share information on human rights defenders, with special focus on human rights awards and laureates
In the context of restrictive legislation to hinder the work of human rights defenders, the Egyptian case deserves urgent attention now. The law on NGOs is being rewritten in this important country and others in the region may follow the example. Despite recent amendments Read the rest of this entry »
The Bangkok Post of 24 May 2013 contains a nice little item that should give heart to those who work on UN special procedures and of wonder about the impact of all this advocacy work: It seems that Thailand has conceded a bit on issues raised by a UN special rapporteurs regarding freedom of expression and migrant labour, and to the fatal harassment of human rights defenders.The ‘admission’ is in a document included in 108 pages of communications involving special rapporteurs of the United Nations recently made available ahead of the 23rd session of the UN Human Rights Council.
(Executive Director of HRA Babloo Loitongbam delivering the vote of thanks of the meeting)
The Indian agency E-Paonet reports in some detail on the visit by a UN Special Rapporteur to India. Let’s start by acknowledging India’s willingness to accept the Rapporteur (unlike other countries such as Eritrea I just reported on today)!
The Rapporteur in question is Rashida Manjoo the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes and Consequences who held a consultative meeting with representatives of civil society organizations, women human rights defenders, victims and other advocates working on violence against women at Classic Hotel, on 28 April. As many as forty separate depositions were made during the meeting, the largest one during her current 10-day long official mission to India from April 22 to May 1. After hearing all the depositions, Rashida observed that it was not her mandate to comment on the depositions made before her, but assured that her report and recommendations would be based on facts and they would be placed on the table of the forthcoming session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which is scheduled to take place June this year at Geneva for necessary actions. Read the rest of this entry »
Phyllis Bennis, a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam, wrote in her blog through Al-Jazeera, on 9 January 2013, a very informative piece under the title: “Human Rights Watch: Time to stand with human rights defenders” with the provocative byline: It is disappointing to see HRW’s unwillingness to stand with those who are working to promote and defend human rights.
The full article one should certainly read at: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/20131781532514238.html but what matters here is the policy question to what extent a (decent) NGO (i.c. HRW) should take to task another (very biased) NGO (i.c. UN Watch).
In short, the pro-Israeli, UN-bashing UN Watch discovered that the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, US lawyer Richard Falk, was still ‘on the Board’ of HRW. HRW quickly replied that he was only a member of HRW’s local support committee in Santa Barbara, California, where he lives and that it was an oversight that he still held this honorary position and that it was rectified (“longstanding policy, applied many times, that no official from any government or UN agency can serve on any Human Rights Watch committee or its Board. It was an oversight on our part that we did not apply that policy in Richard Falk’s case several years ago when he assumed his UN position”). UN Watch of course cried victory implying that Falk was expelled an enemy of human rights or because he is anti-Semitic.
The author of the blog finds fault with HRW’s meek response that did indeed not amount to a strong defense of Richard Falk’s credentials, impartiality and expertise. Should HRW not have made clear that substantively it stands with Richard Falk, that he was removed for technical reasons only and would be welcomed back as soon as he ceases to be UN Rapporteur? These are policy question that each NGO should answer for itself but in the context of UN Watch’s obsession to undermine the work of the UN in general and Richard Falk in particular a more robust stance would have been useful. I think that the similarity – even confusion – in name should also have led HRW to take a tougher public stand.
Phyllis Bennis concludes with: “Given his Middle East staff’s consistent work, there is no question that Ken Roth and the HRW board understand that human rights criticism of Israeli occupation is well-grounded in fact, and that such criticism remains a crucial element in changing the public, media and policymaking discourse in the United States. If we are ever to have any hope of changing US government policy in Palestine-Israel towards one grounded in human rights and international law, consistent human rights criticism and a willingness to stand with human rights defenders like Richard Falk when they face attack, remain crucial tools – for all human rights activists, including the leadership of Human Rights Watch.”
More than 80 members of the British Parliament signed a letter addressed to Colombias Prosecutor General denouncing irregularities in the trial of David Ravelo Crespo, claiming the accusations against the alleged murderer are “politically motivated.
In March 2011, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders sent a communiqué to the Colombian government expressing their concern with the prosecution, claiming that the “criminalization of David Ravelo occurs in the context of increasing prosecutions against human rights defenders in Colombia.
via Colombia criticized for sentencing human rights advocate – Colombia news | Colombia Reports.
Under the title: “When States Use Legislation Against Women Human Rights Defenders” AWID discusses the recent report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders (UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders’ 2012 report).
In her report, the Special Rapporteur reviews the types of legislation affecting the work of HRDs, including laws relating to: anti-terrorism and national security; public morals; the registration, functioning and funding of associations; access to information and official-secrets; defamation and blasphemy; and Internet access. While all of these categories are relevant, the AWID document looks at how four of these practices affect Women Human Rights Defenders (WHRDs).
Anti-terrorism and national security WHRDs in Zimbabwe have continually denounced arbitrary arrests and violations of the right to peaceful assembly. The increase in Governments that use anti-terrorism and/or national security laws to detain, prosecute, convict, and harass WHRDs is a worldwide concern. According to the Special Rapporteur, this type of legislation is “so broad that any peaceful act expressing views of dissent would fall under the definition of a terrorist act, or an act facilitating, supporting or promoting terrorism”.
Public morals In Meso-America, WHRDs working to promote women’s sexual and reproductive rights and the decriminalization of abortion[3] are the ones who most often experience criminalization and defamation by the State, private groups and the media. The Special Rapporteur’s report strongly emphasises how vital sexual health and reproductive rights (SHRR) defenders are for the promotion, protection and respect of women’s human rights, highlighting that “ these activities should not be subject to criminal sanction”. Zero tolerance for judicial harassment against SHRR defenders is called for, and States with legal frameworks guaranteeing SHRR should “ensure that such legislation is enforced without discrimination”.
Legal restrictions on operations Increasingly, States are issuing special regulations that affect the legal operation of women’s organizations in ways that are intended to inhibit their work. The 2005 report Written Out: How Sexuality is Used to Attack Women’s Organizing states that “after the attacks of 9/11, the US government put into place a set of supposedly terrorism-related legal and financial restrictions for any organization that funds groups outside the US. Under these policies, such funding organizations now have to prove that the groups receiving funds are not in any way engaging in terrorist activities”.
Defamation Although defamation legislation is intended to protect a person’s reputation from false and malicious attacks, legal frameworks under the umbrella of defamation tend to hide political or economic interests in order to retaliate against criticism and public denouncement of corruption. While defamation laws rarely protect WHRDs from defamation, they are often used to limit the freedom of expression of WHRDs. The Meso-American Assessment of Violence against WHRDs states that defamation is “one of the most repeated forms of violence against WHRDs in the region, either by the state, private groups and the media”. The Special Rapporteur’s report highlights that penalties are imposed on WHRDs who criticize Government representatives or religious laws. Under penal codes for defamation or blasphemy penalties vary from fines to months of imprisonment. These provisions prevent WHRDs from holding public officials or religious leaders accountable.
The Special Rapporteur raises concern about the development of legislation that allows authorities to supervise the activities of civil society organizations (CSOs). The report refers to confidential information received by the Special Rapporteur that points to how reporting requirements have been imposed on CSOs to retain their licence to operate, placing surveillance on CSOs, demanding documentation without prior notice, and restricting access to foreign funding and limiting this to up to 10% of their total annual income. Similarly, restrictions on certain areas of work have been imposed on women’s rights organizations, in particular those related to defending political rights and those that use human rights language in their organizations’ objectives. Excessive requirements for operating legally make it difficult for WHRDs to comply, and in some instances the required documentation puts WHRDs at risk. This trend of legal control and restriction undermines and delegitimizes the work of WHRDs and their organizations, as the resources and time required to respond to such demands deter women’s rights advocates from forming organizations.
Recommendations The 26 recommendations presented in the Special Rapporteur’s report aim at ensuring that national legislations comply with basic human rights enshrined in their constitutions – and consistent with the Declaration on HRDs – to create favourable working environments for HRDs. Special attention is needed regarding legislation that responds to the needs and situations of WHRDs, in particular those working on SHRR. The report makes an important call for States to “repeal all legislation that, with the declared objective of preserving public morals, criminalizes the activities of HRDs working on sexual orientation and gender identity issues”. Importantly, the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation to “ensure that civil society, national human rights institutions and other stakeholders are involved in a broad consultative process to ensure that the drafting of new legislation is in compliance with the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and other applicable international human rights instruments”, is critical to guarantee the inclusion and full participation of WHRDs in civil society.
for details see: http://www.awid.org/News-Analysis/Friday-Files/When-States-Use-Legislation-Against-Women-Human-Rights-Defenders
On 26 September UPI reports from Geneva that a U.N. rights delegation announced plans to assess the role human rights defenders have played in Tunisia since the country’s Jasmine Revolution in 2010.
Margaret Sekaggya, U.N. special envoy on human rights organizations, leads a delegation to Tunisia for a trip that concludes Oct. 5, a first since the country’s revolution.
“Human rights defenders have played an essential part in the call for democracy, justice and human rights across the region,” she said in a statement. “We are intrigued and excited to observe the working conditions of defenders of all generations in the country that in many ways triggered the Arab Spring.”
The Mail & Guardian Online carried an interesting piece that may have gone unnoticed. It is about the appointment of the first ever Rapporteur ‘on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence’. On March 23, the United Nations Human Rights Council appointed Pablo de Greiff, a Colombian national, who is currently the New York-based director of research at the International Centre for Transitional Justice. His tenure as special rapporteur begins on May 1.
The article refers to a recent meeting entitled “African Perspectives on the Appointment and Mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence”, of which a comprehensive report is forthcoming.
The article also gives a useful background to the what “Special procedures” are and underlines rightly that civil society (i.e. HRDs) should play a vital role in relation to the special rapporteur. Feeding the special rapporteur with succinct, reliable and accurate information on urgent matters relating to the mandate is one important function civil society can take on. Raising awareness about the special rapporteur and the relevant mandate as well as how it translates into reality is equally important in order to ensure increased participation in the broader process.
UN appoints rapporteur for justice – Opinion – Mail & Guardian Online.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 