Jan 17, 2024 | Advocacy, News
Today, the short documentary film titled “Beyond Siracusa: Human Rights in Times of Public Health Emergencies,” will be launched. The film looks at the 2023 Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights Public Health (PHE Principles), developed by experts through a process led by the International Commission of Jurists and the Global Health Consortium (GHLC). The film looks at the underlying motivation for the PHE Principles, including the imperatives for action compelled by the onslaught of the COVID 19 Pandemic, as well as the drafting process itself.
VIDEO: Beyond Siracusa: Human Rights in Times of Public Health Emergencies
“One of the important lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience is that a unified, cohesive elaboration of international law and standards prescribing how States should and should not respond to pandemics was lacking and sorely needed,” said Tim Fish Hodgson, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser. “The 1984 Siracusa Principles, also developed by the ICJ, elaborated a framework for a human rights-compliant response to emergency measures. The PHE Principles build on Siracusa and affirm the proactive measures that are required to secure human rights in times of public health emergency.”
The Principles, which address such questions as access to vaccines, lockdowns, and fortification of public health systems to prepare for future pandemics, expressly identify a number of responsibilities of States in the context of public health emergencies, including that they act in furtherance of:
- Universal enjoyment of human rights;
- International solidarity;
- The Rule of law;
- Equality and non-discrimination;
- Human rights protection from the conduct of non-State actors;
- Transparency and access to information;
- Meaningful and effective participation; and
- Accountability and access to justice for those harmed by human rights violations and abuses.
Elaborated by international experts through a three-year consultative process, and to date endorsed by over 50 leading experts, the Principles also provide a foundation upon which further human rights standards in public health emergency prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery may emerge and evolve. In the spirit of such evolution, the ICJ co-convened a blog symposium between October and December 2023 on the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School’s Bill of Health, which will culminate with a webinar on 18 January 2024.
“The Principles aim to be more than static guidelines. Their essence thrives through interpretation, application, and discourse among communities of scholars, advocates, practitioners and human rights defenders,” said Roojin Habibi, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and a member of GHLC. “We extend an open invitation to all interested parties to collaborate on the implementation of these Principles, from local to global settings.”
In 2024, the World Health Organization is set to continue its work in drafting a “Pandemic Treaty,” expected to culminate with the International Negotiating Body (INB) appointed by the WHO submitting its “final outcome” to the World Health Assembly in May 2024. At the same time, a process is under way to amend the 2005 International Health Regulations stemming from experiences of their (non)application during COVID-19.
“It is our hope that the content of the Principles inform all processes currently under way within the WHO to develop and consolidate international law and standards,” Fish Hodgson said. “We reiterate the consistent calls of civil society to ensure that the WHO’s processes are fully and meaningfully participatory, resulting in the development of a Pandemic Treaty and International Health Regulations that are grounded in human rights, providing States with clear guidance on their obligations,” he concluded.
Event
Register to join the webinar discussing the Principles on 18 January at 16.00 (CET) featuring Justice Zione Ntaba (Judge of the Malawian High Court), Alicia Ely Yamin (Harvard University), Paul Hunt (New Zealand Human Rights Commission), Kayum Ahmed (Human Rights Watch) and Luisa Cabal (UNAIDS) at this link.
Links
VIDEO: Beyond Siracusa: Human Rights in Times of Public Health Emergencies
PHE PRINCIPLES: ICJ & GHLC – Human Rights & Public Health Emergencies (2023). A one page overview of the Principles is available here: One Pager – Principles and Guidelines on HR & PHE.
SIRACUSA PRINCIPLES: The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (September 1984) are available here.
SYMPOSIUM: Posts from the Blog Symposium From Principles to Practice: Human Rights and Public Health Emergencies are available here.
ICJ, Amnesty International, GI-ESCR and Human Rights Watch Draft “Pandemic Treaty” fails to comply with human rights (July 2023), available here.
ICJ, Amnesty International, GI-ESCR and Human Rights Watch Joint Public Statement: The Pandemic Treaty Zero Draft Misses The Mark On Human Rights, February 2023, available here.
