By making, accepting, implementing and following-up on Universal Periodic Review recommendations related to the protection of human rights defenders, States can contribute to their security and participation, ISHR told the Human Rights Council today.

By making, accepting, implementing and following-up on Universal Periodic Review (UPR) recommendations related to the protection of human rights defenders, States can contribute to their security and participation, ISHR told the Human Rights Council today.

As the UPR Working Group reports and recommendations on 14 States were adopted by the Council, ISHR reflected upon the potential of the UPR, to which the organisation has now submitted 20 country Briefing Papers on the situation of human rights defenders, to contribute to a safe and enabling environment for civil society.

In her statement to the Council, ISHR’s Human Rights Advocate Marta Kolasińska agreed with the former Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, that the UPR can ‘contribute to an enabling environment for human rights defenders, give defenders visibility and contribute to their protection’.

Ms Kolasińska highlighted how Cote d’Ivoire had received, accepted and implemented recommendations relating to the security of defenders, passing a law for their protection this year. She urged that the law be swiftly implemented and asked that States ‘monitor and encourage this, as they did at Mexico’s last review’. In an example of good practice, 40% of recommending States referred to the protection of journalists and human rights defenders in Mexico’s second cycle UPR, many with specific requests regarding implementation of the State’s law for the protection of these populations.

Ms Kolasińska asked that States follow closely the situation facing activists and be sure to ask questions regarding civil society space where necessary. In this sense, she noted, ‘recommendations on human rights defenders in the Maldives and Spain would be a timely response to developments since their first reviews’.

Ms Kolasińska noted that by accepting such recommendations, States have the opportunity to lay down a marker of intent regarding the protection of defenders. She noted with concern that countries such as Laos and Jamaica – up for review again in 2015 - have previously only 'noted' such suggestions.

ISHR had been paying particular attention to the adoptions of reports on Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), as well as Cote d’Ivoire, given the ISHR Briefing Papers published on these countries.

‘In all three cases, given the threats and obstacles to civil society space that exist, we were encouraged to see so many recommendations made regarding the protection of human rights defenders and freedom of expression’ said ISHR’s Ben Leather.

The DRC accepted several recommendations on human rights defenders, committing to adopt a law for their protection. Nevertheless, it declined to acknowledge the need to release political prisoners.

Cote d’Ivoire, meanwhile, refused to accept recommendations on preventing discrimination against the LGBT population, leaving them and activists protecting their rights in a situation of added vulnerability.

Ethiopia, meanwhile, contradicted their general commitments to protect freedom of expression and engage with civil society by explicitly defending their repressive anti-terror, media and NGO funding laws.

‘These laws effectively throttle human rights activism,’ said Leather. ‘States which rightly recommended their revision must now continue to advocate through their bilateral and multilateral relations with Ethiopia’.

Intervening at the end of this round of adoptions, the EU commended the role of civil society in the UPR and emphasised that implementation by States is key to strengthening the process. The African Group reaffirmed its commitment to the UPR, whilst the Maldives welcomed further measures aimed at increasing civil society participation. This in a week when the the Supreme Court of the Maldives initiated suo moto proceedings against members of the nation's Human Rights Commission in relation to the Comission's UPR submission.

Both the EU and Amnesty International took the opportunity to express concern at the harassment, threats and reprisals faced by human rights defenders who have interacted with the UPR. Other observers noted that North Korea (DPRK), which did not accept any recommendation in its first UPR cycle, this time accepted over half.

Roland Chauville, representing UPR Info – the NGO focused on strengthening the mechanism – agreed that greater space for civil society input was needed, but argued that the mechanism is on the right track. UPR Info’s research, he said, suggested a 48% mid-term implementation rate for recommendations. Nevertheless, he argued that the Council itself must do more to react to cases of non-implementation.

While recognising that recommendations must respond to local realities, Ms Kolasińska shared with the Council the three cross-cutting priority recommendations which ISHR considers States ought to contemplate when reviewing their peers’ record on human rights defenders:

1. Ensure strong public statements recognising the important role of human rights defenders;
2. Enact and implement specific legislation and policies to protect their work; and
3. Ensure all alleged attacks and threats against defenders are fully and promptly investigated, ensuring accountability for perpetrators and remedy for victims.

The reports of the UPR Working Group from this session can be found here.

ISHR’s UPR Briefing Papers on the situation of human rights defenders can be found here.

For more information on the Universal Periodic Review, contact ISHR’s Ben Leather on [email protected].

Photo: UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré.