ICJ joins call for strong UN resolution on Human Rights Defenders

ICJ joins call for strong UN resolution on Human Rights Defenders

Member States of the UN Human Rights Council should support the adoption of a vital draft resolution on the protection of human rights defenders and vote down over 30 hostile amendments proposed by China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan and Russia, which could substantially weaken the text.

In an open letter to governments, more than 100 non-governmental organisations from all regions of the world have said that the resolution – which focuses on the situation and protection needs of those working to promote economic, social and cultural rights – is a timely, balanced and important response to the worsening crackdown on human rights defenders. States from all regions, including Australia, Brazil, France, Ghana, Japan and Tunisia, among others, have already pledged their support for the Norwegian-led text.

The draft resolution will be voted upn by 47 Member States of the Human Rights Council on 23 or 24 March.

The amendments being pushed by China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan and Russia include proposals to remove any reference in the text to the term ‘human rights defenders’, to deny the legitimacy of their work, and to weaken their protection against attacks and reprisals.

Re: Support resolution on the protection of human rights defenders addressing economic, social and cultural rights

22 March 2016

Your Excellency,

The undersigned civil society organisations, coming from all regions, urge your delegation to support the adoption of the resolution on the protection of human rights defenders working to promote economic, social and cultural rights as tabled. We urge you to resist efforts to undermine and weaken this resolution.

The draft resolution entitled ‘Protecting human rights defenders addressing economic, social and cultural rights (A/HRC/31/L.28) is being considered by the 31st session of the Human Rights Council. It will be presented for adoption on 23 or 24 March.

South African jurist and former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has articulated the importance of such a resolution in the following terms:

As a South African, I have seen and experienced first-hand the role of ESC rights defenders in combating poverty and injustice and in promoting universal human rights for all, even the most powerless and disadvantaged. I have seen how the work of those who defend ESC rights benefits entire communities; just as attacks against those who defend ESC rights harm entire communities. That is why it is so important and timely that the UN Human Rights Council is currently negotiating a resolution on the protection of ESC rights defenders.

The draft resolution has been developed through a number of open and transparent informal negotiations.

The text, as tabled, is balanced and appropriate, in recognising the vital contribution of human rights defenders to the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development. It is currently cosponsored by a broad group of States from all regions of the world.

The text also identifies the threats, attacks and challenges facing this group of defenders and the obligations, duties and interests of State and non-State actors in terms of supporting and safeguarding this work. It provides good practice guidance to both State and non-State actors in this regard.

Despite the importance of the resolution – so tragically illustrated at the commencement of the 31st session with the murder of Honduran woman human rights defender Berta Caceres – a small group of States, led by the Russian Federation, China, Egypt, Cuba and Pakistan are seeking to seriously undermine the text. A large number of adverse amendments being pushed by these States include proposals which have the purpose or would have the effect of:

  • Removing any reference to the term ‘human rights defenders’;
  • Denying the legitimacy of the work of human rights defenders;
  • Weakening protection against, and accountability for, intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders and others who cooperate with the United Nations;
  • Failing to acknowledge the specific risks and violations faced by women, indigenous, and land and environment human rights defenders, their families and communities;
  • Diluting and regressing from consensus language and terminology from past human rights defenders resolutions; and
  • Seeking to justify limitations on human rights that are impermissible under international human rights law.

The amendments being advocated by the Russian Federation, China, Egypt, Cuba and Pakistan should be seen in the context of the systematic efforts currently underway in several of these States to restrict and criminalise the important and legitimate work of human rights defenders and independent civil society organisations in violation of international human rights law. The proposal to weaken language on reprisals should similarly be understood in the context of several of the proposing States being the subject of allegations of intimidation or reprisals in both the Secretary-General’s report and the joint communications report of Special Procedures.

We urge you not to associate with such positions. Instead, we respectfully urge your delegation to co-sponsor resolution L.28 as tabled, vote against the amendments presented, and vote in favor of the resolution as drafted.

Civil society and human rights defenders around the world look to the HRC and its Member States for support and protection, and we hope your delegation will stand with us.

Yours sincerely,

  1. International Service for Human Rights
  2. Amnesty International
  3. Arc International
  4. ARTICLE 19
  5. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development
  6. Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID)
  7. Boys of Bangladesh
  8. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
  9. Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)
  10. CELS (Argentina)
  11. CIVICUS
  12. Coalition Ivoirienne des Défenseurs des Droits Humains (CIDDH)
  13. Defend Defenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
  14. Digital Empowerment Foundation (India)
  15. Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR)
  16. FIDH, within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
  17. Foundation HELP (Tanzania)
  18. Global Initiative for Economic, Social & Cultural Rights
  19. Globe International Center
  20. Groundation Grenada
  21. Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
  22. Human Rights Defenders Network Sierra Leone
  23. Human Rights House Foundation
  24. Human Rights Law Centre (Australia)
  25. Human Rights Watch
  26. International Commission of Jurists
  27. International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)
  28. International Platform against Impunity
  29. Ivorian Observatory for Human Rights (OIDH)
  30. JASS -Just Associates-
  31. LGBT Centre (Mongolia)
  32. Mongolian Women’s employment supporting federation
  33. Nazra for Feminist Studies (Egypt)
  34. OT Watch (Mongolia)
  35. Peace Brigades International
  36. Protection International
  37. Reporters Without Borders
  38. Rivers without Boundaries Mongolia
  39. Salmmah Women’s Resource Centre (Sudan)
  40. Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC)
  41. Steps Without Borders NGO
  42. Terra de Direitos (Brazil)
  43. Urgent Action Fund for Women’s Human Rights
  44. West African Human Rights Defenders’ Network
  45. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

(The above 45 NGOs were the initial signatories, an updated version with additional signatories is here.)