For more information:
Timothy Fish Hodgson timothy.hodgson@icj.org
Roojin Habibi rhabibi@uottawa.ca
Jan 12, 2024 | News
The ICJ firmly condemns the criminal conviction and sentencing of journalist and columnist Zied Elheni to a six-month suspended sentence of imprisonment on 10 January 2024 on spurious charges — an act of clear retaliation for Zied Elheni’s legitimate exercise of his right to freedom of expression, including to criticize government members.
البيان باللغة العربية
“This guilty verdict is part and parcel of an escalation in attacks on journalists and another concrete illustration of the Tunisian authorities’ authoritarian drift and of their drive to restrict the legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression and to silence independent voices in the country,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ Middle East and North Africa programme director. “These attacks violate media freedom and the right of the public to freely access information and have a chilling effect on free speech,” he added.
On 28 December 2023, Zied Elheni was summoned to appear before the Fifth Central Cybercrime Brigade of the Aouina National Guard, a few hours after he had made a statement critical of the Minister of Commerce on Radio IFM. On the same day, the public prosecutor at the Tunis First Instance Tribunal decided to remand Elheni in custody on suspicion of offences under article 24 of Decree-Law 54; his detention was extended by 48 hours on 30 December.
On 1 January, the public prosecutor at the Tunis First Instance Tribunal charged Elheni with “harming or disturbing third parties through public telecommunications networks,” under article 86 of the Telecommunications Code, and remanded him in custody pending trial. On 10 January, Elheni was tried before the Criminal Chamber of the Tunis First Instance Tribunal and convicted of the charges.
In June 2023, Elheni was arrested and questioned by the Fifth Central Cybercrime Brigade of the Aouina National Guard in a distinct case, following a statement he had made on the radio in which he had criticized the authorities’ arbitrary reliance on the crime of offending the President of the Republic under article 67 of the Criminal Code. He was later released and there have been no further developments in this case.
The ICJ calls on the Tunisian authorities to quash Elheni’s conviction and sentence under article 86 of the Telecommunications Code and to drop all charges against all journalists currently being prosecuted solely for the legitimate exercise of their journalistic duties and the peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of expression, and to immediately cease all practices that impede the independent work of journalists.
Background
There has been a growing pattern of prosecutions against journalists since July 2021 in Tunisia. Monia Arfaoui and Mohamed Boughalleb were prosecuted in March and April 2023 based on Decree-Law 54, in relation to their work as investigative journalists. Noureddine Boutar, journalist and director of Mosaique FM, was also arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in February 2023 in relation to criminal proceedings based on “State security-related” charges aimed to crack down on government critics, before being released on bail in May 2023. The charges against him, however, are still pending.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3800; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Dec 6, 2023 | Advocacy, News
The second revision of Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE Law), which was passed on 5 December 2023, does not comply with international human rights law and standards on freedom of expression and information, said the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today.
On 5 December 2023, the Indonesian House of Representatives passed the bill for the second revision of the ITE Law into law.
The ICJ is gravely concerned that the revised ITE Law fails to rectify the main flaws of its previous iteration, which has been used to wrongly criminalize and restrict free expression in online spaces. The criminal provisions contained in the revised law are inconsistent with international human rights law and standards, with added provisions having the potential to exacerbate repression of online expression.
“The retention of overbroad criminal provisions in the revised ITE Law signals the continuing failure of Indonesia to comply with its international human rights obligations to respect and protect the right to freedom of expression,” said Melissa Upreti, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The revision process lacked transparency, and important recommendations made by civil society to remove the ITE Law’s fatally flawed provisions have been disregarded.”
The ICJ is also concerned that the drafting process for the second revision was opaque, with public feedback on the draft having been ignored. The lack of transparency in the drafting process contravenes Indonesia’s obligation to ensure the effective exercise of the right to participate in public affairs, as guaranteed under article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
“The second revision of the ITE Law failed to capitalize on the opportunity for the Indonesian authorities to strengthen the protection of online freedom of expression and to reaffirm its commitment to respecting and protecting human rights in the online space. It is imperative that the revised law repeals or substantially amends the overbroad criminal provisions that have been used with concerning frequency to arbitrarily suppress online freedom of expression and create a climate of fear,” said Upreti.
In light of these concerns, the ICJ calls for the repeal or substantial amendment of the revised ITE Law to bring it in line with Indonesia’s human rights obligations to respect and protect the right to freedom of expression and information, through a transparent process that involves the effective participation of civil society.
Criminalization of free expression online
The revised ITE Law retains the overbroad and vague provisions criminalizing “contents that violate propriety” (article 27(1)); criminal defamation (article 27A); and “content that incites, persuades or influences” others that “causes feelings of hatred or hostility” based on protected characteristics (article 28(2)). A violation of these offences may result in imprisonment and criminal fines if found convicted (articles 45 and 45A).
Additionally, the revised law incorporates a new provision that imposes criminal liability for intentionally disseminating content that a person “knew contained false statements that cause public unrest” (article 28(3)), which may result in imprisonment if found convicted (article 45A(3)).
Any restriction on the right to freedom of expression and information must comply with the elements of legality, legitimate purpose, necessity and proportionality required under article 19(3) of the ICCPR. This means that any restriction on the right to freedom of expression must be based on law that is precisely worded, and be necessary for and the least restrictive measure to respond to a legitimate aim. The only aims identified as legitimate in article 19(3) are ensuring respect of the rights or reputations of others; or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals.
The criminal provisions in the revised law are unnecessary for any legitimate government purpose and risk making criminals of large numbers of ordinary internet users, and chilling many others from speaking online. They are clearly inconsistent with Indonesia’s obligations under article 19 of the ICCPR to guarantee the right to freedom of expression and information. They threaten unwarranted criminal sanctions for acts that are based on vague and overbroad language, which could be applied to unduly interfere with the rights of individuals and disproportionately impact those from disadvantaged and marginalized groups.
For instance, article 27(1) of the revised ITE Law threatens criminal sanctions for disseminating content that violates “propriety”, defined as “displaying nudity, genitalia, and sexual activity that contravenes with the values existing in society […]”. While the law now includes an exemption for public interest and self-defence (article 45(2)), this definition for “propriety” is vague and overbroad, having the potential to be weaponized to unjustly sanction any form of expression by individuals from marginalized groups, such as LGBTI-related content. Further, it could enable legal reprisals against victims/survivors of gender-based violence and lead to revictimization.
Defamation should never be subject to criminal, as opposed to civil, sanctions. The UN Human Rights Committee, which authoritatively interprets the ICCPR, has called on States to end the use of the criminal law for such purposes and affirmed that “imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty [for defamation]”. While the revised ITE law now incorporates a public interest exemption, the retention of criminal defamation will continue to have a chilling effect on online freedom of expression and information. Indeed, the previous criminal defamation provision in article 27(3) of the ITE Law, has already been applied to target expression critical of the government.
The criminalization of disseminating content that incites “feelings of hatred or hostility” in article 28(2) cannot be used to justify the application of criminal law. While States must act under the ICCPR article 20 to protect against actual incitement to violence and discrimination, provoking mere “feelings” of ill-defined conceptions of “hatred or hostility” stands well below the threshold of actual acts of violence or discrimination. In any event, the use of the criminal law is a plainly disproportionate measure to address any legitimate objective. The ICJ notes that the previous criminal hate speech provision in the ITE Law has been applied in an arbitrary manner to charge journalists and convict forms of expression that do not give rise to substantial harm.
The addition of article 28(3) in the revised ITE Law to criminalize disseminating “false statements” that causes “public unrest” is vague, overbroad and imprecise, which is inconsistent with the legality principle. Authorities may not rely on the prevention of “public unrest”, vaguely defined as “conditions that disturb public order […]”, to justify the disproportionate threat of criminal sanctions, especially imprisonment. The ICJ notes how other criminal provisions sanctioning disinformation, based on colonial-era regulations, have been used to arbitrarily sanction legitimate expression protected under international human rights law, including public interest reporting or critical opinions concerning public officials.
This press release can be downloaded in Bahasa Indonesian here.
