There was strong support from many States for the work of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders as she presented her final report to the Human Rights Council, but also worrying attempts to undermine the work of defenders.

(Geneva) – “Claiming and defending human rights remains highly dangerous in many parts of the world”, said the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, Ms Margaret Sekaggya, on the presentation of her final report to the Human Rights Council as mandate holder. The debate with States saw strong support expressed by many for the work of Ms Sekaggya over the past six years, but also seriously worrying attempts from others to undermine that work and the work of human rights defenders.

The Special Rapporteur’s final report focuses on the elements of an enabling environment for human rights defenders and is a comprehensive articulation of the laws, policies, and practices that States should put in place to protect defenders. The Special Rapporteur draws particular attention to the safety of human rights defenders who work to promote women’s rights and the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons. As Ireland pointed out during the interactive dialogue, LGBTI defenders continue to face ‘extraordinary risks’ due to the challenge they pose to social and economic power, and to traditional and religious practices.

These particular risks and the deep-rooted structural causes of the violations require gender-specific, targeted protection measures. Honduras mentioned the recently adopted General Assembly resolution on women human rights defenders, which sets out a range of specific elements that need to be in place to ensure that women too are able to defend human rights without fear of harassment or attack.

Norway, who led this resolution in December 2013, along with the equally ground-breaking resolution on human rights defenders at the Human Rights Council in March 2013, reiterated that the need now is to move beyond these resolutions and to focus on ‘implementing existing normative standards on human rights defenders on the ground’.

Many States responded to this call by setting out what they have been doing at national level to implement the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. For example, Mexico pointed to its law on the protection of human rights defenders and the specific protection mechanism it has established. Nepal announced that it too planned to enact a law to promote the safety and security of human rights defenders, while Switzerland announced that it had adopted national guidelines on the protection of defenders through its diplomatic missions and embassies. Other specific initiatives included Spain’s temporary 12-month programme designed to protect and train human rights defenders at risk, and the Netherlands’ ‘shelter-city’ initiative, which it plans to expand to include the city of Middelburg along with the Hague.

These initiatives are all to be welcomed. However, in other cases it was clear that States misunderstood what the obligation to create an enabling environment implied. In particular there was a failure to recognise the need for fundamental legislative change. For example, while the African Group of States, represented by Ethiopia, said on the one hand that laws and policies to protect human rights defenders are key to a safe and enabling environment, it went on to add that defenders should respect national legislation. But as the Special Rapporteur pointed out, national legislation is often at odds with international human rights standards, and it is precisely there that change is required. In this light she welcomed recent efforts by defenders to challenge the constitutionality of the anti-homosexuality law in Uganda.

There were also continued appeals to national security from States including Algeria, Pakistan and China, in an attempt to justify restrictions on the activities of human rights defenders. China responded to the Special Rapporteur’s reference to the situation of human rights defenders in the country by alleging that ‘so-called’ human rights defenders often undermine stability, peace, order and the human rights of others, under the pretext of promoting human rights. The Special Rapporteur responded by pointedly calling on China to ensure full access to adequate healthcare for human rights defender Cao Shunli, who remains in prison. Sadly and shockingly, just a few days later, Ms Cao died in prison as a direct result of China's refusal to ensure adequate healthcare.

There were even more fundamental attacks from other States. Russia first questioned under what legal instrument there is a right to defend human rights, and then criticised the concept of an enabling environment, stating that this would ‘privilege’ human rights defenders. However, as the Special Rapporteur made clear, creating an enabling environment is not about extending privileges, but about removing the very real barriers and risks present in countries across the globe that prevent the safe exercise for all of basic rights such as freedom of expression, association, and assembly. “The defence and promotion of human rights is a legitimate and courageous activity which is necessary to ensure that communities can fully enjoy their entitlements and realise their potential,” she added.

The courageous work of defenders was acknowledged by the Special Rapporteur and many States. The UK spoke of the “debt of gratitude” we owe to those who risk their own lives and liberty to uphold the rights of others. The Special Rapporteur also gave particular thanks for the “incredible support and commitment” her mandate had enjoyed from human rights defenders.

Similar support for the mandate was expressed by many States. However, the persistent attempts by other States to undermine the work of human rights defenders are worrying. As Ms Sekaggya concludes her six-year term human rights defenders will look to her successor to continue to insist on States’ obligations to implement international standards with regard to the protection of human rights defenders, and to ensure that the space for the defence of human rights does not continue to shrink.