While two weeks ago I was a bit too quick in announcing Michel Forst‘s appointment as the new UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders [https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/margaret-sekaggya-succeeded-as-hrd-rapporteur-by-michel-forst-reassuring/], a letter from the Chair of the Human Rights Council of 27 March 2014 fortunately confirms that he is the sole candidate and most likely to be endorsed by this session of the Council.
Posts Tagged ‘UN Human Rights Council’
South Africa disappoints terribly in the Human Rights Council: support for China’s silencing the silence
March 27, 2014A column in the South African City Press under the title “A chilling point of order for SA” written by Juliette De Rivero on 26 March 2014 makes a punchy statement about the disappointment felt all though the human rights movement when South Africa opted to support China’s point of order in the UN Council of Human Rights. In my post about this ‘court drama’ (reference below) I did not list all the countries coming out against allowing a moment of silence for the deceased Chinese human rights defender Cao Shunli and indeed the position of South Africa was in many way the most surprising, in de Rivero’s words: “…The South African delegate took the floor and warned that allowing the activists to proceed with the moment of silence would “create a dangerous precedent” that the council would not be able to sustain in the future.He noted that the action was “irregular and incompatible with the rules of procedure of this council”.South Africa’s choice to stand with the government that prevented Cao Shunli from participating in the UN came as a blow to the activist community – a community that was willing to stand up for Cao just as it had been willing to denounce the injustice of apartheid.South Africa’s concern that the moment of silence – not the death of the activist – was setting a bad precedent in the UN body sent such a chilling message to the human rights community that it should not be ignored…”
Let me add: That silence is a way of speaking should be clear to all, including South Africa, e.g. when on 6 December 2013 the General Assembly held a moment of silence to honour the memory of Nelson Mandela (“Madiba”).
full piece in: A chilling point of order for SA – City Press.
background in: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/china-in-the-un-human-rights-council-manages-to-silence-cao-shunli-as-well-as-ngos/
Ban Ki-Moon calls civil society “an indispensable part of the United Nations”
March 27, 2014“Civil society actors must be able to do their work freely, independently, safe from fear, retaliation or intimidation. This requires collective action to denounce reprisals and defend free voices and protect those targeted,” said the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, referring to civil society as “an indispensable part of the United Nations”. “We must expand the space for civil society to meaningfully participate and contribute,” he added in a video statement screened at a discussion on the promotion and protection of civil society space, in the context of the Human Rights Council’s 25th session.
“Civil society actors around the world face risks ranging from threats and intimidation to horrible reprisals, even killings”, said UN Human Rights Deputy, Flavia Pansieri at a discussion on the promotion and protection of civil society space. “From the NGO who is prohibited from receiving funding to the whistle-blower who is imprisoned for revealing corruption… we must work to protect civil society from such practices,” she said.
Hina Jilani, 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/
Who can speak for NGOs in the UN? A precedent set in 1982
March 21, 2014Yesterday, 20 March 2014, there was a fierce debate in the UN Council of Human Rights where the issue of the right of NGOs to speak came up, more precisely whether accredited NGOs had the right to let speakers mention other NGOs who do not have such accreditation. In this case it was China taking exemption to the FIDH letting its member NGOs (including a pro Tibetan group) take the floor in its name. For more context see my post of yesterday: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/china-in-the-un-human-rights-council-manages-to-silence-cao-shunli-as-well-as-ngos/.
The Chair and Secretariat rightly spoke of a standing practice in this regards. One such precedent is 30 years old and probably lost to most observers, so I give here my own recollection of this story in the hope that someone with access to the UN files or a better memory can confirm or correct the details.
It is 1982 and the Working group on Disappearances (created in 1980 after a long struggle and with the active support from the then Director Theo van Boven)) is reporting to the Commission on Human Rights (the predecessor of the Council). The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), of which I was the Executive Secretary at the time, has lined up to speak. Read the rest of this entry »
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.
Iran’s Larijani attacks human rights report by UN and Sotoudeh expresses faith in the future
March 20, 2014When it comes to the human rights situation in Iran one could refer to numerous recent reports that lament the continued repression and ill-treatment of human rights defenders in spite of the change of President at the top (as I did e.g. in: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/iran-human-rights-defenders-arbitrarily-detained-are-made-to-suffer-again-through-lack-of-medical-care/), but perhaps another way to demonstrate the enormous gap between the fanatics in power and those who struggle for a better Iran is two contrasting quotes:
The first comes from the Head of Iran’s Human Rights Council, Mohammad Javad Larijani, who in a 2-hour press conference rejected again any criticism and attacked the UN Rapporteur on Iran, Ahmed Shaheed, saying that his report was biased and filled with inaccurate reports and double standards.Larijani said that “he was turned into a media actor for propaganda against the Islamic Republic of Iran”. [from Iran rejects latest human rights report by the UN | Iran Pulse: Must-Reads from Iran Today.]
The other comes from http://www.arsehsevom.net/2014/03/nasrin-sotoudeh-equality-will-prevail/, quoting human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, one of the Final Nominees of the MEA in 2012 and recently released:
Not much more to say!
Sri Lanka: Release of Mr Ruki Fernando and Rev Praveen Mahesan
March 19, 2014On Monday 17 March, I reported on a clampdown on human rights defenders in Sri Lanka which looked very much like reprisals (https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/sri-lanka-champion-retaliator-against-human-rights-defenders/). Fortunately, Front Line Defenders reports today that the human rights defenders Ruki Fernando and Reverend Praveen Mahesan were released from detention. They had been detained on 16 March 2014 when visiting the Killinochchi district after the arrest of human rights defender Ms Balendran Jayakumari. She remains in detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/25400).
correction: Rapporteur on human rights defenders not yet confirmed
March 18, 2014Well, it seems that my announcement of 13 March (https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/margaret-sekaggya-succeeded-as-hrd-rapporteur-by-michel-forst-reassuring/) was a bit premature and the world will have to hold its collective breath until the announcement is confirmed towards the end of this month. But the rest of the post (the re-assuring part) stands.
Sri Lanka: champion retaliator against human rights defenders
March 17, 2014Today, 17 March 2014, the Asian Human Rights Commission, comes out with a statement that makes Sri Lanka look like one the worst offenders when it comes to retaliation and reprisals against human rights defenders. My feelings about reprisals are well-known and were recently expressed in: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/zero-tolerance-for-states-that-take-reprisals-against-hrds-lets-up-the-ante/
A draft resolution promoting reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in Sri Lanka is being discussed at the United Nations Human Rights Council. The proposed resolution calls for, among other things, the Office of the High Commissioner, “To lead a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka and establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes committed with the view to avoiding impunity and ensuring accountability with assistance from relevant experts”.
The statement of the AHRC reads: Read the rest of this entry »