Contact
Melissa Upreti, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, e: melissa.upreti@icj.org
Daron Tan, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, e: daron.tan@icj.org
Yogi Bratajaya, ICJ Legal Consultant, e: yogi.bratajaya@icj.org
Further reading
Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia
Indonesia: ICJ asks court to ensure that defamation and “false information” laws not be used to silence and criminalize human rights defenders
Indonesia: Law No. 12 of 2022 on Sexual Violence Crimes and Online Gender-Based Violence Against Women
Silenced But Not Silent: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Persons’ Freedom of Expression and Information Online in Southeast Asia
Dec 1, 2023
An opinion piece by Yogi Bratajaya, ICJ Legal Consultant and Daron Tan, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, Asia and the Pacific Programme, published on The Jakarta Post on 27 November 2023.
Over the past two decades, state authorities have tightened their grip on online freedom of expression in the country by enacting and applying overbroad laws purportedly aimed at legitimate objectives such as combating disinformation, but with the effect of arbitrarily censoring expression and targeting journalists and human rights defenders.
Among these are criminal provisions against intentional dissemination of harmful “false information”, i.e. disinformation. One such provision is Article 14(1) of Law No. 1/1946 on criminal law regulations, which criminalizes the act of “intentionally broadcasting false news or statements that incite chaos in society”, which may result in 10 years’ imprisonment.
Civil society organizations have rightly pointed out that the 1946 law and other disinformation laws inherited from the colonial justice system should not be applied in current times. In July 2023, a petition was filed with the Constitutional Court by several human rights organizations claiming that the disinformation provisions in Law No. 1/1946 contravene the state’s obligation to protect the right to freedom of expression and information.
Disinformation laws have frequently been enforced to restrict freedom of expression. Muhammad Asrul, a journalist, was charged in 2021 under Article 14(1) of Law No. 1/1946 for a piece detailing the alleged involvement of the son of the Palopo mayor in a corruption scandal. Human rights defenders Haris Azhar and Fatia Maulidiyanti are standing trial on charges relating to the criminal disinformation provisions of the same law in relation to a YouTube video discussing allegations of a conflict of interest by the Coordinating Maritime and Investment Affairs Minister Luhut Pandjaitan.
As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Indonesia is obliged to respect and ensure the right to freedom of expression and information, as guaranteed under Article 19 of the ICCPR. As affirmed by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the monitoring body for the ICCPR, this right forms the “foundation” of a free society in ensuring the “transparency and accountability” crucial to the promotion and protection of many other rights.
Any restriction of this right must be based on a law that is precisely worded. Further, it must be necessary for and be the least restrictive measure to respond to a legitimate aim. The only aims identified as legitimate are ensuring respect for the rights or reputations of others; or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals.
The criminal disinformation provisions of Law No. 1/1946 by no means meet the above standards. The use of the term “false news or statements” in the criminal disinformation provisions of the law is vague, overbroad and imprecise, as the lines between facts and opinions, and truth and falsehoods can be notoriously difficult to draw.
Further, the authorities should not rely on an overbroad definition of upholding public order to justify restrictions of freedom of expression. There appears to be nothing in the law or in any correlative pronouncements to suggest whether or how “chaos in society” relates to any of the bases in the closed list of legitimate purposes under Article 19 of the ICCPR. The failure to comply with these requirements for restriction may result in the arbitrary sanctioning of legitimate expression protected under international human rights law, including public interest reporting or critical opinions concerning public officials.
Particular care must be taken concerning the application of criminal law, as it is among the harshest of tools at the disposal of the state to exert control over individuals. Criminal law may only proscribe conduct that inflicts or threatens substantial harm on the human rights of others or to certain fundamental public interests.
It is unlikely that “chaos in society” would meet the threshold of “substantial harm” needed to justify a criminal law response, in part due to the lack of clarity on what “chaos in society” actually entails. The potential of such disproportionate criminal penalties has a chilling effect on the free communication of ideas, opinions or information, as individuals will self-censor to protect themselves.
We, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), have documented how states across Southeast Asia have purported to combat disinformation with laws that fail to conform to international human rights law and standards on the right to freedom of expression and information.
