s mandate.
The resolution on the situation of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities is essential to keep the situation of Rohingya high on the agenda of the Council. However, the resolution’s calls for repatriation of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar in the current context where remaining Rohingya in Myanmar are once again confronting the dire prospects of recurrence of grave atrocities they faced in 2016 and 2017 contradict and undermine the fundamental objectives of the resolution to ensure protection of Rohingya and to create conditions for their safe, voluntary, dignified and sustainable return.
We welcome that the Council decided to devote its annual resolution on climate change and human rights to address just transition. However, we regret that some fundamental points are missing in the resolution. The recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment by the Human Rights Council (res 48/13) and the General Assembly (res 76/300) has been a landmark achievement. Yet, we regret to see that once again, the resolution on human rights and climate change has failed to include this right more explicitly. Parties to the UNFCCC have already acknowledged that when taking action on climate change, States should respect, promote and consider the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, among other rights (decision 1/CP.27). This resolution also failed to call upon States to transition away from fossil fuels. As has been repeatedly stated by the UN Secretary General, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and several Special Rapporteurs, fossil fuels are the root cause of the triple planetary crisis, and the main driver of climate change. Despite the support expressed by numerous delegations, this resolution is deliberately silent in recognizing the positive, important, legitimate and vital role that environmental human rights defenders play in the promotion and protection of human rights and the environment. As recognized by the HRC resolution 40/11, EHRDs are one of the most exposed and at risk around the world. Many of these attacks include Indigenous Peoples and defenders raising concerns about climate related projects, transition minerals mining and renewal projects. We will not have a just transition in the context of climate change without listening and consulting EHRDs. It is time that the annual resolutions on human rights and climate change align itself to the recent developments and strongly reaffirm a commitment to effective, rights- and science-based climate action.
We welcome the Council’s continued efforts to address the human rights impacts of arms, including by highlighting human rights obligations of States and responsibilities of the arms industry and other businesses contributing to its operations. The adoption of the resolution on human rights and the civilian acquisition, possession and use of firearms is another significant contribution to these efforts. The OHCHR report requested by the resolution, —which will explore the root causes and risk factors of firearms-related violence and its impact on the enjoyment of the right to participation, particularly of individuals in vulnerable or marginalised situations, — presents a key opportunity to highlight critical concerns surrounding civilian firearms and their broader human rights impacts and to promote an effective response to these concerns.
We welcome a new resolution on freedom of opinion and expression, which rightly highlights how this right is an enabler for all other human rights and sustainable development. Among other key issues, the resolution has been updated to express concern at the growing trend of strategic lawsuits against public participation and calls on governments to adopt and implement measures to discourage such legal harassment. In this vein, it mandates a report and expert workshop to explore the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation. We urge all States committed to freedom of opinion and expression to co-sponsor and fully implement the commitments of the resolution.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on Independence and Impartiality of Judges and Independence of Lawyers, focusing on the use of Digital Technologies, including Artificial Intelligence. We welcome the inclusion of language addressing serious concerns relating to the potential negative impact on international fair trial standards, including equality of arms, confidentiality and the protection of legal professions, as well as risks connected to judicial independence and impartiality, the perpetration of existing stereotypes, discrimination or harmful biases. We also welcome the emphasis on the need to always ensure human oversight, scrutiny and accountability with respect to the use of artificial intelligence in the administration of justice.
We continue to deplore this Council’s exceptionalism towards serious human rights violations committed by the Chinese government. Despite China’s efforts to instrumentalise allied countries and GONGOs to portray itself as a constructive actor during its UPR adoption, NGO statements pointed to evidence of Beijing’s lack of willingness to engage in good faith with the UN system, including: a 30% rejection rate higher than its last UPR, acts of reprisals against civil society committed during the UPR cycle, disregard for calls from Western and Global South States to implement Treaty Body recommendations and to provide unfettered access to UN experts. We urge China to genuinely engage with the UN human rights system to enact meaningful reform, and ensure all individuals and peoples enjoy internationally protected human rights. Recommendations from the OHCHR Xinjiang report, UN Treaty Bodies, and UN Special Procedures chart the way for this desperately needed change. In the absence of genuine efforts, it is equally imperative that this Council establishes a monitoring and reporting mechanism on China as repeatedly urged by over 40 UN experts since 2020.
We regret that the Council failed to uphold its obligations to the Libyan people. We are concerned that the resolution on Libya falls short in addressing the urgent need to end impunity for widespread and serious human rights abuses across the country. It ignores the findings of the Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Libya, which documented likely war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by State security forces and armed militia groups, and recommended the creation of an independent international investigation mechanism. Moreover, the resolution overlooks the inability of OHCHR and UNSMIL to conduct capacity-building activities in much of Libya due to threats of violence and governmental non-cooperation. Additionally, it neglects the severe suppression of civil society through arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, abductions, social media monitoring, harassment, and other forms of intimidation.
