media freedom

  • CIVICUS: Release Nigerien journalist Samira Sabou immediately

    Samira SabouJOHANNESBURG – Global civil society alliance CIVICUS urges the immediate release of journalist and human rights defender Samira Sabou who unidentified men arrested unlawfully from her home on 30 September. Nigerien authorities have not acknowledged her arrest, Samou’s whereabouts remain unknown and her family has been in the dark.
  • Civil Society deeply concerned about roll back in democratic freedoms in South Africa

    12 August 2010. Johannesburg. Civil society organisations express deep apprehension at the recent attempts to strangle the media and the freedom of expression in South Africa. On 3 August, Sunday Times journalist Mzilikazi wa Afrika was arrested by a large posse of policemen in what appear to be intimidating tactics. He was arrested without a warrant for purportedly being in the possession of a forged letter announcing the resignation of the premier of Mpumalanaga province. He had recently authored a media report on 1 August in which he questioned the police chief's decision to lease a building to house the top brass of the police at a sum of 500 million rand for ten years. 


    Relations between the government and independent media groups have been strained of late particularly in respect of the controversial Protection of Information Bill which impedes access to information, and the proposed Media Appeals Tribunal to adjudicate perceived misleading reports by the media. 
  • Civil society letter to U.S. State Dept on Human Rights Defenders

    80 civil society organisations from 30+ countries urge Honarable Secretary of State, Antony Blinken to strengthen U.S. government foreign policy to support human rights defenders globally

    Hon. Antony Blinken Secretary of State

    United States of America

    CC:      Senator Robert Menendez, Chairman,Senate Foreign Relations Committee

    Senator James Risch, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

    Representative Gregory Meeks, Chairman,House Committee on Foreign Affairs

    Representative Michael McCaul, Ranking Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs

     Dear Secretary Blinken:

    We, the undersigned organisations, work to promote human rights, democracy, media freedom, environmental sustainability, and an end to corruption around the world. The protection of human rights defenders — such as activists, lawyers, and journalists — is critical to each of our missions. We are deeply concerned by the unabated rise in reprisals against human rights defenders, both globally and within the United States, and the chilling effect that these attacks have on fundamental freedoms and civic space.

    We would like to request the opportunity to begin a discussion with the incoming State Department political leadership on the role that the Biden Administration will play in protecting human rights defenders.

    As the Administration prepares to re-engage the U.S. government at the United Nations and other multilateral institutions, we encourage you to elevate the protection of human rights defenders as a U.S. foreign policy priority and commit to play a global leadership role on this issue.

    Read the full letter here

    Signed by

    1. Access Now
    2. Accountability Counsel
    3. African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies Al-Haq
    4. Alliance of Baptists Amazon Watch
    5. American Jewish World Service
    6. Amnesty International USA
    7. ARTICLE 19
    8. Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP)
    9. Balay Alternative Legal Advocates for Development in Mindanaw, Inc (BALAOD Mindanaw)
    10. Bank Information Center
    11. Business and Human Rights Resource Centre
    12. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
    13. Center for Civil Liberties
    14. Center for Human Rights and Environment
    15. Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
    16. China-Latin America Sustainable-Investments Initiative Church World Service
    17. CIVICUS
    18. Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach Committee to Protect Journalists
    19. COMPPART Foundation for Justice and Peacebuilding Nigeria
    20. Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces
    21. Crude Accountability
    22. DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
    23. EarthRights International
    24. Ecumenical Advocacy Network on the Philippines Equitable Cambodia
    25. FIDH, within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders FORUM-ASIA
    26. Freedom House
    27. Freedom Now
    28. Front Line Defenders
    29. Gender Action
    30. Global Witness
    31. Green Advocates International (Liberia)
    32. Greenpeace
    33. Human Rights First
    34. Inclusive Development International Indigenous Peoples Rights
    35. International International Accountability Project International Rivers
    36. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
    37. Jamaa Resource Initiatives Kenya
    38. Japan NGO Action Network for Civic Space Just Associates (JASS)
    39. Kaisa Ka (Unity of Women for Freedom) KILUSAN
    40. Latin America Working Group
    41. Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
    42. National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd
    43. Network in Solidarity with the People of Guatemala - NISGUA
    44. Network Movement for Justice and Development
    45. Odhikar – Bangladesh OECD Watch
    46. Oil Workers Rights Protection Organization Public Union Azerbaijan
    47. OMCT (World Organisation Against Torture), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
    48. Open Briefing
    49. OT Watch
    50. Oxfam America
    51. Peace Brigades International - USA (PBI-USA)
    52. Phenix Center for Economic and Informatics Studies
    53. Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
    54. Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights)
    55. Project HEARD
    56. Project on Organizing, Development, Education, and Research (PODER) - Latin American NGO
    57. Protection International
    58. Rivers without Boundaries Coalition Mongolia Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
    59. Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team Somali Journalists Syndicate (SJS)
    60. Southern Africa Human Rights Defenders Network Swedwatch
    61. Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP)
    62. Transparency International
    63. United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries Urgent Action Fund for Women's Human Rights
    64. Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA)
    65. Witness Radio – Uganda

