May 3, 2021 | News
European leaders at the May 8, 2021 summit with their Indian counterparts should prioritize the deteriorating human rights situation in India, including the right to health, the ICJ and seven other organizations said today.
With a devastating Covid-19 crisis affecting the country, Europe should focus on providing support to help India deal with the acute shortage of medical supplies and access to vaccines. At the same time, European leaders should press the Indian government to reverse its abusive and discriminatory policies and immediately release all human rights defenders and other critics who have been jailed for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
The organizations are Amnesty International, Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), Front Line Defenders (FLD), Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), and World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT).
India has the fastest-growing number of Covid-19 cases in the world and is facing severe healthcare shortages – of testing capacity, medicines, ambulance services, hospital beds, oxygen support, and vaccines. The European Union and its member states should reconsider and reverse their opposition to India and South Africa’s proposal before the World Trade Organization to temporarily waive certain intellectual property rules under the TRIPS Agreement to facilitate increased manufacturing and production of vaccines and related products globally, until widespread vaccination is in place the world over.
The Covid-19 crisis has also highlighted growing human rights concerns in India.. Faced with widespread criticism of its handling of the pandemic, the Indian government has tried to censor free speech, including by ordering social media content taken down and criminalizing calls for help. The government has also ignored calls from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for countries to release “every person detained without sufficient legal basis, including political prisoners, and those detained for critical, dissenting views” to prevent the growing rates of infection everywhere, including in closed facilities such as prisons and detention centers.
Instead, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government has increasingly harassed, intimidated and arbitrarily arrested human rights defenders, journalists, peaceful protesters, and other critics, including under draconian sedition and counterterrorism laws.
The authorities have jailed a number of human rights defenders, student activists, academics, opposition leaders, and critics, blaming them for the communal violence in February 2020 in Delhi as well as caste-based violence in Bhima Koregaon in Maharashtra state in January 2018. In both cases, BJP supporters were implicated in the violence. Police investigations in these cases were biased and aimed at silencing dissent and deterring future protests against government policies, the groups said.
The government uses foreign funding laws and other regulations to crack down on civil society. Recent amendments to the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act (FCRA) added onerous governmental oversight, additional regulations and certification processes, and operational requirements, which adversely affect civil society groups, and effectively restrict access to foreign funding for small nongovernmental organizations. In September 2020, Amnesty International India was forced to halt its work in the country after the Indian government froze its bank accounts in reprisal for the organization’s human rights work, and many other local rights groups struggle to continue doing their work.
The Indian authorities have also enacted discriminatory laws and policies against minorities. Muslim and Dalit communities face growing attacks, while authorities fail to take action against BJP leaders who vilify minority communities, and against BJP supporters who engage in violence. The Indian government has imposed harsh and discriminatory restrictions on Muslim-majority areas in Jammu and Kashmir since revoking the state’s constitutional status in August 2019 and splitting it into two federally governed territories.
The authorities carried out counterterrorism raids in October on multiple nongovernmental organizations in Kashmir and Delhi, and a newspaper office in Srinagar to silence them, causing a chilling effect on human rights defenders who fear for their safety.
Yet, despite the considerable deterioration in the country’s human rights record under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Indian government has effectively shielded itself from the international scrutiny and reactions that the seriousness of the situation should have warranted. Focusing on strengthening trade and economic ties with India, the European Union and its member states have been reluctant to formulate public expressions of concern on human rights in India, with the exception of occasional statements focused solely on the death penalty.
To read the full statement, click here.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General, t: +66 627026369, e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Mar 23, 2021 | Advocacy, News, Op-eds
[TOC]By Tim Fish Hodgson, Legal Adviser on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the International Commission of Jurists and Rossella De Falco, Programme Officer on the Right to Health at Global Initiative on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Historically pandemics have often catalyzed significant social change. As historian of epidemics Frank Snowden puts it: “epidemics are a category of disease that seem to hold up the mirror to human beings as to who we really are”. At the moment gazing in that mirror remains a regrettably unpleasant experience.
United Nations human rights Treaty Body Mechanisms and Special Procedures, the World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS and numerous local, regional and international human rights organizations have produced reams of statements, resolutions and reports bemoaning the human right impacts of COVID-19 and almost every single aspect of the lives of almost all people around the world. The latest being the UN Human Rights Council Resolution adopted today by consensus on “Ensuring equitable, affordable, timely and universal access for all countries to vaccines in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic”.
Key amongst the human rights law and standards underpinning these analyses is the protection of the right to the highest attainable standard of health, which, certainly for the 171 States Parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights places an obligation on States to take all necessary measures to ensure “the prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases”, and, in the context of access to medicines the right to “enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications”.
Despite these legal obligations, in late February, the UN Secretary General António Guterres felt compelled to highlight the rise of a “pandemic of human rights abuses in the wake of COVID-19”, including, but extending beyond violations of the right to health. The impact of COVID-19 on human rights has, and continues to be, sufficiently ubiquitous that an Indonesian transwoman activist Mama Yuli perhaps captured it best when telling a journalist that she and others in her position were “living like people who die slowly”.
Vaccines for the few, but what about the many?
Disappointingly, however, instead of a symbol of hope of a light at the end of the Coronavirus tunnel, the COVID-19 vaccine has fast become yet another pronounced illustration of the parallel pandemic of human rights abuses described by Guterres. The disastrous state of COVID-19 vaccine production and distribution throughout the world – and even within particular countries where vaccines are available – is now often described by many activists, including significantly the People’s Vaccine campaign, as “vaccine nationalism” and profiteering which has produced a “vaccine apartheid”.
What this means, in human rights language, is that States have often arranged their own affairs in a way that is detrimental to access to vaccines in other countries in spite of their extraterritorial legal obligations to, at very least, avoid their actions that would foreseeably result in the impairment of the human rights of people outside their own territories.
It is worth emphasizing that it has still been only some four months since the first mass vaccination campaigns began in December 2020. At the time of writing, approximately 450 million people had been vaccinated worldwide, while many African nations, for example, had yet to administer a single dose. While in North America 23 COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered per 100 hundred people, with the number standing at 13/100 in Europe, the ratio decreases dramatically in the Global South with 6.4/100 in South America, 3.8/100 in Asia, 0.7/100 in Oceania and a mere 0.6/100 in Africa.
Vaccines, State Obligations and Corporate Responsibilities
The inadequate and inequitable distribution of vaccines has a variety of causes.
First, is the generally dysfunctional nature of the global health system due to what the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights described in its first statement on COVID-19 as early as April 2020 as “decades of underinvestment in public health services and other social programmes”. The incredible inequities caused by privatization of healthcare services, facilities and goods in the absence of sufficient regulation is well-documented, both in the Global North and the Global South.
Second, are the obstacles to vaccine access created and maintained by States, singly but collectively in the form of intellectual property rights regimes. This is not for a lack of guidance or legal mechanisms to ensure the flexible application of intellectual property protections in favour of the protection of public health and the realization of the right to health. The TRIPS agreement is an international legal agreement concluded by members of the World Trade Organization which sets minimum standards for intellectual property rights protections.
States are specifically permitted to interpret intellectual property rights protections “in the light of the object and purpose of” TRIPS and States therefore retain “the right to grant compulsory licences and the freedom to determine the grounds upon which such licences are granted” in the specific context of public health emergencies. Nor is it the first time that epidemics have necessitated the engagement of flexible arrangements to ensure expeditious, universal, affordable and adequate access to life saving medications and vaccines.
This is why the majority of States and an overwhelming majority of civil society actors have supported South Africa and India’s request that the WTO issue a “waiver” of the application of intellectual property rights for COVID-19 “diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines”. This request has also been formally supported by a number of independent experts of the UN Human Rights Council of UN Special Procedures, and recently received the emphatic endorsement of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There is already precedent for such TRIPS waivers, with the WTO having already applied a waiver until 2033, for example, for least-developed countries (LDCs), which are exempted from applying intellectual property rules on pharmaceutical products and clinical data.
