ISHR

On 12 and 13 March the Human Rights Council (the Council) held an interactive dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on Syria (the Commission), which reported on the escalating violence in the country. The President of the Commission, Mr Paulo Pinheiro, stressed that a military intervention would not solve the crisis. He invited the Council to support the mediatory role played by former Secretary General Kofi Annan, appointed by the United Nations (UN) and the Arab League as joint special envoy to Syria. Mr Pinheiro emphasised that only an inclusive mediation process supported by an immediate ceasefire from all parts could help start the reconciliation process, but it needed to be preceded by the delivery of humanitarian relief to the population in distress. Member and observer States of the Council thanked Mr Pinheiro and the work of the Commission, but were divided on the role that the international community can play in the Syrian crisis. Some States called for the President of Syria Bashad al-Assad to step aside. Most expressed support for the delivery of humanitarian relief. Yet others, including Russia, China, Cuba, and Venezuela questioned the objectivity of the report and suggested that Syria should be allowed to deal with the situation on its own, in full respect of its right to self-determination.

Mr Pinheiro summarised the situation after one year of violence, stating that armed confrontations have intensified and resulted in over 17,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) and thousands of refugees fleeing into neighbouring States. While the Syrian Government has given very limited access to humanitarian organisations, the international community is still concerned for the suffering of women and children. The Assad regime, claiming terrorist organisations are operating in Syria, has been committing systematic and gross violations of human rights that may amount to crimes against humanity, he said. These include arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, torture, arbitrary execution, and disregard for the Convention on the Rights of the Child by treating children as adults. Many States called for the involvement of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and requested background information in order to establish accountability for the atrocities being committed by both regime and opposition forces. The delegations that called for an involvement of the ICC included, among others, Austria,[1] Botswana, the European Union (EU), Norway and Chile.  States speaking in the interactive dialogue agreed with the Commission that both sides are committing human rights violations, although not to an equal degree.

As a concerned country, Syria responded to the report of the Commission agreeing on the need for a comprehensive national dialogue to end hostilities and to find those responsible of crimes against humanity. Yet Syria objected to the need for economic sanctions, which would harm the civilian population, and stated that reconciliation could not occur without external parties refraining from interfering. Syria accused the Commission to having reached ‘hasty conclusions’, not supported by facts, and of being used for ‘political reasons’. As a result, Syria rejected the report and stated its belief that interference by external political forces would cause a civil war.

The Russian Federation, China, Cuba, and Venezuela were among those who accused the report of being based on distorted facts. These delegations also emphasised that Syria needed to be allowed time and space to deal with the crisis in full respect of its national sovereignty. Furthermore, an intervention by external forces would simply be an attempt to establish a puppet regime and would be seen as a repetition of the interventions in Libya and Afghanistan.

Syria stated its expectation that the Commission's mandate should not be extended, as according to the delegation the Commission has become politicised and has lost its legal credibility. Other States, including the United States, the Czech Republic, and the EU supported the extension of the mandate to allow the Commission to continue its work and in particular to ensure accountability for the human rights violations that have been committed.

On 13 March, the EU held an informal consultation on a draft resolution on the humanitarian crisis in Syria. Syria complained that the draft made no reference to the efforts made by the Government to ‘democratise’ the country. Furthermore, Syria claimed that the international media is manipulating and distorting facts to support a military intervention. States were divided on a number of issues, including the reference of the meeting of the Friends of Syria group and the effects that sanctions could have on the civilian population. There were also diverging opinions on how to make reference to human rights violations committed by non-State militias. While it is clear that both Government and opposition forces are committing atrocities, the Commission report stated that they are not comparable in scale.

The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, Mr Ahmed Shaheed, appeared before the Human Rights Council (the Council) for the first time on 12 March 2012 to present his report. The main issues raised were imprisonment and torture of journalists and human rights defenders, the excessive use of the death penalty, and the repression of religious/ethnic/linguistic minorities and women. In his presentation, the Special Rapporteur expressed regret at the failure of Iran to allow him to visit the country, despite numerous requests, and stated that this only heightened concern at the human rights situation in the country. He called on the country to cooperate and view the mandate not as a penalty but as an opportunity to address human rights challenges.