    Civic space in United States of America is rated Obstructed by the CIVICUS Monitor, see country page.

     
  • Civil Society Organisations condemn the continued investigation of ex-RFA journalists Yeang Sothearin and Uon Chhin

    Phnom Penh, 07 October 2019 -We, the undersigned civil society organisations strongly condemn the decision by the Municipal Court judge to continue the investigation into unsubstantiated espionage charges against Yeang Sothearin and Uon Chhin. The pair were arbitrarily arrested, detained and charged for the peaceful exercise of their freedom of expression and for their work as investigative journalists on issues of social justice. Yesterday’s hearing showed that there is a complete lack of evidence in support of these baseless charges exposing fair trial rights violations and highlighting the trial as a blatant affront to freedom of expression and media freedom in Cambodia. We urge the authorities to immediately drop all charges against the pair.

    exRFA journalists

    Yeang Sothearin and Uon Chhin, former Radio Free Asia (RFA) journalists, were arrested on 14 November 2017 and detained in Prey Sar prison. They were provisionally charged four days later with ‘supplying a foreign state with information prejudicial to national defence’, under Article 445 of Cambodia’s Criminal Code. The pair – who worked for RFA’s, now closed, Cambodia bureau – were denied their first bail application on appeal before the Supreme Court on 16 March 2018 and soon afterwards were charged by the Phnom Penh Municipal Court with the alleged production of pornography under Article 39 of the Law on the Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation. As a result of the accumulated charges, each face 16 years in prison. On 21 August 2018 they were both released from Prey Sar prison on bail, after more than nine months in pre-trial detention, however remain under judicial supervision.

    The original verdict hearing was scheduled for 30 August 2019 but on the morning of the hearing it was delayed due to an unannounced absence of the judge. It was subsequently scheduled for 03 October 2019, however the Phnom Penh Municipal Court again failed to deliver a verdict on the grounds that further investigation was required. The failure to reach a verdict is indicative of a lack of credible evidence against the pair and as such illustrates that there is insufficient evidence to hold them criminally liable as per the burden of proof standards enshrined in Article 38 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia (Constitution). Throughout the process of their arrest, detention, and ongoing trial, Yeang Sothearin and Uon Chhin have been denied the rights to fair trial, liberty and security protected under domestic and international human rights law.

    Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), incorporated into domestic law by the Constitution, states that ‘no one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law.’ Article 14 thereafter preserves the rights to ‘be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law’ and to presumption of innocence. The charges levelled against Yeang Sothearin and Uon Chhin are unsubstantiated and lack a clear legal basis. Instead, they have been employed as a means to punish the legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression and silence journalism critical of the government. The pair had previously reported on a wide range of human rights issues.