Disappointingly, however, the ink had barely dried on the issuing of the CESCR’s statement, when, plainly disregarding all of these recommendations, the waiver was blocked by a coalition of wealthier nations, many of whom already have substantial and advanced vaccine access. Importantly, the CESCR’s recommendations were not just made on vague policy grounds, but as the best way to fulfill States’ clear legal obligation in ICESCR that, “production and distribution of vaccines must be organized and supported by international cooperation and assistance”.
The recently adopted Resolution of the UN Human Rights Council, led by Ecuador and States of the Non-Aligned Movement and adopted on 23 March 2021 provides some hope of the alteration of this existing collision course with disaster. The resolution, which calls for “equitable, affordable, timely, and universal access by all countries”, reaffirms vaccine access as a protected human right and openly acknowledges “unequal allocation and distribution among countries”.
The resolution proceeds to call on all States, individually and collectively, to “remove unjustified obstacles restricting exports of COVID-19 vaccines” and to “facilitate the trade, acquisition, access and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines” for all.
However, despite the protestations of civil society organizations involved in deliberations about the resolution, the resolution only restates the right for States to utilize TRIPS flexibilities, as opposed to endorsing such measures as a best practice for realizing State human rights obligations. This tepid approach (which follows principles of international trade while, ironically given the resolution emanates from the Human Rights Council, ignoring human rights standards) to perhaps the pressing issue relating to vaccine access is inconsistent with the Resolution’s otherwise firm grounding of vaccine access in human rights. It therefore remarkably even falls short of insisting that States comply with their own long-established international human rights obligations.
The resolution also inexplicably fails to address corporate responsibilities, including those of pharmaceutical companies, to respect the right to health in terms of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and States’ corresponding duty to protect the right to health through adopting adequate regulatory measures.
Third, and connected to the above, is the general failure of States to fully and adequately centre their human rights obligations in the broader context of COVID-19 responses worldwide. The subtle but important phrasing of the exercise of TRIPS flexibilities as a “right of States” rather than as one of the optimal ways of fulfilling an obligation, exposes the degree to which the attitudes by State policy makers and legal advisors towards and understanding of human rights are out of sync with the obligations that they have willingly assumed by becoming party to treaties like the ICESCR.
A Critical Moment: it does not have to be this way
As Snowden’s insightful work predicted, the COVID-19 pandemic represents a critical moment in human history. States, collectively and individually, are presented with a unique opportunity to set a precedent and begin to seriously address the root causes of inequality and poverty which are prevalent across the world.
Making the right decision and taking a moral stand on the importance of access to COVID-19 vaccines is both practically and symbolically important if these efforts are to succeed. Vaccines must be accepted and acknowledged as global public health goods and human rights. Private companies too should not stand in the way of equitable and non-discriminatory vaccine access for all people.
For this to happen, bold leadership is required from international human rights institutions such as the UN Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly and the WTO. Unfortunately, at present, not enough has been done and politicking and private interest continue to trump principle and public good. Until this changes, many people around the world will continue to exist, “living like people who are dying slowly”. It does not have to be this way.
Mar 5, 2021 | News, Op-eds
An opinion piece by ICJ Commissioner, Rodrigo Uprimny, asks whether the existing COVID-19 vaccine patenting arrangements favouring the intellectual property interests of pharmaceuticals come at an unacceptable cost to protecting the life and health of millions. Commissioner Uprimny is also Researcher at Dejusticia and member of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
During an informal conversation I was asked:
“Why is it that, although so many of us are dying due to COVID-19 and suffering from the dramatic state of the economy, we continue to wait for vaccines despite the availability of so many safe and effective ones? Is it that we cannot produce the vaccines locally?
The answer to this simple but essential question is that vaccine access is no longer a technical but also a political issue.