United Arab Emirates: Human rights groups renew call for release of peaceful activists convicted at grossly unfair mass “UAE 94” trial

United Arab Emirates: Human rights groups renew call for release of peaceful activists convicted at grossly unfair mass “UAE 94” trial

The call comes on the third anniversary of the start of the mass trial of 94 individuals, including government critics and advocates of reform.

Ten human rights organizations appeal to the government of the United Arab Emirates to release immediately and unconditionally all those imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly as a result of this unfair trial.

UAE-Joint statement GCHR-Advocacy-Open letters-2016-ENG (full text in PDF)

Related readings:
United Arab Emirates: in a new report, ICJ documents massive rights violations in the UAE 94 trial

United Arab Emirates: stop the charade and release activists convicted at the mass UAE 94 trial

Myanmar: ICJ joins call to extend UN Special Rapporteur

Myanmar: ICJ joins call to extend UN Special Rapporteur

The ICJ today joined other NGOs in calling for the UN Human Rights Council to extend the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar.

The letter sets out observations and recommendations for the extension, and concludes:

“Our organizations believe that as long as ongoing and systemic human rights issues have not been addressed by the Government of Myanmar, the Human Rights Council should maintain its ability to monitor the human rights situation in the country, work with the country’s authorities on a concrete reform agenda, and work towards the establishment of an OHCHR country office with a full mandate. Acting under its agenda item 4, the Council should therefore, at a minimum, extend the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, request her to report on benchmarks needed for systemic change, and continue to review the situation of human rights in the country. Any failure on the part of the Council in this regard may seriously compromise and derail what has been achieved so far since the beginning of the reform process in 2010.”

The full text of the joint open letter can be accessed here (pdf): Myanmar-UN-Advocacy-OpenLetter-2015-ENG

Thailand: ICJ sends letter to Department of Special Investigations on Somchai case

Thailand: ICJ sends letter to Department of Special Investigations on Somchai case

The ICJ wrote to Thailand’s Department of Special Investigations (DSI) today further to the latest setback in the enforced disappearance case of Somchai Neelapaijit, who was reportedly abducted by police officers and forcibly disappeared in central Bangkok on 12 March 2004.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision of 29 December 2015 to acquit one police officer and exonerate four others of coercion and robbery, the ICJ wrote to the DSI to urge it to reinvigorate its investigation and provide access to an effective remedy and reparation for Somchai Neelapaijit’s family.

Reminding the DSI of its obligations under international human rights law, the ICJ’s letter drew attention to the fact that enforced disappearance is considered to be a continuing crime until the fate and whereabouts of a ‘disappeared’ person are disclosed or otherwise become known.

12 years have now passed since Somchai Neelapaijit (photo) was abducted in plain sight in the middle of Bangkok.

As the only open channel to justice, the ICJ’s letter underscored the significance of the DSI’s continuing investigation.

At a time when the Royal Thai Government is debating draft legislation that would ‘guarantee prompt, thorough, impartial investigation of any cases of torture and enforced disappearance’, now is the opportune moment to complement these efforts to comply with the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

Thailand’s obligations also include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which Thailand is a state party.

Enforced disappearance also amount a violation under both of these treaties, which also require that acts constituting enforced disappearance be criminalized and that persons responsibility be brought to justice.

Thailand-DSI Somchai-Advocacy-Open letters-2016-ENG (full text in PDF, English)

Thailand-DSI Somchai-Advocacy-Open letters-2016-THAI (full text in PDF, Thai)

Read also:
Somchai Neelapaijit verdict important test of Thailand’s treatment of cases of enforced disappearance

 

The ICJ comments on Reporting Requirements for Responsible Investment in Burma

The ICJ comments on Reporting Requirements for Responsible Investment in Burma

The US Department of State has requested for the submission of public comments on the Responsible Investment Reporting Requirements for Burma.

The ICJ has urged caution over the United State’s recent decision to allow for an exception to the sanctions regime for people who have already been documented as having links to the military regime and implicated in human rights violations.

This caution reflects the ICJ’s work with the Directorate of Investment and Company Administration, the Attorney General’s Office, and the Union Supreme Court of Myanmar, as well as civil society organizations, to strengthen and support local efforts at ensuring that investment protects and promotes the rule of law, human rights and the environment.

In this regard, the ICJ has visited and researched on the human rights and environmental impacts of investments in the 3 Special Economic Zones (photo), as well as other non-SEZ sites, in the country.

The ICJ submits that future reporting must be strengthened to ensure that U.S. companies comply with the Reporting Requirements, conduct due diligence and disclose adequate information transparently about the impact of their business practices on human rights in Myanmar.

This is especially crucial in light of significant reporting gaps in July 2013.

Failure to strengthen the requirements will undermine the goal of the Reporting Requirement to be a tool for promoting investment that reinforces those political and economic reforms that are compliant with the rule of law and human rights and help to empower civil society.

Myanmar’s historic transition process is significantly influenced by economic development in the country.

In order for business activity to help protect and promote human rights for people in Myanmar, it is essential to demand more robust due diligence standards, including human rights and environmental standards, greater clarity on investors’ due diligence on land rights, as well as increased transparency on “passive” investments.

The U.S. Treasury Department’s list of individuals and businesses banned from having financial or business links to the U.S. must be urgently revised to provide updated and clear information to help potential investors entering Myanmar avoid commercial ventures with those involved in human rights abuses and corruption.

Myanmar-ICJ Letter to US State Dept-Advocacy-Open Letters-2016-ENG (Full text in PDF)

Translate »