    In addition to baseless charges, the holding of these two men in pre-trial detention in deplorable conditions for more than nine months, and their continued placement under judicial supervision of already 12 months, violates their right to liberty and to a fair trial guaranteed under international law and the Constitution. International law stipulates that people charged with criminal offenses should not, as a general rule, be held in custody pending trial - a requirement not adhered to in Yeang Sothearin and Uon Chhin’s case.

    In May 2019, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued an opinion on the case, finding that the Cambodian government had failed to (1) establish a legal basis for arrest and detention, and (2) provide proof that it had considered alternatives to pre-trial detention. Concluding that the pre-trial detention of the journalists resulted from their peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of association and the freedom of expression, the Working Group found their deprivation of liberty to be arbitrary.

    The prosecution of Yeang Sothearin and Uon Chhin is but one piece of the broader legal assault on journalists, human rights defenders, members of the political opposition, union leaders, activists, civil society representatives and individuals expressing their views on matters of public interest, including expressions of critical dissent. While the situation of press freedom was already constricted prior to 2017, since then Cambodia has seen almost all of its independent and local media silenced. Critical Khmer-language media outlets have had their activities severely restricted, including via the closure of 32 radio stations relaying RFA, Voice of America (VOA) and Voice of Democracy (VOD). RFA closed its Cambodia bureau in September 2017, citing the repressive environment and ongoing harassment of their journalists. The change of ownership of the Phnom Penh Post in May 2018, Cambodia’s last remaining independent English-Khmer language daily, was widely regarded as the last blow to press freedom in Cambodia. The space for freedom of expression online is also severely curtailed, illustrated through the increase in harassment of individuals who merely peacefully dissent or express their opinions through shares, posts or likes on Facebook.

    The right to freedom of expression, protected by Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 41 of the Constitution, is essential for the guarantee of the exercise of all human rights, including the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of information, and the right to develop one’s personality and private life. As such, the importance of creating an enabling environment in which journalists are free to conduct their work – including by exposing corruption, expressing diverse viewpoints and shedding light on human rights violations – cannot be understated.

    The failure to vacate the charges against Yeang Sothearin and Uon Chhin strikes yet another blow against what little remains of freedom of expression and media freedom in Cambodia. This case sends a clear warning to individuals who dare to exercise their fundamental right to freedom of expression and fosters an environment of intimidation and censorship. The legitimate and invaluable work of these individuals should be recognized, in line with Cambodia’s human rights obligations, and they should be able to carry out their activities in the future without fear of reprisal, obstruction or threat of prosecution. We encourage the Royal Government of Cambodia to cease its intimidation and harassment of all individuals exercising their right to freedom of expression and to re-establish an enabling environment for a free and pluralistic media and a thriving civil society in line with its obligations under the Constitution and international human rights law.

    This joint statement is endorsed by:

    1. Alliance for Conflict Transformation (ACT)
    2. Amnesty International
    3. Article 19
    4. ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
    5. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
    6. Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL)
    7. CamAsean Youth’s Future (CamASEAN)
    8. Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)
    9. Cambodian Center for Independent Media (CCIM)
    10. Cambodian Food And Service Workers Federation (CFSWF)
    11. Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC)
    12. Cambodian Independent Teachers’ Association (CITA)
    13. Cambodian Volunteers for Society (CVS)
    14. Cambodian Youth Network (CYN)
    15. Coalition for Integrity & Social Accountability (CISA)
    16. Committee for Free and Fair Elections in Cambodia (COMFREL)
    17. Community Legal Education Center (CLEC)
    18. Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights (CENTRAL)
    19. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
    20. Human Rights Watch (HRW)
    21. Independent Democracy of Informal Economy Association (IDEA)
    22. Independent Trade Union Federation (INTUFE)
    23. Indradevi Association (IDA)
    24. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
    25. International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX)
    26. Khmer Kampuchea Krom for Human Rights and Development Association (KKKHRDA)
    27. Klahaan
    28. Labor Rights Supported Union of Khmer Employees of Naga World (L.R.S.U)
    29. Minority Rights Organization (MIRO)
    30. People Center for Development and Peace (PDP-Center)
    31. Ponlok Khmer (PKH)
    32. Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
    33. Sahmakum Teang Tnaut (STT)
    34. Urban Poor Women Development (UPWD)
    35. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
    36. Youth Education for Development and Peace (YEDP)
    37. Youth Resource Development Program (YRDP)
  • Civil society reports show evidence of shrinking civic space in Europe

    A survey of civil society organisations in Europe conducted  in early 2016  by Civil Society Europe and CIVICUS shows evidence of a shrinking civic space in Europe.
  • Climate of repression a dark cloud over upcoming elections in Fiji

    By Josef Benedict, Civic Space Research Officer,CIVICUS  

    Powdery white beaches. Crystal clear turquoise water. Palm trees swaying in the breeze.

    This is the postcard picture of paradise that comes to mind when tourists think of Fiji. But for many citizens of the South Pacific’s largest island nation, and its media, the reality is anything but blissful.

    And the repressive climate in which elections are about to take place serves to highlight the decline in democracy there in recent years.

    In fact, since incumbent Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama seized power a coup in 2006, Fijians have seen their civic freedoms increasingly restricted through repressive laws and policies.

    Read on: Inter Press Service
  • Closed and repressed: No space for democracy to take root in Eritrea

    CIVICUS interviews a human rights defender from Eritrea, who speaks about the nature of the government and its complete disregard for fundamental human rights. The human rights defender asked to remain anonymous for security reasons.

    1. What is the overall state of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Eritrea?

    Unlike in the neighbouring countries, the regime in Eritrea is unique and arguably has no match in the world. It is the most repressive regime in the world, ruling the country with no Constitution and national assembly. There is no political pluralism and no elections have been organised since independence. The ruling party exists only in name with most of its leaders in the executive and legislative arms of government are either languishing in unknown detention centres or have abandoned the party. Since 1994 the party has never held any congress or elected new leadership. Hence power has been concentrated in the hands of a single man, President Issias Afwerki, who rules the country alone and as he wishes.

    The absolute power he enjoys combined with his sadistic, cruel and arrogant character has driven him to the extreme. His regime violates every aspect of human rights and inflicts unbearable suffering on the Eritrean people. The regime has no regard for human rights and international law. Almost the entire population of Eritrea has been subjected to indefinite national service, forced labour and slavery. Families have disintegrated and societies destroyed by migration as citizens seek to escape the repression. Those who escape the country are exposed to human trafficking, hostage taking for ransom, torture and other inhumane treatment.
    The regime has made Eritrea a closed and an isolated country with no independent and foreign media outlets; civil society activities are banned in Eritrea thus there are no local CSOs or international NGOs of any kind in the country. In addition, the report of the UN Commission of inquiry on the situation of human rights in Eritrea in June 2016 revealed that crimes against humanity have been committed in Eritrea by the Eritrean regime.

    2. What is the state of the media?

    Between 1997 to 2001 private press in the form of print media operated in Eritrea but this was under a restrictive legal domestic framework. There were eight private newspapers until September 2001. In 2001 senior government officials known as “G-15” demanded democratic reforms and the enforcement of the 1997 ratified Constitution. In September 2001, the government clamped down on 11 members of the “G-15” accusing them of treason and said they were a threat to national security. The government proceeded to close private newspapers and imprisoned 18 journalists for providing platforms to the “G-15” to express their views. Since then both the political prisoners and journalists have been held incommunicado in secret prison facilities without charges. Many of the journalists and writers are believed to have died in detention. In effect, since September 2001 no private media has existed in Eritrea. Only state-owned and state-operated media exists in the country. These include TV, radio, and print outlets.
    Freedom of expression, exchange of information and communication in public places such as tea shops, buses, taxis, restaurants, bus terminals, offices, schools and colleges, public, social and religious events are closely monitored by spys working for the regime. Even people who are out of the country are afraid to express themselves publicly for fear of reprisals against their relatives at home in Eritrea. Journalists who work for public media outlets and manage escape still fear that their families back home will be targeted as the Eritrean government punishes family members because of association.

