Yesterday, 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 »
(Cao Shunli, the Chinese activist who died in custody (c) Photograph: Reuters)
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.
Today, 14 March, Amnesty International brought out a statement severely criticizing China‘s treatment of human rights defenders in need of medical care. Cao Shunli, 52, died from organ failure on Friday at a hospital in Beijing, after five months in detention. Repeated requests by Cao’s family for her to receive medical treatment for serious health problems were denied.[ https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/serious-concern-for-health-of-detained-human-rights-defender-cao-shunli/]
“Cao Shunli’s death exposes just how callous and calculating the Chinese authorities are prepared to be to silence critics. The authorities today have blood on their hands.” said Anu Kultalahti, China Researcher at Amnesty International. “Cao Shunli was a courageous woman who paid the ultimate price for the fight for human rights in China. She should have never been detained in the first place; but to then deny her the medical treatment she desperately needed is a most barbaric act.”
Cao had led attempts to allow activists to contribute to China’s national human rights report, ahead of a UPR review at the UN Human Rights Council in 2013 and was arrested in September as she attempted to travel to Geneva to attend a human rights training course. Her detention was seen by many as a reprisal for her wanting to contribute to a public discussion on violations in China – the charges against her concerned “picking quarrels and making trouble” . The full Council is expected to hear the result of the UPR session on Wednesday 19 March. It will be interesting to see how the States and in particular China is going to react to this tragic event.
Rolando Jiménez Perez,Chilean human rights defender, is given the floor in the newsletter of the International Service for Human Rights [ISHR] of February 2014. Here are some of the most quotable statements but the whole interview with Camille Marquis is worth reading:
‘I wanted to fight for human rights in order to help lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals and to put an end to any brutality for reasons of sexual orientation and gender identity. During the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, Rolando Jiménez Pérez was a member of the Communist Party driven, along with his fellow party workers, by the goal of restoring democracy. His sexuality was used by the party as a means to belittle him. This brought home to Rolando just how strong a role a person’s sexual orientation could play and he made up his mind that once the dictatorship was over he would turn his attention entirely to human rights and in particular towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.
(human rights defenders in the photo were not allowed to see Cao – Sound of Hope)
Critically ill human rights defender Cao Shunli, who was prevented from attending a United Nations human rights review of China last fall, was taken to intensive care on 16 February 2014 after being denied medical treatment for months while in detention. “Cao Shunli is unconscious and on a ventilator,” her lawyer Wang Yu explained to Radio Free Asia. “She can’t talk and her condition is extremely serious… We think her life is in danger, but the hospital won’t give us any details; they just mumble something when we ask them,” he continued. A nurse blocked the entrance to the intensive care unit and told rights defender Wang Ling that Cao was “deeply unconscious” and would not recognize him, according to Human Rights in China (HRIC). Though Cao was initially taken to Beijing’s Qinghe Emergency Center, she was then transferred to an Army hospital, though her family requested that she be taken to an acute care hospital. Police at the hospital prevented activists from entering the hospital, and about 20 of them were taken to police substations for questioning, Wang Ling told HRIC.
[Cao and fellow rights defender Chen Jianfang were detained on 13 September, 2013 at Beijing’s International airport as they were leaving to fly to Geneva to take part in activities associated with the United Nations Human Rights Council UPR review of China’s human rights record. On the eve of the review, 21 October, she was formally arrested and charged with “creating a disturbance,” and has been detained since then. See earlier posts:
Several NGOs, including the International Service for Human Rights from which I the took the statement of 12 January, 2014, have asked the Malaysian authorities to immediately reverse a ban issued against a leading coalition of human rights organisations. On 8 January 2014 the Malaysian Home Ministry issued a statement that it had declared the Coalition of Malaysian NGOs [COMANGO] to be illegal on the basis that it deviates from the Islamic faith through its support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. The Ministry further justified the ban on the basis that members of the coalition are not registered under he Malaysian Societies Act 1966.The move to ban COMANGO is a clear violation of the rights to freedom of association and assembly, said ISHR Director Phil Lynch, adding the suspicious circumstance that the ban was issued in response to COMANGO submitting a report to the UN Human Rights Council on Malaysia’s human rights record in March 2013, which makes it look like a case of reprisals against human rights defenders. For more info contact: Phil Lynch, Director, on p.lynch[at]ishr.ch.
An interesting example of how human rights defenders should tackle the pernicious issue of islamic opposition to human rights progress comes from Malaysia:
According to Bar Council member Andrew Khoo, Muslim-majority countries were among those which have asked Malaysia to obey international human rights standards in the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review (UPR) last month. “These are not Western, European-centric recommendations… For anyone to attempt to say this is a Western agenda, sorry you’re barking up the wrong tree,” said Khoo, who is the co-chairman of the Bar Council’s Human Rights Committee. Read the rest of this entry »
reports that on 30 October human rights lawyer, Ms Wang Yu, was finally permitted access to Chaoyang Detention Centre in Beijing in order to see Cao Shunli, who had reportedly been detained since 14 September 2013.
Wang Yu reported that Cao Shunli is extremely thin and has not received any medical attention in the detention centre. According to Wang Yu, Cao Shunli has been detained on charges of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”.
[On 14 September 2013, two security agents prevented Cao Shunli from boarding a flight from Beijing Capital Airport to Geneva. She was flying to take part in a training on UN mechanisms]
[In the months leading up to China’s Univeral Period Review (UPR) on 22 October 2013, Cao Shunli had been campaigning for greater civil society involvement in the UPR process]
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) should establish a mission in Belarus, the delegates to the Third Belarusian Human Rights Forum, which took place in Vilnius on Saturday and Sunday, say in a statement on 27 October. The delegates also urge the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to take measures to encourage Belarusian authorities to respect human rights. It is necessary for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to preserve its Ad Hoc Working Group on Belarus and for all OSCE institutions and bodies, including the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, to step up cooperation with Belarus’ civil society. The delegates condemn violations of human rights by Belarusian authorities and urge them to abide by international commitments and implement recommendations within the framework of the UN Universal Periodic Review. Authorities should invite all UN special rapporteurs to visit Belarus, above all, the UN Human Rights Council’s special rapporteur on Belarus.
At the same meeting, Ales Bialiatski‘s wife called on the West to be consistent in relation to Belarus. Natallia Pinchuk calls not to close the question of rehabilitation, not to reduce pressure on the Belarusian authorities and not to make concessions until all political prisoners are released, Radio Svaboda reports. “Some human rights defenders began to propose in their articles and speeches to lift demands for the full rehabilitation of political prisoners. They say the regime will never agree on it. But I think we must be consistent first of all. If we began to demand the rehabilitation, we must keep to this position. Secondly, people’s rights remain restricted without rehabilitation. They have only half-freedom,” she said. “We, relatives of the political prisoners, expect firmness and applying all instruments from the European Union and the US. It’s very important that the US and Europe have a concerted approach,” she said. Natallia Pinchuk is sure that her husband, who serves his term in a correctional colony shares her opinion.
blish a mission in Belarus, the delegates to the 
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 