While not directly about Human Rights Defenders, this workshop organised by the Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the UN and others (see below) is of great importance to HRDs as they are the ones who provide most of the information to the Treaty Bodies, and are often the victims of the violations reported, including reprisals against them for having cooperated. Thus, this meeting on “The outcome of the treaty body strengthening process: Lessons learnt, implications and implementation” should be of interest to all. It takes place on 9 May 2014, 9.30am to 1pm in Room XXII, Palais des Nations, Geneva. Read the rest of this entry »
Posts Tagged ‘reprisals’
International Service for Human Rights rings alarm bell over composition of UN Committee on Civil society
May 1, 2014“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 »
Reprisals against Human Rights Defenders breach obligations as Human Rights Council member
April 29, 2014In a post dated 13 March 2014, I suggested the possibility of suspending the membership of countries in the Human Rights Council in case of serious reprisals against human rights defenders who coöperate with the UN. [https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/zero-tolerance-for-states-that-take-reprisals-against-hrds-lets-up-the-ante/]. The backdrop to this admittedly far-reaching proposal Read the rest of this entry »
Abu Bakar Siddique released but worries remain for human rights defenders in Bangladesh
April 27, 2014While the world received with great satisfaction the announcement of Bangladeshi human rights defender Adilur as Final Nominee of the MEA, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a joint programme of the World Organisation Against Torture and the International Federation for Human Rights, draws attention to the strange and disquieting case of Mr. Abu Bakar Siddique, the husband of Ms. Rizwana Hasan, Executive Director of the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyer’s Association BELA. He had been abducted on 16 April by unidentified men while traveling to Dhaka from Narayanganj by car. The vehicle with the unidentified men hit Mr. Abu Bakar Siddique’s car in Fatulla. When Mr. Siddique and the driver of his car exited the car, the unidentified men sprayed something into the driver’s eyes, and took Mr. Siddique away. On April 17, 2014 – about 33 hours after his abduction – Mr. Abu Bakar Siddique was left by his abductors blindfolded in Mirpur. Read the rest of this entry »
UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances weighs in on the issue of reprisals
April 25, 2014In 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/
via UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances appoints focal point on reprisals | ISHR. or contact Heather Collister on: h.collister[at]ishr.ch
For all my earlier posts on reprisals see: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/tag/reprisals/
The work of the International Service for Human Rights in the limelight
April 16, 2014There are many international NGOs doing excellent work for human rights defenders, but I want to highlight one here in particular: the International Service for Human Rights. It has a clear mandate and niche, based in Geneva for 30 years (with a small office in New York) is the main advocate for human rights defenders in the UN. The Director, Phil Lynch, sent out an overview in April 2014 of its activities covering the recent months, especially the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council. Please read the statement in full and – if you want regular updates – subscribe to the ISHR Newsletter: Read the rest of this entry »
Cao Shunli’s story continues with struggle around independent autopsy
March 28, 2014
Vigil for Cao Shunli in March 2014 in Dublin – (c) Front Line
Didi Kirsten Tatlow reports in The New York Times of 28 March how the issue of Cao Shunli’s death in detention in China has not ended. A lawyer for Cao Shunli said her family wants an independent autopsy by pathologists from outside China, saying they do not trust local pathologists or the police to make an accurate report. “If we can we would like to invite an international expert or an international expert organization to come here to do an autopsy,” said the lawyer, Ms Wang Yu. “’The family has not requested an autopsy yet, though they want one, because they don’t trust anyone here to do a fair job,” [The Beijing Lawyers Association and the Beijing Municipal Justice Bureau seem to be putting pressure on the lawyer] Read the rest of this entry »
How China cut short Cao Shunli’s remembrance in the UN
March 24, 2014This is the UN footage from the dramatic session in the UN Human Rights Council of 20 March 2014 where the ISHR asked for a moment of silence to remember Cao Shunli the Chinese HRD who recently died in detention. What happened next I described in my post: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/china-in-the-un-human-rights-council-manages-to-silence-cao-shunli-as-well-as-ngos/ followed by recalling the precedent setting: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/who-can-speak-for-ngos-in-the-un-a-precedent-set-in-1982/
China in the UN Human Rights Council manages to silence Cao Shunli as well as NGOs
March 20, 2014
For those with an interest in how the UN Council deals with criticism – in this case of China – should follow the debate on the UN webcast (or see the video on demand later) [http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/25th-regular-session-of-the-human-rights-council/2178978642001/#]. What happened in short is that during the debate on the adoption of China’s UPR report on 20 March, the International Service of Human Rights (ISHR) called for a few moments of silence to remember Cao Shunli, the human rights defender who recently died in detention (see references below). China then invoked a point of order saying that speakers should make general statements and that did not include asking for silence. During a long procedural debate many views were expressed – mostly supportive of China – but some others clearly stating that freedom of speech included the right not to speak. The interpretation of the rules of procedure then seemed to lead to the conclusion that the UPR (Universal Periodic Review) should not be ‘politicized”….and that from the eminently political entities called Governments! Sensing that a majority would support it, China insisted on a ruling by the Chairman that this kind of intervention needs to be ruled out for the future. The big majority of States, fearing a ‘precedent-setting’, rejected even the compromise proposal by the Chair to discuss the issue further in the Bureau (at a later time) with a vote of 20 against 13 (and 12 abstentions). The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the second NGO to get the floor, then continued the request for a minute of silence for Cao Shunli. This was of course again interrupted. So, the Council ended up supporting China’s tough stance, in spite of several other NGOs and a few countries coming out with strong support for the moment of silence.
When the FIDH then let one its member organisations (including the Campaign Against Tibet) speak on its behalf, the Chinese delegation (perhaps emboldened by its earlier success) decided to interrupt again asking that the FIDH only identifies itself and not its members. This led to another procedural debate on whether NGOs with consultative status are allowed to mention other NGOs that have no such status (a standing practice I should add, which was established far back in the 80s when Argentina tried – in vain – to stop the ICJ from letting an Argentinian lawyer, Emilio Mignone, to speak about the disappearance of his own daughter).
Perhaps there will be further debate on these procedural aspects, but it is unlikely that the UPR comes out of this as a serious innovation in dealing with human rights violations.