While Colombia cannot technically manufacture or produce some COVID-19 vaccines such as those based on the RNA messengers, many other countries, including several in the global South such as India, Argentina or Brazil, could. As has been highlighted by Doctors without Borders, there is no technical obstacle to mass vaccine production that would allow to vaccinate every one of the 7.8 billion human beings on earth within a few months
Instead, the obstacle is legal and political. It is the intellectual property that provides patents to pharmaceutical companies, who have developed COVID-19 vaccines. That creates a temporary monopoly. During such a temporary monopoly period, which usually lasts 20 years, no other company can produce their vaccines without permissions. As a consequence, those companies can impose and regulate the prices and conditions for the production of their vaccines.
Patents are defended by high-income countries, where many large pharmaceutical companies are based. They argue that there would be no innovation without patents as companies would not have incentives to research and develop new products.
Here, I will not dispute this defense of intellectual property, which is highly debatable. I would instead like to pose this question: even if patents were good and helped innovation, is it fair that they remain intact during the COVID-19 pandemic if they prevent rapid access to vaccines all over the world? The answer to this question is no, because we are condemning millions of people to die, but also because the epidemiological risks are extremely high. Each contagion poses a new risk for a novel coronavirus mutation that may eventually result in a variant that could escape the efficacy of current vaccines. It is also possible that a new mutation has a severe impact on the health of children, who have been somewhat spared from the more lethal impacts of COVID-19 until now.
In light of the current situation, without challenging the institution of intellectual property as such, South Africa and India issued a proposal to the World Trade Organization, the international organization overseeing such trade-related issues. They proposed a temporary exemption (or “waiver”) of patents on vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 at least until the pandemic is under control. A potential, fair compensation for companies who discovered the vaccines might also been considered, although obviously discounting the immense financial support they have already received from public funding.
This temporary exemption is crucial as current flexibilities in patent rights, such as compulsory licenses, are too rigid and limited to face the current crisis. This waiver provides the only opportunity for companies and States, with sufficient technical capabilities, to mass-produce necessary vaccines without having to fear the severe penalties of patent (intellectual property) violations.
While this proposal continues to face resistance from certain countries in the Global North, it is receiving growing support from many states, scientific and humanitarian organizations. Regrettably, the Colombian government has refrained from supporting it, with the shameful argument that more evidence needs to be provided. More evidence of what? Does it not suffice that we currently do not have access to necessary vaccines, although technically we could produce ample amounts? Or that available vaccines are, above all, headed to high-income nations? And is this mainly due to patents on vaccines that, far from being a fair award for innovation, seem to be letters of marque in favor of pharmaceutical companies, without any consideration of deaths and harms caused by the global lack of COVID-19 vaccines?
This op-ed was first published on El Espectador, 27 February 2021.
Download the Op-Ed in English and Spanish.
ICJ Statements on Vaccine Access:
Global: “ICJ calls on States to ensure human rights compliant access to COVID-19 vaccines (UN Statement)”: (1 March 2021)
Global: “ICJ urges the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to call on States to comply with their obligations to ensure equitable access to vaccines for all” (15 Feb 2021): https://www.icj.org/icj-urges-the-un-committee-on-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-to-call-on-states-to-comply-with-their-obligations-to-ensure-equitable-access-to-vaccines-for-all/
Peru: “The COVID-19 vaccine demands international and national solidarity” (23 Feb 2021): https://www.icj.org/the-covid-19-vaccine-demands-international-and-national-solidarity/
Africa: “The ICJ recommends that the African Union acknowledge COVID-19 vaccines are a “public good” (4 Feb 2021): https://www.icj.org/the-icj-recommends-that-the-african-union-acknowledge-covid-19-vaccines-are-a-public-good/
Zimbabwe: “The ICJ and ZimRights ask for urgent intervention on access to COVID-19 vaccines from African Commission Mechanism” (19 Feb 2021): https://www.icj.org/the-icj-and-zimrights-ask-for-urgent-intervention-on-access-to-covid-19-vaccines-from-african-commission-mechanism/
Further reading:
UN Special Procedures: “COVID-19: UN experts urge WTO cooperation on vaccines to protect global public health” (1 March 2021): https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26817&LangID=E
UN Special Procedures: “Statement by UN Human Rights Experts Universal access to vaccines is essential for prevention and containment of COVID-19 around the world” (9 Nov 2020): https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26484&LangID=E
UN CESCR Committee: “Statement on universal and equitable access to vaccines for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19)” (27 Nov 2020) https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E/C.12/2020/2&Lang=en
IACHR and its SRESCER: “IACHR and its SRESCER Call on American States to Make Public Health and Human Rights the Focus of All their Decisions and Policies Concerning the COVID-19 Vaccine” (5 Feb 2021): http://www.oas.org/en/IACHR/jsForm/?File=/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2021/027.asp
Feb 19, 2021 | Advocacy, News, Open letters
In a letter of 17 February, the ICJ and ZimRights called on the Chairperson of the African’s Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Working Group on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to address Zimbabwe’s failure to meet its obligations to protect the rights of life and health of its population in respect of its COVID-19 vaccine policies.