These laws are emblematic of the immense challenges of responding to disinformation using coercive legal measures, especially if they focus on the blunt instrument of criminalization. Generally, these laws targeting disinformation have been used to suppress or discourage the expression of contentious and critical views on matters of public interest.
For instance, section 14 of Thailand’s Computer-related Crimes Act B.E. 2560 (CCA) criminalizes “false computer data” that is “likely to cause damage to the public”, or “the protection of national security, public safety […] or cause panic to the public”, with these crimes being punishable with up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to 100,000 Baht (about US$3,000), or both. Similarly, Section 7 of Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 criminalizes the spreading of a “false statement of fact knowing it is false, and knowing it will or is likely to harm the public interest”, which may result in five years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to S$50,000 (about US$35,000), or both.
This worrying trend must be reversed, and Indonesia should thoroughly review its laws criminalizing disinformation, with a view to amending or repealing these provisions in line with its human rights obligations. While Law No. 1/1946 will no longer be applicable with the entry into force of the revised Criminal Code in January 2026, disinformation continues to be criminalized, including under articles 263 and 264 of the new Criminal Code.
The ICJ recognizes the complexities and challenges of responding to the spread of disinformation, including in online spaces.
When disinformation threatens human rights, states have a duty to take appropriate steps, grounded in human rights law, to address serious harms.
The crafting and use of vague and overbroad criminal laws, such as Article 14(1) of Law No. 1/1946, to sanction disinformation and undermine freedom of expression is rarely the answer. While certain forms of disinformation intended to cause serious harm may warrant a legal response, civil and administrative measures, rather than criminal law, will generally be appropriate where the disinformation does not involve incitement to violence. These legal responses must comply strictly with the human rights legal standards, and guard against harms that are limited and necessary to meet a legitimate purpose identified under Article 19 of the ICCPR.
More broadly, promoting and protecting, rather than limiting, human rights can serve as a means of achieving the kind of objectives that this legislation is purported to be aimed at. As emphasized by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, it is through protecting and strengthening freedom of expression, improving digital literacy and supporting the important work of a free and independent media and civil society, that disinformation can be more effectively countered.
First published on The Jakarta Post here.
Nov 7, 2023 | News
World Health Organization (WHO) member states should push for clear commitments to human rights protections in the text of a draft “pandemic treaty” being negotiated on November 6-10, four rights organizations said today. The current draft fails to enshrine core human rights standards protected under international law, most notably the right to health and the right to benefit from scientific progress, therefore risking a repeat of the tragic failures during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body is meeting to debate the draft of a new international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response with the goal of addressing the failures of the Covid-19 response and preventing another global crisis. However, rather than acting on the lessons learned from the Covid-19 pandemic, the current proposed text offers a weak framework for ensuring that countries will be accountable for maintaining a rights-compliant response to future pandemics.
This is the position taken by four international human rights groups: Amnesty International, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Commission of Jurists, and Human Rights Watch.
“Creating a new pandemic treaty could offer an opportunity to ensure that countries are equipped with proper mechanisms for cooperation and principles to prevent the level of devastation wrought by the Covid-19 pandemic, and the rights violations resulting from government responses,” said Tamaryn Nelson, legal advisor at Amnesty International. “By failing to ground the treaty in existing human rights obligations and inadequately addressing human rights concerns arising during public health emergencies, governments risk repeating history when the next global health crisis hits.”
Existing international human rights law and standards should be explicitly referenced throughout the document, recognizing that they are core to an effective and equitable pandemic response, the organizations said. It should also incorporate developments in international human rights standards reflected, for example, in principles developed by the Global Health Law Consortium and the International Commission of Jurists in the “Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and Public Health Emergencies,” and the Civil Society Alliance’s “Human Rights Principles For a Pandemic Treaty.”
“A global health architecture that puts profit-driven considerations at the center of global health decisions exacerbated the unprecedented magnitude of illness and death from Covid-19,” said Julia Bleckner, senior health and human rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Certain higher-income countries effectively hoarded vaccines and blocked a proposal to share the vaccine recipe, while those in lower-income countries died waiting for a first dose. An equitable and effective response to any future pandemic should ensure states carry out their obligation to, individually and collectively, regulate private entities to prevent them from undermining human rights.”