As is usually the case with country specific mandates, States on the speakers list were divided between those who support the mandate and those who see it as an instrument of bias, and therefore do not offer constructive engagement on the issues discussed.

Among States in support of the mandate, the issue of imprisonment and torture of journalists and human rights defenders was of high priority, with Austria stating that Iran has detained more journalists than any other country in the world. The USA, Slovakia, Germany, and Canada also highlighted this issue, and reiterated the Special Rapporteur’s call for the release and reassessment of several specific cases. The case of human rights lawyer Abdulfattah Sultani, who has been sentenced to 18 years imprisonment for ‘colluding against the regime’ and banned from practicing law, was mentioned several times. States and the Special Rapporteur called for his release, as well as that of political opposition leaders who are currently under house arrest.

Another important issue was the persecution and repression of religious, ethnic and linguistic minorities, in particular the Baha’i community, many of whom have been imprisoned for their beliefs. Switzerland and the Czech Republic, among others, made specific reference to this, and an NGO statement was made by the Baha’i International Community asking how the international community could respond when the Iranian Government continues to ‘deny the community’s right to exist’.

Increasing use of capital punishment in Iran, including for juveniles, was raised by the Special Rapporteur and subsequently described as ‘deplorable’ and ‘alarming’ by Austria and Switzerland. The Special Rapporteur and many States including Spain, Brazil, and France urged a moratorium on the death penalty in the country, which France said is now used at the highest rate per person in the world.

States who voiced their disagreement with the Special Rapporteur’s mandate, and with country specific mandates in general, did not offer any comments on the issues raised in the report. This was with the exception of Ecuador, who asked Iran to consider a moratorium on the death penalty, but extended this request to all States that still use capital punishment.

Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Venezuela, and Belarus stated their preference for the UPR as a mechanism of addressing human rights issues within countries due to its ‘non-politicised’ nature. Belarus and Venezuela in fact described the success of Iran’s UPR as it accepted 123 recommendations. In general, the States in opposition to the mandate¹ considered such mandates to be politically motivated (with Syria describing it as ‘the height of political blackmail’), selective, and overly focused on developing countries.

Iran’s response to the report was heated, to the point where the US made a point of order requesting it to use language appropriate to the forum. The State angrily rejected the report, blaming the US, France, UK, and other ‘morally failed states’ for the killings of Iranian scientists, and stating that the report ‘in no way meets the minimum standards of equality’ of the Council. Iran described the report as ‘biased’, ‘ignorant’ and ‘unprofessional’, stating that repetition of lies (referring to the allegations collected from various sources in the compilation of the report) doesn’t make them true. It briefly gave an explanation of the case of the pastor allegedly sentenced to death for apostasy, stating this was not the basis of his sentence. It said that no person has ever been sentenced or pursued for changing their religion, and made the point that it is easier to build a church in Iran than it is to build a mosque in Geneva, Paris, or London. It concluded by saying such reports change the council into a ‘theatre of war’ between the US and European states, and Islamic states and culture.

A resolution extending the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Iran is currently being negotiated at the Council, and is expected to be passed by a vote towards the end of the session.

The Human Rights Council held its interactive dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on Libya on 9th March 2012.

Philippe Kirsch, Chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry opened the dialogue with his presentation of the Commission’s report. Mr Kirsch confirmed in his opening statement that the human rights violations perpetrated by Qadhafi forces amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity. In addition, he stated that the Thuwar (anti-Qadhafi forces) had also committed serious human rights violations that constituted war crimes and breaches of international human rights law were continuing.

He confirmed that NATO had taken extensive precautions in its operations to ensure civilians were not endangered. However, there were limited civilian casualties, and the Commission of Inquiry had been unable to conclude whether all necessary precautions had been taken to protect civilians. During the interactive dialogue Cuba, Venezuela and the Russian Federation strongly condemned the NATO intervention, suggesting that it was in fact a campaign to ‘overthrow the regime’.