We regret that the Council failed to adequately respond to the situation in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is not fit to sit at the Human Rights Council, as it is responsible for the commission of atrocity crimes, a pattern of reprisals against those who cooperate with the UN, and the repression of civil society. The human rights situation in the country is dire, with the criminalisation of women human rights defenders, arbitrary detention and the application of the death penalty, among other abuses. We call on all UN States at the General Assembly not to vote for Saudi Arabia in the upcoming HRC elections.
We regret that once more, civil society representatives faced numerous obstacles to accessing the Palais and engaging in discussions during this session, as well as continuing and worsening incidents of reprisals and transnational repression here in Geneva against those seeking to cooperate with the Council. We are concerned by the barriers imposed to access room XX and that the majority of informal consultations on resolutions were held exclusively in person. We remind UN member States, as well as UNOG, that the Council’s mandate, as set out in HRC Res 5/1, requires that arrangements be made, and practices observed to ensure ‘the most effective contribution’ of NGOs. We reiterate that an inclusive approach to participation requires that the UN addresses the limited space for civil society engagement. Undermining civil society access and participation not only undermines the capacities and effectiveness of civil society but also of the Council itself.
Signatories:
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
CIVICUS
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Right (EIPR)
FIDH
GIN SSOGIE – The Global Interfaith Network For People of All Sexes, Sexual Orientations, Gender Identities and Expressions
4 July 202: China’s government accepted – wholly or partially – 298 of the 428 (70%) recommendations the country received from UN member states during its fourth UPR on 23 January 2024. This represents a 12% drop in the proportion of recommendations the government accepted compared to the previous UPR in 2018.
In a worrying sign of the government’s outright refusal to heed the mounting international concern over key human rights issues, of the 130 recommendations Beijing did not accept, an unprecedented number – 98 – were categorised as “rejected” and 32 were “noted.
China’s government used the United Nations (UN)-backed review of its human rights record to rebuff international concern over serious abuses, issue blanket denials, and make blatantly false statements, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Human Rights in China (HRIC), the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT), the Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR), and the Database Center for North Korean Human Rights (NKDB) said after the adoption of the outcome of China’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva, Switzerland.
Despite well-documented evidence to the contrary, the government claimed that many of the recommendations it accepted were being implemented or had already been implemented. Such was the case regarding the accepted recommendations related to human rights in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang, and the situation of human rights defenders, lawyers, civil society, media, and journalists. The government also made the false claim that it protected “freedom of speech, association and assembly” and “the lawful rights of all citizens as equals“.
FIDH, HRIC, ICT, TAHR, and NKDB urge China’s government to reverse course and use the fourth UPR to address the concerns voiced by numerous UN member states without delay by implementing all the recommendations that are consistent with its obligations under international human rights law.
Below is an analysis of the government’s response to the UPR recommendations on selected human rights issues.
Human rights situation in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang
The government received 57 recommendations on human right issues in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang and accepted only 19 (33%) of them. With regard to Hong Kong, the rejected recommendations were overwhelmingly related to the National Security Law and its negative impacts. Rejected recommendations concerning the situation of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang included those that called for the implementation of the 2022 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) assessment on Xinjiang which China’s government called “illegal“. China rejected 70% of the unprecedented number of Tibet-specific recommendations it received – notably the ones calling for an end of the boarding school system for Tibetan children – often claiming they were based on “false information” despite many verified reports, including by UN experts. Other recommendations concerning the respect of cultural and religious rights in Tibet were listed as “accepted and already implemented” in a blunt misrepresentation of the reality on the ground. Many of the recommendations received by China’s government concerning the situation in Tibet echoed those contained in the joint submission made by FIDH and the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) for China’s fourth UPR.
Human rights defenders, lawyers, and civil society
The government accepted only 10 of the 25 recommendations it received on human rights defenders, lawyers, and civil society. It rejected recommendations that called on China’s authorities to end the harassment and arbitrary detention of human rights defenders and lawyers and to cease the restrictions on civil society. A submission by HRIC highlights how online rights and internet freedoms in Hong Kong have significantly deteriorated in the post-COVID era, especially after the promulgation of the National Security Law, and that women have been disproportionately affected, as evidenced by the online gender-based violence they experienced.
Media and journalists
The government rejected 10 of the 14 recommendations it received concerning the protection of media and journalists, claiming the authorities protect the right to freedom of speech.
Death penalty
The government rejected all 20 recommendations it received concerning the death penalty. It stated that the death penalty “should be retained with its application strictly and prudently limited” – a statement that clashes with the reality of a country that has consistently ranked as the world’s most prolific executioner.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 