Council discusses intimidation or reprisals against persons who cooperate with the United Nations in the field of Human Rights

MIDDAY

13 September 2012

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a panel discussion on the issue of intimidation or reprisals against individuals and groups who cooperate with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights.

Andras Dekany, Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, reading out a statement on behalf of the President of the Council, said that the Council had the responsibility to ensure that all individuals participating in its meetings and cooperating with it remained secure. The President urged everyone to desist from intimidation or reprisals directed at individuals or organizations participating in the Council.

Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in a video message said that it was regrettable that incidents of reprisals and intimidation against those who had spoken at the Council had been reported. He stressed the responsibility of States to protect human rights and said that, when they failed to do so, the United Nations had to stand up and speak out.

Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, regretted that a discussion on reprisals had to take place and said that individuals should not be subjected to ill treatment or intimidation as a consequence of communicating with the representatives of international instruments. Responses by States had been far from sufficient in that respect, said the High Commissioner, deploring the lack of accountability on the part of many actors.

Mehr Khan Williams, Chair of the Board of the International Service for Human Rights and the panel moderator, said that increasing cross-regional awareness and concern about reprisals were very encouraging and civil society organizations were thankful for the attention paid to the issue by the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council.

The panellists were Szabolcs Takács, Deputy State Secretary for Global Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Hungary; Michel Forst, Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti and Chair of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures; Claudio Grossman, Chair of the United Nations Committee against Torture; and Hassan Shire Sheikhahmed, Executive Director of the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project.

Mr. Takács said that the credibility and everyday functioning of the entire United Nations system was at stake and that it was now up to Member States to address this phenomenon by addressing impunity and ensuring accountability. He expressed hope that the discussion would provide innovative and future oriented solutions with the aim of stopping and preventing intimidation or reprisals.

Mr. Forst said that the Special Procedure mandate holders noted the primary responsibility of States to respond to allegations of threats and take steps to protect witnesses, but the impression was that States concerned did not take any real action.

It was important to ensure the clear criminalization of exacerbating circumstances when subjects of criminal activity were human rights defenders and to de-criminalize criticizing a public authority, said Mr. Grossman, adding that it was not just a question of avoiding reprisals but creating a good environment whereby everybody was able to enjoy and uphold human rights.

Mr. Sheikahmed said that since its establishment the Human Rights Defenders Project had assisted hundreds of human rights defenders at risk. Reprisals had longstanding consequences for the individuals affected, most tragically in the case of assassinations; others had been forced to flee their countries for their own safety.

In the discussion, speakers expressed concern at all forms of harassment, intimidation and reprisals against groups and individuals that cooperated with the United Nations or human rights mechanisms, and said that the protection and safety of concerned individuals should be a top priority of the Council. States should ensure the safety and security of those who collaborated with human rights mechanisms; should take measures to ensure that acts of violence would not remain unpunished; and should offer remedies to victims. Delegations made a number of proposals concerning measures that could be taken to address the issues of intimidation, harassment and reprisals, such as institutionalizing the dialogue between the State and human rights defenders through focal points; appointment of a mediator to act as focal point of the United Nations system; ensure follow up to allegations and contact States concerned; and the adoption by States of specific instruments to defend and protect human rights defenders, groups and individuals.

Speaking in the discussion were Switzerland, Chile, Cuba, Uruguay, China, Republic of Korea, Argentina, Russia, Honduras, United States, Poland, Bahrain, France, Saudi Arabia, Ireland, Ecuador, the European Union, Belarus, Spain, the United Kingdom, Qatar, Australia, Paraguay, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Czech Republic, Morocco, Denmark and Norway.

Also participating in the dialogue was the national human rights institution from Ecuador (Defensor del Pueblo de Ecuador) via a video message, and the following non-governmental organizations: International Federation of Human Rights, Amnesty International, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada and Civicus.

The Human Rights Council will resume its work at 10 a.m. on Friday, 14 September to hear the report of Working Group on the right to development and the introduction of thematic reports of the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner. This will be followed by a general debate on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.