The Commission of Inquiry recognised the challenges that lie ahead for the new Libyan government in rebuilding its infrastructure after 40 years of serious human rights violations. Mr Kirsch emphasised that the interim Government must concentrate on restoring the judicial system and hold those to account, irrespective of the perpetrator, for human rights violations committed. In addition, Mr Kirsch highlighted to the Council the considerable support that the transitional government will need from the international community and the United Nations.

Speaking as the concerned country, the Deputy Minister of Justice for Libya said that the Libyan authorities had 'worked around the clock' to support the Commission of Inquiry and had responded positively to the requests of the Commission. However, he hinted that there had not been enough time to study the final report, commenting that the report is very long and only available in English. In addition, he pointed to failings in the report such as a failure to 'shed light on the attacks of those that committed the most heinous crimes on the Libyan people' and that 'placing the acts of the executioner on an even footing with the reactions of the victims was not logical'. He also emphasised that the root cause behind disputes between the people of Misrata and Tawerghar had not been explained in the report and said that the old regime 'had tricked them into hating each other'. In his concluding statement, Mr Kirsch responded to Libya's concerns that the report was placing ‘victim’ actions on an equal footing with the crimes of the ousted regime by explaining that this report was a supplement to an earlier report that had dealt more fully with the actions of the Qadhafi regime.

He went on to say that the Government of Libya will hold every person accountable for their crimes, that the Government condemns acts of revenge and that it is committed to fair and effective justice.

Key issues that were raised time and again during the interactive dialogue were those of accountability and restoring a functioning judiciary. Participating States were keen to see a commitment to hold all perpetrators to account for human rights violations committed, to see the interim Government bring an end to continued human rights violations and to see an end to arbitrary detention by bringing all detainees under a central governmental control.[1]

The involvement of NATO came under fire with strong condemnation by Cuba, Venezuela and the Russian Federation. In its condemnation, Cuba accused NATO of ‘criminal aggression’ and stated that the real motivation was to gain control of the oil and water reserves in Libya. Venezuela accused NATO action of leading to the deaths of thousands of people in Libya and suggested that the main goal was that of the ‘assassination’ of Muammar Qadhafi. The Russian Federation criticised the Commission of Inquiry for not investigating further the deaths of Muammar Qadhafi and Mutasssim Qadhafi. In addition, the delegation accused NATO of supporting a campaign to overthrow the regime. In contrast, the United Kingdom, Canada and the USA welcomed the Commission of Inquiry’s conclusions that NATO had conducted a highly precise campaign with a determination to avoid civilian casualties. Others, including Malaysia, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International called for further investigations into the deaths of civilians.

States generally acknowledged the enormous challenges ahead and extended support to the Libyan government. States such as Indonesia, UK, Czech Republic and the European Union asked how the international community could effectively give assistance to Libya. Responding, Mr Kirsch stated that there is much Libya could do by itself, however external assistance would be useful in the reconstruction of the judicial system and that governmental ministers of Libya were requesting assistance with training in various areas. He added that once the government decided on the support it requires, the whole of the UN system would be available to enter into a dialogue.

The Human Rights Council (the Council) held an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Mr Olivier De Schutter on 6 March.  The Special Rapporteur’s visit to China was his first visit to the country, and the first mission by a Council special procedure to China since the 2006 visit of the Special Rapporteur on torture.

In his report, Mr De Schutter praised the efforts and remarkable progress made by China in reducing poverty and food insecurity but cautioned that more still needed to be done. Other issues raised included achievements made in combating malnutrition, but with obesity in children on the rise there is a need to ensure the adequacy and diversity of diets. In addition, the Special Rapporteur warned that climate change remains a grave threat with land degradation and water scarcity a huge problem. He recommended that agricultural systems focus on becoming more resilient to climate related shocks. China stated that on the whole the Special Rapporteur’s report was generally balanced In concluding comments, Mr De Schutter criticised the policy of forcibly resettling nomadic herders and said that this policy, in relation to herders in Tibet (officially known as TARC) in particular, raised ‘legitimate and important concerns’. Both Cuba and China objected to the Special Rapporteur’s concluding comments. Cuba raised a point of order that Mr De Schutter was ‘exceeding the limits of his mandate’, to which China concurred, accusing the Special Rapporteur of serving ‘his own personal and political’ interests.

Mr De Schutter’s concluding comments on the policy of forcibly resettling nomadic herders followed statements made by Human Rights Watch and the Helsinki Foundation in which they called for an end to the non-voluntary relocation of nomads until consultations could take place with the parties as the nomads were finding themselves often ‘worse off’ in relation to access to food.  Mr De Schutter also drew to the Council’s attention that since March 2011, there had been 25 self immolations in Tibet (officially known as TARC) against the land resettlement policies of which 18 had been herders forcibly resettled in collective villages.

In its right of reply, China stated that it ‘categorically rejected’ the ‘groundless’ allegations made by the non-governmental organisations. It complained to the Council that some NGOs were repeatedly being given the floor whilst others were not being given the chance to speak, perhaps indicating that it wished to see other NGOs less critical of its human rights record taking the floor. Furthermore, China expressed its disappointment with the Special Rapporteur’s remarks, which it believed were outside of his mandate. 

Aside from comments on NGO participation and discontent with Mr De Schutter’s mention of Tibet (officially known as TARC), China engaged with the report in a broadly constructive spirit. China stated that generally speaking Mr De Schutter’s visit enabled him to gain in depth knowledge of the real China. It acknowledged that the report notes the challenges China faces in the enjoyment of the right to adequate food and it recognised the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations in that regard. The delegation added that China is happy to continue to work with the special procedures to improve the implementation of the right to food and other issues.

The Human Rights Council (the Council) held a panel discussion on the right to freedom of expression on the internet on 29 February 2012. The panel was moderated by Mr Riz Kahn of Al Jazeera English. Panellists included Mr Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden; Mr Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; and Mr William Echikson, Head of Free Expression, External Relations, Communications and Public Affairs, Google.

There were several disruptive procedural points of order concerning the format of the panel, from Cuba and the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation made a pointed comment that this was a formal Council meeting and not a ‘TV talk show’ in reference to the panel's moderation by Mr Kahn. Similar procedural points have been raised during other panels at this session of the Council. As the Austrian vice-President made clear, the concept note for this and other panels had been available for some time, and States had therefore had sufficient opportunity to raise objections prior to the panel taking place.

There was a high demand for places on the speakers list. However, time constraints meant that only 26 States were able to speak, while 16 States, plus one NGO, were unable to take the floor. The Philippines took the floor at the end of the meeting to complain that it had not been able to speak, and implied that the Secretariat had not been entirely objective in compiling the speakers list.

The format of the panel, which may represent an emerging practice at the Council, saw panellists make several short interventions in immediate response to comments and questions raised by States. Again, however, the problem of time constraints meant that towards the end of the discussion the panellists' responses had to be placed on hold to allow as many States as possible to speak. As a result panellists were eventually limited to a final round of one-line concluding comments. These issues point to teething problems with this particular panel format, but overall it does allow for a more interactive exchange.

The discussion, which was the first on the issue at the Council, raised a number of interesting and relevant points on how States’ approaches to the internet and its regulation must focus on protecting human rights. Although the discussion was aimed specifically at the right to freedom of expression, States such as Honduras, as well as Ms Esterhuysen and Mr La Rue raised the role of the internet in promoting economic, social and cultural rights, such as the right to education, and the right to development. Panellist Carl Bildt stated that States who see only the potential evils of the internet are in fact restricitng their own society’s development.

In her opening adress the High Commissioner for Human Rights Ms Navanethem Pillay highlighed the particular risks faced by journalists. States such as Canada, the United States (US), and the Netherlands spoke of their concern at the harassment of bloggers and online journalists by some governments, and the need to provide them with training to allow them to work safely online. Recent events in Syria have thrown into sharp relief the risks faced by journalists in covering conflict situations. This was referred to by the Press Emblem Campaign in its statement on the importance of the internet in facilitating reports when borders are closed to journalists. The NGO voiced its support for the idea of a convention on the protection of journalists.

The Arab Spring was a repeated theme in the discussion, unsurprisingly, as an example of the power of the internet in documenting human rights abuses, and mobilising social movements. Egypt in particular spoke of the ’pivotal role’ of the internet in its own revolution, as a tool for organising peaceful protests, despite the attempt by the government at the time to impose constraints. The point brought in the issue of the right to freedom of assembly in relation to the internet, and shows this medium’s increasingly broad human rights role in modern society.

China made a statement on behalf of large group of States,¹ stating that freedom of expression is not absolute, and advocating strengthening law enforcement in this area to prevent use of the internet to 'corrupt minds’ with pornography and violent content, decrease stability, and promote violence. These States placed emphasis on increasing efforts to ensure the internet is crime-free and ’social safety and stability’ are maintained, as a priority above ensuring free expression.

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the idea that human rights, and their protection, should be the same in the online world as they are in the offline world. This view was endorsed by the United States and European Union. Mr La Rue placed particular emphasis on the importance of the phrase 'through any media’ in the right to freedom of expression as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

The relevance of private companies in the debate was signified by the presence of a panellist from Google, and the problem of transparency from these companies was referred to numerous times by states, panellists and NGOs. Mr Echikson stated Google’s concern at sometimes being expected to censor, by itself, the information it provides, and likened its role to that of a postman who cannot be held responsible for the content of the letters delivered. He expressed the company’s willingness to comply with legitimate court orders for the removal of material, requests which it then publishes,² but not to be held responsible to act as the censor themselves. This statement brought an interesting private sector perspective to the discussion, and Mr Echikson concluded by calling for other private companies to join in similar transparency initiatives. On a different side of private company involvement, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies described worrying evidence of the complicity of some companies in selling monitoring and blocking software to ’repressive regimes’, and expressed concern at their lack of accountability, with the private sector operating in a ’human rights vacuum’.

A number of important questions were posed by States during the debate, such as Norway’s question on how governments, the UN, private companies, and civil society can work together in this area. However, the problem of time constraints meant the panel was unable to offer any suggestions, and the discussion lacked any practical and constructive results other than to raise the many potential issues involved in human rights on the internet. This shows the need for further discussion of this issue at the Council. Mr La Rue expressed the hope that a debate could be held at some point resulting in a resolution on this issue.

The Human Rights Council (the Council) held an interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Navanethem Pillay, on 2 March. Ms Pillay presented her annual report, outlining the key areas in which the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has undertaken work in the past year.

The High Commissioner’s report was met with widespread support from States and OHCHR was commended for its efforts in coping with an extraordinarily large workload. Work towards treaty body strengthening was generally supported although some States expressed concerns with the format of the consultations. The planned panel discussion on discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity raised serious objections from some Council members. The report of the Sri Lankan Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) was praised by some States, however the High Commissioner stated that it fell short in its recommendations.

In the interactive dialogue, States expressed support for the ongoing treaty body strengthening process and recognised the need for the initiative. A second round of State consultations on treaty body strengthening will be held in New York on 2 and 3 April 2012. The High Commissioner explained that she hopes the New York consultations will build on the consultations that took place in Geneva earlier this year, which sparked a ‘lively debate’ from the 108 States that participated. The High Commissioner will be launching her report on the recommendations to come from the treaty body strengthening process in June 2012.

Emphasis was placed by some States (Malaysia, the Arab Group, and Cuba) on the importance of keeping within an intergovernmental framework. This is in reference to the recent resolution adopted in the General Assembly to create an intergovernmental process to work on treaty body strengthening, a process which threatens to exclude other parties, and to undermine the recommendations that have come from the broad consultations facilitated by OHCHR.

With the treaty body system continuing to grow and a significant increase in the tasks requested of OHCHR by the Council, the High Commissioner reiterated her concerns that her Office’s ability to support the treaty body system has become unsustainable. She explained that without sufficient resources, the protection offered by the treaty bodies will become weakened and appealed to the Council for a commitment to ensure that there are adequate resources available to enable OHCHR to continue to efficiently carry out its mandate. Support was overwhelmingly expressed to the High Commissioner in her call for adequate resources in order to fulfil her mandate.

Strong objections were made by Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC), Mauritania (on behalf of the Arab Group), Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia to the panel discussion on discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Mauritania (on behalf of the Arab Group) stated that it would ‘have preferred that the High Commissioner should not refer to subjects of sexual preference’ due to the subject being ‘incompatible with its values and principles as well as its moral and religious precepts’. Malaysia warned of the sensitive nature of the discussion and that ‘moral consensus and values in the community are rooted in cultural and religious beliefs’. It stressed that it is ‘important to respect and take into account the views of the majority as far as values and morality are concerned’. Pakistan stated that ‘such controversial issues put into doubt the credibility of human rights and undermine the promotion and protection of human rights around the world’.

The High Commissioner was criticised by some states for not covering certain situations in her statement, most notably, (Pakistan on behalf of OIC, Mauritania on behalf of Arab Group and Turkey) for failing to include in her report the recent burning of the Holy Koran. Similarly, (Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, Egypt on behalf of NAM, Thailand, Maldives, Bangladesh, Syria and Turkey) expressed that they felt the dire human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Syrian Arab Golan had not been addressed and they stressed that the situation should be given due attention by the international community. In an apparent effort however to deflect criticism that her report did not take into account human rights violations in all parts of the world, the High Commissioner did look to Guantanamo Bay and expressed her deep disappointment at the failure to close the facility. In addition she expressed her concerns about the rights of the detainees being held there.

The High Commissioner welcomed Sri Lanka’s publication of the report of its Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission but stated that the report fell short in relation to a comprehensive accountability process as recommended by the Secretary General’s Panel of Experts. She recognised the important recommendations made but encouraged the Government of Sri Lanka to engage with the Special Procedures and her Office on follow up to the report. Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, Egypt on behalf of NAM, and Cuba welcomed the LLRC report published by the Government of Sri Lanka but emphasised that Sri Lanka must be left alone to achieve its objectives without external pressure. Egypt on behalf of NAM went as far to say that Sri Lanka’s commitment to reconciliation and open engagement with international community renders any action by the Council unwarranted.

A new report on the situation of women human rights defenders will be launched this week during the Human Rights Council.

Entitled Global Report on the Situation of Women Human Rights Defenders, the research has been produced by the Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition (WHRD IC).  It offers an essential insight into the work of the coalition’s members and the risks they have faced since the coalition was established in 2005.

The launch of the Global Report will take place as a side-event to the Human Rights Council, on Thursday 8 March, from 12 noon to 2pm at the Palais des Nations in Geneva (room XXIV). The event is organised by the International Service for Human Rights.

A panel discussion will feature Sunila Abeysekera, the Executive Director of INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre; Fikile Vilakazi, Programs Director for the Coalition of African Lesbians; and Christina Ellazar Palabay from Tanggol Bayi, an association of women human rights defenders in the Philippines. Ms Ellazar Palaby is also part of the Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development.

The Global Report contributes to an ongoing project of increasing awareness of the nature of the experiences of women human rights defenders.

It features 43 case studies, which demonstrate the links and differences in women human rights defenders identities, working environments and the violations they face. The report analyses their experience through the examination of several contexts, such as militarization, and through particular thematic areas of work, such as reproductive rights.

The report points to the urgent need for increased, systematic and more thorough documentation of human rights violations against women human rights defenders. Documenting these violations and explaining how the context in which they take place facilitates such violations to occur is essential in defining effective means to address them.

It also underlines the importance of recognising that the risks women’s rights defenders face differ from those of human rights defenders in general; risks can be gender-specific and often have gendered consequences, such as threats or violence of a sexual nature, verbal abuse which targets women rights defenders’ gender, or exclusion due to their gender.

In order to ensure the effective, long-term protection of the rights of women human rights defenders, the report recommends that these defenders participate in the planning and application of strategies designed to protect and assist them.

The WHRD IC is a resource and advocacy network for the protection and support of women human rights defenders worldwide. The coalition involves defenders and groups committed to the advancement of women's human rights and sexual rights including rights related to sexual orientation and gender identity. 

For further information on the work of the WHRD IC and a list of members, please see:  www.defendingwomen-defendingrights.org

You can download a flyer regarding the side event here.

United Nations and Latin American human rights experts will come together in March to launch new reports on the conditions of human rights defenders working in the Americas.

The launch will feature the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ (IACHR) on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, together with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the same issue.

It is being organised by the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) as a side-event to the 19^th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, and will take place on Tuesday 6 March at Palais des Nations in Geneva.

The IACHR’s Special Rapporteur, Mr José de Jesús Orozco, will present the regional body’s latest report on human rights defenders in the Americas. The report highlights an increase in assassinations, extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances of human rights defenders in the region since 2006.

It shows this problem to be particularly true in those countries where democratic rule is interrupted, where there is internal armed conflict, or where clashes occur between defenders and organised crime groups or powerful economic actors.

In response, the IACHR has ordered many American States to take specific action to protect defenders. These protection measures have been issued primarily to Colombia (27 percent), Guatemala (24 percent), and Honduras (9 percent).

IACHR Executive Director, Mr Santiago Cantón will also speak at the side-event, and will present the recent work of the IACHR in furthering the concerns of human rights defenders. 

At the same event, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, Ms Margaret Sekaggya will present ISHR’s report on the situation of defenders in Colombia.

The findings are the result of research into whether recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur have been effectively implemented in Colombia, following her visit to the country in 2009.

The report portrays a Colombian Government showing a more constructive attitude in its dealings with human rights defenders. However, it also identifies a failure to mainstream this attitude among local authorities, a worrying increase in attacks on human rights defenders in the past year, and the limited success of State authorities in investigating and addressing such attacks.

Executive Director of the Colombian Commission of Jurists, Mr Gustavo Gallón will go on to provide a civil society view on the ISHR report and the situation of defenders in Colombia.

Further information about the event can be downloaded here. The event will take place from 12h00 – 14h00 in room XXIII of Palais des Nations.

The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee (the Committee) will meet for its 8th session from 20 to 24 February 2012. The 18 member Committee, whose role is to act as a think-tank for the Human Rights Council (the Council) and consider issues at its request, will consider various reports and form recommendations for submission to the Council in the week prior to its 19th session. The draft programme of work and annotated provisional agenda are available here on the Advisory Committee Web site.

The report which is of greatest concern and which has drawn criticism from a number of NGOs is the report on ‘promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of the traditional values of humankind’, set out as ‘dignity, freedom and responsibility’. At its 7th session, following Council resolution 16/3, the Committee established a drafting group to prepare this study, comprising Ms Boisson de Chazournes, Mr Chen, Ms Chung, Mr Karakora, Mr Kartashkin (Rapporteur), Mr Okafor, Ms Reyes Prado, Mr Seetulsingh and Mr Soofi (Chairperson). The drafting group’s final report is to be submitted at the 9th session, for submission to the Council at its 21st session, however the preliminary research on the study will be presented to the Committee in February (see here for official languages other than English).

The preliminary report begins by stating that there is ‘as yet no accepted definition of the term “traditional values of humankind”’. One of the main criticisms of the report is that in trying to formulate a definition, the drafting group has interpreted ‘values’ as being inherently positive, while nevertheless acknowledging that ‘tradition’ can be an obstacle to development and change and thus have a negative impact on human rights. The Russian Federation, who originally proposed the study at the Council sought to remove the negative connotations of tradition. However this denial of the existence of any negative values, such as racism and xenophobia, could add to the problem of states using traditional values as an excuse for human rights violations.

