On 23 May 2013, the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) submitted a detailed statement to the UN concerning the increased pressure on HRDs in Nepal. Here are some highlights:
1. The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) wishes to highlight the continuing need for closer monitoring by the Human Rights Council and the international community of the renewed threats and attacks that human rights defenders working in Nepal have had to face since the beginning of the year. Worries about potential reprisals from the former belligerents have arisen following progress in the investigation and prosecution of cases of human rights violations committed during the conflict. Read the rest of this entry »
It is too early to jubilate but it is interesting to note that on 17 May 2013, charges were dropped in the case against the human rights organisation Van Women’s Association (VAKAD) and nine other civil society organisations in Turkey. Court proceedings for the closure of the ten groups were brought by the prosecutor on charges of links with the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK). The hearing of 17 May 2013 was the second in the trial.
Rightly Front Line Defenders remains deeply concerned that the charges were brought in the first place and that anti-terrorism legislation continues to be used against legitimate human rights defenders and their organisations.
“Angola: From Theory to Practice – Its Time to Guarantee the Capacity of Human Rights Defenders to Act” (original: ANGOLA: Da Teoria à Prática – É hora de garantir a capacidade de atuação dos defensores dos direitos humanos) is the title of the report (preliminary findings) published today by The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a joint programme of the International Federation for Human Rights FIDH and the World Organisation Against Torture OMCT.
The Observatory carried out a fact-finding mission in Angola, from April 21 to May 1, 2013, to analyse the context in which human rights defenders are operating in the country. The mission delegation met with, amongst others, members of human rights NGOs, journalists, lawyers, artists, along with representatives of national authorities, political parties and foreign diplomatic missions. Read the rest of this entry »
The prize, which is awarded to individuals or organizations every five years was first given out 45 years ago on the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
As readers of this blog know I would have readily reported on any developments surrounding the MEA especially since the Final Nominees 2013 were announced recently. A few days ago a controversy arose around the nomination of Mona Seif, the courageous Egyptian human rights defender who was selected because of her campaign against military trials for civilians. UN Watch, an NGO affiliated to the American Jewish Committee, and famous for its strident monitoring of anything that smacks of criticism of Israel, accused Mona Seif of being a terrorist sympathizer on the basis of 3 older tweets in which she strongly defended the right of Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation. The organisation started a twitter campaign to have Mona recalled as nominee.
Mona Seif, Egypt – Final Nominee MEA 2013
The problem is that I am – in a personal capacity – the Chair of the Jury which is composed of ten of the world’s leading human rights NGOs (see list http://www.martinennalsaward.org). I am a non-voting chair whose only role is to facilitate the process and I do not participate in the selection. The board of the Martin Ennals Foundation also has no role in the selection as the Statutes provide for a fully independent Jury. Only the NGOs on the Jury can vote on the recipient of the MEA. Still, I feel that my capacity of Chair of the Jury obliges me to show restraint in speaking out.
reports that on 22 April 2013 the Committee Against Torture (CAT) is the next NGO received a letter of warning from the local Prosecutor’s Office. The letter alleges that CAT is violating the controversial new ‘Foreign Agents’ Law, which states that any Russian NGO involved in political activity and receiving foreign funding must register as a foreign agent.
CAT processes complaints about torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, carries out public investigations, represents the victims’ interests in court and before investigative bodies, and provides assistance with obtaining compensation. The letter from the Prosecutor’s Office states that CAT receives funds from sources outside of Russia, information which is freely available on CAT’s website. The letter also states that CAT has taken part in certain public events, unidentified in the letter, which the authorities consider to be political. According to the authorities, therefore, CAT should have registered as a foreign agent. Read the rest of this entry »
This video accompanies a new 78-page report, “Laws of Attrition: Crackdown on Russia’s Civil Society after Putin’s Return to the Presidency, which describes some of the changes since Putin returned to the presidency in May 2012. The authorities have introduced a series of restrictive laws, begun a nationwide campaign of invasive inspections of nongovernmental organizations, harassed, intimidated, and – in a number of cases – imprisoned political activists, and sought to cast government critics as clandestine enemies. The report analyzes the new laws, including the so-called “foreign agents” law, the treason law, and the assembly law, and documents how they have been used. Many of the new laws and the treatment of civil society violate Russia’s international human rights commitments, Human Rights Watch said.