Opening Statements

ANDRAS DEKANY, Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, reading a statement on behalf of the President of the Human Rights Council, said that members of the Council and all observers, including non-governmental organizations, should be able to contribute freely to the Council’s work. Nevertheless, incidents of harassment of non-governmental organization representatives had been brought to the attention of the President who was keen to ensure that all voices could be heard. It was an achievement that the Council was tackling this serious issue because it had the responsibility to ensure that all individuals participating in its meetings and co-operating with the Council remained secure. The President urged everyone to desist from intimidation or reprisals directed at individuals or organizations participating in the Council and expressed the hope that fruitful and free dialogue would continue to be at the heart of the Council’s work.

BAN KI-MOON, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in a video message said that it was regrettable that incidents of reprisals and intimidation against those who had spoken at the Council had been reported. Human rights defenders had faced smear campaigns for making statements and persons had been subjected to threats and harassment after communicating with Special Rapporteurs. He stressed that States had a responsibility to protect human rights and that, when they failed to do so, the United Nations had to stand up and speak out. The Secretary-General welcomed initiatives to respond to intimidation and reprisals and expressed the hope that the panel would contribute to the systematic condemnation of reprisals and intimidating behaviour.

NAVI PILLAY, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the whole United Nations took reported incidents of reprisals very seriously and welcomed the focus of the Council on this issue. She regretted that a discussion on reprisals had to take place. The United Nations worked closely not only with civil society but also with national governments and other organizations. The participation of civil society was very important and testimonies of victims were vital for the work of the Special Rapporteurs. Therefore, individuals should not be subjected to ill treatment or intimidation as a consequence of communicating with the representatives of international instruments. Reprisals in various forms against individuals continued to be reported, including persons being subjected to threats, arrested, tortured and even killed. Responses by States had been far from sufficient in that respect and the lack of accountability on the part of many actors was regrettable. She welcomed the fact that the Council had unanimously rejected all acts of reprisal against persons or groups that had cooperated with the United Nations in the field of human rights but also said that more needed to be done and that strategies should draw on all available actors who were playing a key role in combating reprisals. She concluded by pointing out that reprisals were ineffective, because freedom would always prevail and information would always find its way to the outside world.

Statements by the Panellists

MEHR KHAN WILLIAMS, Chair of the Board of the International Service for Human Rights and the Panel Moderator, in her introductory remarks thanked the Human Rights Council for convening this important discussion. Increasing cross-regional awareness and concern about reprisals was very encouraging and civil society organizations were thankful for the attention paid to the issue by the United Nations Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Ms. Khan Williams underlined the importance of the safety and security of human rights defenders, who needed to be confident that States would take swift action to protect those engaging with the United Nations human rights mechanisms. She commended the work and engagement of the Human Rights Council, the United Nations Secretary-General and the High Commissioner on this issue and noted that regardless of the increased awareness, there were still States in which human rights defenders were prosecuted and intimidated specifically for engaging with the United Nations. This panel should identify distinct roles for all actors in the system, States, the United Nations, the Special Procedures, the Council, civil society organizations and others, to protect the integrity of the United Nations system and those who engage with it.

SZABOLCS TAKÁCS, Deputy State Secretary for Global Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Hungary, said that this discussion was very timely since the number of cases of reprisals or intimidation against individuals and groups cooperating with the United Nations seemed to be on the rise. Hungary had always taken a strong stand against threats and reprisals against those who cooperated with the United Nations and had sponsored or initiated resolutions and decisions in the Human Rights Council on this issue. Mr. Takacs welcomed the strong engagement of the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner and the President of the Human Rights Council, and said that the credibility and everyday functioning of the entire United Nations system was at stake. It was now up to Member States to address this phenomenon by addressing impunity and ensuring accountability. Finally, Mr. Takacs expressed hope that the panel discussion would highlight the importance of this issue and provide innovative and future oriented solutions with the aim of stopping and preventing intimidation or reprisals as a consequence of cooperation with the United Nations in the field of human rights.

MICHEL FORST, Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti and Chair of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures said that intimidation and reprisals were constant subjects of concern. Mr. Forst had been struck by the number of cases that had been reported. During the meeting with States, the Special Procedures mandate holders had noted that it was primarily the responsibility of States to respond to allegations of threats and take steps to protect witnesses. The impression was that States concerned did not take any real action. The decisive role of national human rights institutions and national institutions including the physical protection of witnesses was also recalled. With the increased number and severity of cases that were documented, Special Procedures were currently considering various measures. Mr. Forst underlined the need to avoid sharing with States visit agendas or lists of persons who had been met to minimize the risk of reprisals. It could be beneficial to share the experience of other institutions that had developed great expertise or programmes on witness protection progress, such as the International Criminal Court in the field. In case of urgent appeal or allegation letters, or when reporting cases of threats or reprisals in mission reports, these issues should be systematically followed up with the delegation of the country concerned in Geneva and New York to check what steps had been taken to ensure the safety of witnesses.

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chair of the United Nations Committee Against Torture, said that they should not simply refrain from silence but should be far more ambitious and reach in their aims to ensure that human rights policies were developed. On reprisals and the own experience of the Committee, tendencies observed included death threats, kidnapping, abduction, inhuman and degrading treatments of human rights defenders, legislation that limited the possibility of registering yourself as an organization that aimed to achieve human rights objectives, spinning out the time of the approval of such bodies, and arbitrarily removing the authorization of such registration, or restricting the transfer of funds. As seen in the Committee’s most recent annual report, this was very much part and parcel of the culture of impunity. Techniques being used to address this included country reports, concluding observations involving specific recommendations, confidential visits, individual communications, general comments, and follow-up activities. Mr. Grossman said it was important to ensure the clear criminalization of exacerbating circumstances when subjects of criminal activity were human rights defenders. It was also important to de-criminalize criticizing a public authority. It was suggested that a study be carried out on good practices. It was not just a question of avoiding reprisals but creating a good environment whereby everybody was able to enjoy and uphold human rights.

HASSAN SHIRE SHEIKH AHMED, Executive Director of the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, said that since its establishment in 2005 the Human Rights Defenders Project had assisted hundreds of human rights defenders at risk, some of whom had faced intimidation or reprisals as a direct result of their cooperation with the United Nations. Details concerning these reprisals could be found in the detailed report by the United Nations Secretary-General, and included physical attacks, killings, arbitrary and incommunicado detention, torture, ill-treatment, and working with hostile international organizations. Reprisals had longstanding consequences for the individuals affected, most tragically in the case of assassinations; others had been forced to flee their countries for their own safety. As the secretariat to a network of human rights organizations, the Human Rights Defenders Project facilitated the attendance and participation of human rights defenders at the Council. It was important to assess whether it was safe for human rights defenders to take part. With human rights defenders’ input the Project weighted the possibility of eventual reprisals against individuals, organizations, their families and colleagues.

Primary responsibility for responding to acts of intimidations and reprisals lay with the State that should carry out investigations, persecute perpetrators, and offer remedies to victims. However, this obligation had rarely been fulfilled. Practical responses to assist victims had been developed within civil society, drawing largely upon the work of existing organizations and networks that supported human rights defenders who faced threats as a result of their work; but these responses were limited if States were unwilling or unable to intervene positively. The Secretary-General underlined in October 2011 that it was time to go beyond reporting and that States and United Nations mechanisms needed to do more. The President of the Human Rights Council called on the Council to assume its responsibilities and ensure that those who wished to participate could do it without fear of reprisals. The Project therefore recommended concrete action in two main areas, in sustained follow-up to cases, and in the promotion of greater coordination and cooperation for both the prevention and response to cases of intimidation and reprisals.

Discussion

Switzerland, in a joint statement, expressed concern at all forms of harassment, intimidation and alleged reprisals against persons or groups that cooperated with the United Nations or human rights mechanisms. The protection and safety of concerned individuals should be a top priority of the Council. Chile suggested institutionalizing the dialogue between the State and human rights defenders through focal points and stressed that impunity was a breeding ground for violations. Cuba was concerned about the tendency to manipulate human rights mechanisms for political purposes; scrutiny and minimum credibility were necessary to ensure a sustained dialogue with States. Uruguay said that States should ensure the safety and security of those who collaborated with human rights mechanisms and take measures to ensure that acts of violence would not remain unpunished.

China said that while it condemned acts of violence against human rights defenders, the report of the Secretary-General was based on unconfirmed information, and violated the principle of impartiality by criticizing some Governments. Republic of Korea said reprisals or intimidation should be investigated and States should offer remedies; human rights mechanisms and treaty bodies should cooperate closely on this issue. Argentina reiterated that States were primarily responsible for ensuring the safety of human rights defenders and ensuring the prosecution of perpetrators of attacks and rights violations. Russian Federation said it considered reprisals to be unacceptable to those cooperating with United Nations and human rights mechanisms; however, this did not involve additional rights or the ability to evade the law.