Zimbabwe had failed to produce, publish and widely disseminate a comprehensive plan on vaccine acquisition and distribution. These are also necessary measures to secure the life and health of those living in neighbouring countries of Zimbabwe and therefore of broader concern within the Southern African Development Community in particular.
The ICJ and ZimRights called for an intervention of the Working Group and the wider African Commission with a view to ensure that vital information is made available by the Government of Zimbabwe about its national plan for COVID-19 vaccine procurement, distribution and roll-out including any resources it has set aside for these efforts.
To read the full letter, click
here.
Feb 15, 2021 | News
On 15 February 2021, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) addressed the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) during the opening of its 69th Session.
Drawing the CESCR’s attention to States’ continued failure to make provisions to meet their obligations under the right to health, the ICJ highlighted States’ obligations to:
- Procure COVID-19 vaccines;
- Produce, publicize and implement comprehensive vaccine rollout plans;
- Ensure non-discriminatory access to vaccines to all people, including to undocumented persons;
- Cooperate with other States to ensure equitable vaccine access globally; and
- Ensure continued access to effective remedies, including judicial remedies, for human rights violations, including of the right to health.
ICJ Legal Adviser on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Timothy Fish Hodgson, said:
“Equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines is a right, not a privilege. States are obliged to plan transparently and clearly for the provision of vaccines. In doing so, they must be guided by human rights standards, including those relating to the right to health. Particularly at this time, it is imperative that Courts be accessible and operational to ensure the enforcement of this right.”
Applauding CESCR’s statements on COVID-19 in general and vaccine access in particular, the ICJ’s submission encourages the Committee to make full use of the Convention’s State reporting procedure to provide crucial and specific guidance to individual States on how best to ensure compliance with their Covenant obligations under the right to health in the context of COVID-19.
The ICJ’s submission provides alarming examples of various States’ failure to respect, protect and fulfil the right to health, including the refusal of some States to take steps to procure vaccines at all. Such States include Tanzania, Burundi, Eritrea and Madagascar.
Notable too is Israel’s explicit flouting of its obligation to ensure vaccine access to Palestinians living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the policy decisions of countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador and Costa Rica to inhibit access to vaccines for migrants by requiring prohibitive documentary access as a precondition.
The ICJ’s submission also addresses the large divide between vaccine access in Global North and Global South countries. Some States, notably in the Global North, have procured enough doses to vaccinate their population several times over, while others, especially in the Global South, have not been able to begin the process because of limited availability and purchasing power. Despite these inequalities, many wealthier countries continue to ignore the recommendations of CESCR and the advice of a large range of UN Special Procedures by opposing a WTO intellectual property waiver which would assist in ensuring the affordability of vaccines for all States.
To read the full statement, click here: Universal-CESCR-Opening-Statement-2021-ENG
Contact
Timothy Fish Hodgson, Legal Adviser on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, t: +27828719905, e: timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org
Tanveer Jeewa, Media and Legal Consultant, e: Tanveer.Jeewa(a)icj.org