How do I become an international human rights lawyer? is the topic of an article by Hannah Gannagé-Stewart in the Guardian of Friday 26 April 2013. She rightly starts by stating that “the life of an international human rights lawyer is not all jet setting glamour”. Still, it is one of the most frequent questions put to me at the end of a lecture, often during the reception afterwards under 4 eyes: “I would like to work for human rights – what do you advise me?” is the usual opening line. My half-serious standard reply: “if your really want to work FOR human rights, I advise you to get very rich and donate half your wealth to the human rights movement“, is not always appreciated, but correct at the macro level as the shortage of funds is much more problematic than that of talent and devotion in the human rights movement. The question asked was of course situated at the micro level as in: “I want to work IN human rights (even if the pay is not very good)“.
The Guardian piece (although focusing on the UK) contains good, practical advice and most of it would be valid in other countries:
“Jet-setting round the globe, setting the worlds highest courts alight with spectacular oratory performances, radically changing the lives of the most vulnerable. Hell, theres probably a Nobel peace prize in there somewhere too right? Think again. There are actually very few lawyers who would describe themselves as international human rights lawyers, Read the rest of this entry »
In spite of protests by many NGOs and Governments around the world (including earlier posts in this blog), Russia seems bent on pursuing its idea of requiring all organisations which receive foreign funding and are engaged in political activity to register as ‘foreign agents’ [‘Foreign Agents’ Law of 21 November 2012] . After the passing of the law, GOLOS, Memorial and the Joint Mobile Group (just made the Final Nominee of the MEA 2013) and many other organisations declared that out of principle they would not register as ‘foreign agent’.
Yesterday, 25 April 2013, the Russian election watchdog GOLOS became the first NGO to be fined. The decision was taken by the Presnensky Court of Moscow. GOLOS is a Russian non-profit organisation which was founded in 2000 for the protection of voters’ rights and the development of civil society. The court found that GOLOS had been receiving foreign funding, thereby implying that it considered the 2012 Andrei Sakharov Freedom Award as such, despite testimony given by a representative of Norwegian Helsinki Committee who confirmed that GOLOS actually refused to receive the 7700$. The court also found that the advocacy work of GOLOS aimed at the introduction of amendments to the Electoral Code constitute ‘political activity’. The law does not define political activity, the precise definition of which depends on state officials’ interpretation. The court ruled that GOLOS and its executive director Lilya Shibanova failed to comply with the obligation to register as a ‘foreign agent’ and fined them 300,000 roubles (approximately €7500) and 100,000 roubles (approximately €2500) respectively. They intend to appeal the decision.
And on 24 April Front Line Defenders reported that the Russian NGO ‘Man and the Law’ has been warned under the same Foreign Agents Law. Man and the Law, which is based in the Mari-El Republic in Russia, received a warning from the local Prosecutor’s Office re ‘political activity’, evidence for which has allegedly been found in their Charter and on their website. Man and the Law is a local non-governmental organisation which monitors local officials’ and civil servants’ compliance with human rights standards. The NGO also works on prisoners’ rights and monitors detention facilities and organises seminars and workshops for local officials, especially from the Federal Penitentiary Service. The warning also states that the latest inspection of the organisation revealed foreign sources of funding, in which case Man and the Law should have registered as a foreign agent.
This is the way the NGO “Chinese Human Rights Defenders” (CDHR) presents itself at the Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies in Ulaan Bator, so close to ‘home’:
“Do the names Zhou Decai, Cao Haibo, Chen Wei, Chen Xi or Cui Fufang ring a bell to you? They are all prisoners of conscience in China. The Chinese Human Right Defenders (CHRD) are doing all they can to make the stories of prisoners of consciousness heard.
On its website, CHRD defines itself as “a network of Chinese and international activists promoting human rights and empowering rights defenders in China. A non-governmental organization, CHRD provides logistical support and capacity-building services to human rights advocates, monitors human rights developments, and assists victims of human rights abuses. CHRD advocates the peaceful realization of human rights protection through democratization and rule of law reform.”
There are many activities of the network: just to name numerous reports have been published, the last one of them being the “2012 annual report on the situation of human rights in China”; It also submits constant reports and appeals to the UN on the situation of human rights in China, urging it to act for its improvement; their website and Twitter account provide constant updates on human rights violations in China, as well as pictures and videos, with stories which do not usually reach the mainstream media.”
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 