Honduras noted the efforts to protect human rights defenders and said it had approved a rights bill for defenders and journalists to create a safe environment for them that was free from intimidation. United States condemned laws and actions that compromised the ability of human rights defenders to do their work. Poland hoped this dialogue would help to share experiences and best practices and welcomed enhanced coordination of human rights mechanisms to address the issue of reprisals. Bahrain said that it was regrettable that some human rights organizations had a unilateral approach to information received. When States were condemned for reprisals or intimidation, there should be contact with officials to seek information and clarification and ensure impartiality of information.

France put forth a proposal to the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner, that perhaps a mediator could be appointed to act as focal point of the United Nations system and ensure follow up to allegations and contact States concerned.
Saudi Arabia said that the role played today by the new means of information and media should be approached with caution as there were certain international organizations that were likely to use them for their own purposes.

Defensor del Pueblo de Ecuador, speaking via video link, emphasized the need to underline the situation of human rights defenders in rural areas or small urban groups. The traditional view that States were the principal perpetrators had changed. In Latin America violent groups had outrun the capacity of the State to ensure security. International Federation of Human Rights, in a joint statement, said that it was appropriate and relevant for the Council to decide to take strong action on the issue of reprisals, as a question of credibility and ethics for the body. Amnesty International said that reprisals and intimidation were attacks not only on the communities and societies to which they belonged but also on the Council as an institution, and directly challenged the authority of the United Nations.

MEHR KHAN WILLIAMS, Chair of the Board of the International Service for Human Rights and the Panel Moderator, said that States should take allegations of reprisals seriously and should also create a climate that prevented such reprisals from happening.

SZABLOCS TAKACS, Deputy State Secretary for Global Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Hungary, said that anyone who cooperated with the United Nations could be targeted, although human rights defenders were more often victims of reprisals. The European Union had appointed human rights liaison officers in its delegations to deal with human rights defenders at risk. The training of diplomats was also an important step for the protection of human rights defenders. The European Union had established rescue funds for human rights defenders at risk as well. The European Union mechanisms of protection of human rights defenders could be used as an example of good practices by other States.

MICHEL FORST, Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti and Chair of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures, reminded that mandate holders and Special Procedures encountered a multitude of interlocutors, and there was no hierarchy in mind. One of the risks would be to have on one hand a specific category of defenders deserving protection and another that did not have that status, receiving less protection. All persons must be treated in the same manner. The proposal made by France on a mediator was very interesting and he hoped the idea could continue to be discussed.

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chair of the United Nations Committee Against Torture, said that on the basis of the experience of treaty bodies it was important that States contemplated the idea of a focal point internally that could act as an interlocutor should there be indices, suspicion, or actions that could be qualified as reprisals. This could also facilitate dialogue with States. A second idea could be a ‘clearing house’, for the receiving and distribution of information on good practices. If States felt accusations were unfounded, they should have the opportunity to rebut, as it was not necessarily so that human rights defenders were always right. Laws should also be looked at, relating to disrespect and how that tied in with role of the press and the media.

HASSAN SHIRE SHEIKH AHMED, Executive Director of the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, said it was important that cases were not allowed to drop off the agenda just because there had not been a response to communications or other follow-up by those States concerned. States concerned should be encouraged to provide information to the Council on the status of investigations of allegations in the Secretary-General’s report.

Ireland said that the cooperation of human rights defenders was of crucial importance. Ireland stressed the need to improve the responses of the United Nations to reprisals against human rights defenders. Ecuador took note with concern of allegations of reprisals against human rights defenders after they collaborated with United Nations mechanisms, and called on States to take appropriate measures to protect these people. European Union said that it was committed to the protection of human rights defenders through political and financial support. It requested concerned States to engage with the international community in view of putting an end to reprisals against human rights defenders. Belarus regretted that the report contained un-objective information, showing a clear sign of double standards and selectivity. Belarus regretted that the United Nations supported coercive measures against some States. Spain saluted the courage of human rights defenders working on the ground, and said that States had to adopt specific instruments to defend those people against reprisals and intimidation.

United Kingdom said that it defended the role of human rights defenders during the review of the Human Rights Council, and called on all States to address reprisals against human rights defenders and to hold perpetrators accountable. Qatar said that human rights defenders needed protection provided by the United Nations and the international community, and that everyone had the right to legitimately protest violations of their human rights. Australia saw the role of human rights defenders as central for the Human Rights Council and said that threats against them constituted an attack on the human rights mandate of the United Nations and that protection mechanisms were needed. Paraguay urged the Human Rights Council to follow up on the issue of reprisals against human rights defenders, and asked what mechanisms could be established or improved to address this issue. Sri Lanka condemned acts of reprisals against human rights defenders, and was concerned at the disturbing trend of the use of uncertain allegations and non-credible facts against States for political motives. Sweden said that shadow reporting was a key element of the United Nations human rights system, and that reprisals against human rights defenders occurred everywhere and were unacceptable.

Czech Republic said that documented cases of attacks against individuals collaborating with the United Nations were unacceptable and urged all concerned States to investigate those allegations and to elaborate protection and prevention mechanisms. Morocco said that intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders were unacceptable. The confidentiality of those cases was both a necessity and a problem for the transparency of the activities of the United Nations.
Denmark said that people should not be punished for using their right to cooperate with the United Nations, and commended the work of the Special Rapporteur on torture for his work in favour of human rights defenders. Cairo Institute for human rights studies said that civil society organizations had been subjected to attacks in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the entire Gulf region as a result of their collaboration with the United Nations. Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada regretted that Bahrain, Malawi, Sri Lanka and Sudan continued to intimidate and threaten human rights defenders who collaborated with the United Nations human rights mechanisms. Civicus said that the Bahraini Government had the responsibility to protect human rights defenders from threats and intimidation, and called on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to compile all recommendations made today. Norway said that the credibility of the United Nations depended on its ability to collaborate with human rights defenders, and that reprisals against them were unacceptable.

Concluding Remarks

SZABOLCS TAKÁCS, Deputy State Secretary for Global Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Hungary, in his closing remarks, expressed the belief that one of the measures taken at the United Nations level could be to ensure all the practical information on how to address cases of reprisals, including their identification and reporting. This information should be made available on the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights website. Additionally, some sort of central registry to monitor and follow-up cases of reprisals could be established, which would benefit both regional organizations and the victims of reprisals to enjoy greater protection. Establishment of national victim protection programmes should be encouraged and adequate assistance to this effect provided. Reprisals by non-State actors should be investigated too and the perpetrators should be held accountable first and foremost by national Governments.

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, Chair of the United Nations Committee against Torture, panellist, in his closing remarks said that he would report this discussion to the meeting of Chairs of treaty bodies to examine how the treaty bodies themselves could address this situation. Concerning the question of whether new legislation would be needed, Mr. Grossman said that some of the treaty bodies already had certain regulations. The issue here was not the reliability of information provided by human rights defenders, but that their safety and safety of their families could never be put in question. With regard to practical measures to be taken, Mr. Grossman suggested the establishment of national focal points and strengthening coordination between various actors, particularly at the regional level.

MICHEL FORST, Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti and Chair of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures, in concluding remarks said that national human rights institutions could play a major role in the protection of individuals who were subjected to threats and harassment. Practical measures were useful but political responses were even more important because they could ensure that people who had been threatened could enjoy the right to live peacefully in their country without threats and also that the perpetrators of such threats would be brought to justice.

HASSAN SHIRE SHEIKHAHMED, Executive Director of the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, in concluding remarks said that the panel discussion which had taken place was extremely important and its outcome should be shared with all stakeholders. States had a number of tools at their disposal which they could use in combating reprisals and they should explore those tools further. Greater cooperation between stakeholders, such as the Council and non-governmental organizations, would help to form a holistic response to the problem.

MEHR KHAN WILLIAMS, Chair of the Board of the International Service for Human Rights and the Panel Moderator, thanked participants for what had been a useful session conducted in a positive way. She also thanked the High Commissioner and her Office, whose support had been important, as well as her fellow panelists for the relevant and important comments which they had contributed to the discussion. The concrete proposals which had been made in the course of the discussion would help the Council to address the problem in the future. She stressed that the primary responsibility rest with States and that it was important for them to address the allegations of reprisals and to create a climate in which such incidents could no longer occur. Many good suggestions had been made about enhancing cooperation and those should be taken into account. More importantly, the Council should continue to promote the exchange of views and dialogue on the issue.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record