Another problem identified is the possible misuse of the concept of ‘dignity’ as a traditional value, particularly in reference to women. Unless the report affirms the language used in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) referring to ‘the inherent dignity and worth of the human person’, there is a risk of the dignity concept being used to justify traditional roles for women, contrary to human rights.

This is also an issue with the concept of ‘responsibility’ as a value, which is not clearly defined. The placing of this ambiguous concept on an equal footing with the inherent dignity and worth of the human person has drawn concern, as the principle of universality of human rights does not allow these to be contingent on an ill-defined notion of responsibility.

The report also includes a section on the importance of families and communities in the promotion of human rights, and the role of the family in forming a person’s values. References to ‘the family’ have been criticised as being based on assumptions about its positive moral influence. The use of the word ‘the’ does not acknowledge different forms of family, which could for example exclude same-sex relationships. Equally, in making these assumptions about family, the report fails to recognise that families are often sites of human rights abuses, including FGM and honour killings.

In light of these serious concerns, it is hoped that the 8th session of the Committee will provide a forum for thorough discussion of these issues, and perhaps be the basis a new and more critical approach to the report on traditional values. NGOs are able to make written and oral statements on substantive issues at the session. The relevant information on the procedures for this can be found here.

Other items that will be under consideration at the 8th session include a draft declaration on the right of peoples to peace (as revised following comments at the 7th session); proposals on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights; a study on the issue of terrorist hostage taking and its impact on human rights, the interim report of which will be submitted to the Council at its 21st session; and the outcome of the work of the drafting group on human rights and international solidarity. The Committee will also be considering a series of studies from the drafting group on the right to food, specifically its completed study on the rights of peasants, its completed study (following the input of stakeholder views collected by the OHCHR) on severe malnutrition and childhood diseases, focusing on children affected by Noma, and a preliminary study on promoting the human rights of the urban poor.

A new report on the implementation of United Nations human rights recommendations in Colombia was launched on Friday 27 January by the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR).

The report portrays a Colombian Government showing a more constructive attitude in its dealings with human rights defenders. While acknowledging these efforts, it also identifies a failure to mainstream this attitude among local authorities, a worrying increase in attacks on human rights defenders in the past year, and the limited success of State authorities in investigating and addressing the incessant attacks on human rights defenders. 

The report is the result of research into the status of implementation of recommendations made by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, Ms Margaret Sekaggya, following her visit to Colombia in 2009.

Entitled Human Rights Defenders in Colombia: How is the Government protecting their rights?, it summarises the main views of human rights defenders, representatives of the Colombian State, and the local United Nations human rights office.

An event to mark the launch of the report was held at Rosario University in Bogotá, Colombia. The findings were officially presented by ISHR Board member, Mr Gustavo Gallón. Presentations were also made by representatives of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia, and the Government of Colombia.

The report’s findings include observations of a clear change in the Government’s attitude towards human rights defenders since August 2010 during the administration of President Santos, including greater openness and willingness to dialogue and a proposal to formulate a State policy on human rights. Public officials have been instructed to more positively engage with human rights defenders and with civil society organisations, including by respecting their opinions and activities, even when they criticise Government or State action. 

However, the research highlights a lack of understanding and agreement amongst authorities at the regional and local levels about these new government policies. Information from non-governmental organisations indicates that individual attacks against human rights defenders during the first half of 2011 increased by 126 percent over the same period in 2010. 

It further reveals that there has been little progress in the area of investigations into attacks on human rights defenders and illegal wiretapping of their communications. Arbitrary detention of defenders and break-ins and theft of their research materials are said to continue. Also, defenders express concern that, despite efforts to reform the government protection programme for human rights defenders, the programme is still not providing timely and effective protection for threatened defenders, including women defenders, leaders of land restitution processes, and indigenous leaders.

You can download a copy of ISHR’s report, Human Rights Defenders in Colombia: How is the Government protecting their rights?, in English or Spanish.

In addition to the report’s launch in Colombia, an ISHR side event will be held at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland on 6 March (13h00 – 15h00 local time). The side event will address the theme of human rights defenders in the Americas, and the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders will be present to speak about ISHR’s report on Colombia.