Human rights standards clearly establish that scientific progress must be available, accessible, acceptable, and of good quality to all individuals and communities. Governments must take steps to ensure that everyone can access the applications of scientific progress without discrimination.
The new treaty should reiterate that governments are required under international human rights law to strictly monitor and regulate private actors when they are involved in financing and the delivery of healthcare, ensuring that all their operations contribute to the full realization of the right to health. But the draft fails to incorporate the human rights framework on strictly monitoring and regulating private actors in healthcare, as well as preventing any harmful impact of private actors’ involvement in healthcare on governments’ capacity to effectively respond to pandemics. For example, the new text includes that state parties should “promote collaboration with relevant stakeholders, including the private sector” without clear human rights guardrails.
The Covid-19 pandemic was both a health and human rights catastrophe. Without clear and binding commitments to human rights law and standards leading up to and during public health emergencies, the crisis gave way to a ripple effect of human rights violations and abuses. Governments enforced lockdowns, quarantines, and other restrictions in ways that often were disproportionate to the public health threat and undermined human rights. In some cases, governments weaponized public health measures to discriminate against marginalized groups and target activists and opponents.
Yet the draft treaty fails to give governments virtually any guidance on how to comply with international law and standards, requiring any restrictions of human rights in the context of such emergencies to be evidence based, legally grounded, non-discriminatory, and necessary and proportionate to meet a compelling human rights threat. To the extent that restrictions undermine full enjoyment of economic and social rights, social relief measures to ensure the protection of those rights should also be put in place.
“The fact that the current draft of the text does not even repeat well established and existing standards in regard to legality, necessity, and proportionality of response measures is as disappointing as it is confounding. The result is a treaty that does not reflect the experience of individuals throughout the world who were subjected to human rights abuses in the name of public health response,” said Timothy Fish Hodgson, senior legal advisor at the International Commission of Jurists. “It is imperative that the negotiated text explicitly includes the necessary safeguards required under international human rights law when responding to a public health threat.”
The Covid-19 pandemic underscored the need for a social safety net and the consequences of failing to substantively account for the social and commercial determinants of health. While the current draft recognizes the ways in which the Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated inequalities, it does not explicitly commit governments to effectively protect the rights that guarantee key underlying determinants of health, including social security, food, education, housing, water, and sanitation, without discrimination.
In order to genuinely achieve its commitments to the principle of equity “at the centre of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response,” the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body should include in the draft explicit language on the obligations to proactively protect the rights of persons from marginalized groups, and to emphasize the human rights protections against discrimination.
“The global health response to the Covid-19 pandemic prioritized profit over the lives of the world’s most marginalized,” Rossella De Falco, programme officer on the right to health at the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights said. “If countries are serious about preventing the inequities and loss of the Covid-19 pandemic, they will commit to a rights-aligned agreement for future pandemics.”
Please note, the text above is a shortened version of this full statement, adapted by the ICJ for its website.
For more information:
For the International Commission of Jurists, Timothy Fish Hodgson: +27-82-8719-905; or timothy.hodgson@icj.org.
For Human Rights Watch, in Nairobi, Julia Bleckner: +1-917-890-4195; or blecknj@hrw.org.
For the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: +39-393-819-5332 or rossella@gi-escr.org
For Amnesty International, Tamaryn Nelson: tamaryn.nelson@amnesty.org
Background:
Previous joint statement of ICJ, AI, GI-ESCR and HRW (24 February 2023) available here.
ICJ and Global Health Law Consortium “Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights in Public Health Emergencies” available here.
Civil Society Alliance for Human Rights in the Pandemic Treaty “Human Rights Principles for a Pandemic Treaty” (11 April 2022) available here.
Civil Society Alliance for Human Rights in the Pandemic Treaty “Why States Must Ensure Full, Meaningful and Effective Civil Society Participation in developing a Pandemic Treaty” (11 April 2022), available here.
Download the full statement
![Smoke rises after an Israeli air strike on the village of Taybeh in southern Lebanon [Source: Al Jazeera]](https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-20-at-15.56.24-300x200.png)