    3. How does the compulsory national military service exacerbate human rights violations in Eritrea?

    According to the National Service Proclamation of 1995, Eritreans are required to serve 18 months of national service which includes six months of military training and 12 months of service in the army and civil service. The proclamation notes that military service is compulsory for males and females who are between 18 to 40 years old. However, contrary to the national proclamation, in reality the national service is indefinite. Those who were recruited in the first round, for example in 1994 have not been released up to now. The whole productive section of the society has been locked up in the national service without any pay, proper feeding or clothing. Even children are recruited into national service. All students have to go to the military training camp of Sawa to do their final year of education in the secondary level and complete military training. Conditions there are very miserable. The national service recruits are treated worse than slaves. They are deprived of opportunities to start families and from undertaking economic activities. They are deprived of moving freely, expressing themselves and from practicing the religion of their choice. In addition, those who desert and evade national service are detained, tortured or fined. Also women are used as sex objects by the military officers and work as house maids or slaves to provide forced services to the officers.

    4. Tell us about the failure of the government to implement the 1997 Constitution

    The government does not have any desire to implement the 1997 Constitution. In May 1998, one year after the ratification of the Constitution, the Eritrean government ignited a border war with Ethiopia. It developed into a full-fledged conflict that came to end in 2000 after the loss of about 100 000 lives on both sides and huge damages to properties and a huge humanitarian crisis and displacement. The Algeris agreement ended the war and a border commission was formed to delineate and demarcate the border but the border has not yet been demarcated. A “no war and peace state” prevails now. Although there are no links between the border and the Constitution, the Eritrean government claims that it is not implementing the Constitution because the border has to be demarcated first.

    5. What are three things that need to change for democracy to take root in Eritrea?

    For democracy to take root in Eritrea: there needs to be

    • Change of the existing government;
    • Crimes committed so far have to be addressed and perpetrators brought to justice;
    • The international community needs to support Eritreans both in the diaspora and those in Eritrea in leading a transition to democratic rule.
  • Egypt: open letter calling for an independent investigation into the death of Shady Habash

    Arabic

    CIVICUS, together with more than 60 organisations, calls for an open and independent investigation into the jailing and death of filmmaker hady Habash. 
  • Eritrea: Council resolution should outline human rights situation & extend the Special Rapporteur’s mandate

    To Permanent Representatives of Member and Observer States of the United Nations Human Rights Council (Geneva, Switzerland)

    Excellencies,

    Ahead of the UN Human Rights Council’s 53rd session (19 June-14 July 2023), we, the undersigned non-governmental organisations, are writing to urge your delegation to support the development and adoption of a resolution that extends the mandate of the Special Rap­por­teur on the situation of hu­man rights in Eritrea for one year.

    Additionally, we highlight the need for the Council to put forward a strong resolution that clearly spells out and condemns the ongoing human rights viola­tions committed by Eri­trean authorities at home and abroad and the context of complete impunity that prevails.

    *    *     *

    We believe that the Council cannot fol­low a “business as usual” approach and that it is time for it to move be­yond merely procedural reso­lutions that extend the Special Rappor­teur’s mandate. The Council should produce a substantive assess­ment of Eritrea’s hu­man rights situation, adopting strong, meaningful reso­lu­tions on the country. These resolutions should include references to the Special Rapporteur’s “bench­marks for progress”[1] and recommendations by other UN and African bodies and me­cha­nisms, as well as substantive paragraphs ad­dres­sing violations committed by the country’s autho­rities inside and outside the country.[2]

    In this regard, this year’s resolution should at a minimum mention the following key human rights issues in Eritrea[3]:

    • Arbi­trary arrests and detentions, including in­com­mu­ni­cado de­ten­­tion of journalists and other dis­senting voices, as well as prolonged detention of Djiboutian pri­soners of war;[4]
    • Vio­lations of the rights to a fair trial, access to jus­tice, and due process;
    • Enforced disappearances;[5]
    • Conscription into the country’s abusive na­tional ser­vi­ce system,[6] including conscription for in­de­finite periods of national ser­­vi­ce, involving torture, sexual vio­len­ce against women and girls, and forced labour. Since Council resolution 50/2[7] was adopted, in July 2022, the Eritrean Govern­ment led an inten­sive forced conscription campaign during which it conducted waves of roundups to identify peo­ple it considers draft evaders or deserters, punishing family members of those seek­ing to avoid cons­cription or recall. Such punishment has included arbitrary detentions and home expulsions[8];
    • Restrictions on the media and media workers, severe res­tric­tions on civic space, inc­lu­ding the rights to freedoms of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly, association, move­ment, and non-discrimination,[9] as well as severe restrictions to freedom of religion or belief[10];
    • Widespread impunity for past and on­going human rights vio­la­tions; and
    • The Government of Eritrea’s refusal to engage in a serious dialogue with the inter­national com­mu­­ni­ty, including by cooperating with the Council, despite its election for a second term as a Coun­cil Member (2022-2024). For decades, Eritrean authorities have blatantly denied commit­ting serious human rights violations, including in relation to the presence of Eritrean for­ces in Ethiopia’s Tigray region.[11]

    Eri­trean forces have been credibly accused of grave violations of international law in Tig­ray, some of which may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, since the conflict started in November 2020. These violations, and the associated complete lack of accountability, deserve the Coun­cil’s atten­tion.

    *     *     *

    In July 2022, the Council took a modest step toward addressing substantive human rights issues in Eritrea. For the first time since 2018, it went beyond a one-page resolution extending the Special Rap­por­teur’s mandate. It did so by referring to the benchmarks for pro­gress Special Rap­porteurs identified, thereby outlining a path for human rights reforms. These benchmarks include streng­then­ing the rule of law, refor­ming the national military service, protecting fundamental freedoms, addressing pervasive sexual and gender-based violence, and strengthening cooperation with international and Afri­can human rights bo­dies.

    Resolution 50/2 also extended the Special Rapporteur’s mandate for a year, which was the main purpose of Eritrea-focused resolutions adopted in 2019, 2020, and 2021.

    Although it went further than these three resolutions, which were merely procedural and contained no sub­stantive assessment of Eritrea’s situation, resolution 50/2 failed to clearly describe and condemn hu­man rights violations Eritrean au­thorities are responsible for. It failed to reflect the situation in the coun­try in the way Council resolutions did prior to 2019, as well as the atrocities Eritrean forces have committed in Ethiopia’s Tigray region since armed conflict broke out, in November 2020. Yet violations Eritrean authorities commit at home and abroad are two sides of the same coin, and the total closure of the civic space enables these violations to continue with impunity.

    Ahead of the Council’s 50th session, over 40 civil society organisations urged the Council to maintain its scrutiny of Eritrea’s human rights situation and to strengthen its annual resolution with a view to bringing it in line with pre-2019 resolutions.[12] We welcome the inclusion, in resolution 50/2, of a call on the Gov­ern­ment of Eritrea to “[commit] to making progress on the recom­mendations included in [the Special Rapporteur’s] reports and on the benchmarks and asso­cia­ted indi­ca­tors proposed in 2019.” We stress, however, that resolutions on Eritrea should fully reflect the country’s human rights situation.

    In 2016, the Commission of Inquiry on Eritrea[13] found that there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that crimes against humanity have been committed in the country since 1991 and that Eritrean officials have committed and continue to commit the crimes of enslavement, imprisonment, enforced disappearance, tor­­ture, other inhumane acts, persecution, rape, and murder. The international com­munity and the African Union have failed to ensure adequate follow-up for these findings. Since 2019, the Human Rights Council has conveyed the impression to victims, survivors, and their families that it has given up on the account­a­bility agenda.

    Yet no Eritrean official has been held criminally accountable, and Eritrea’s human rights situation has not fundamentally changed. All the key issues identified in pre-2019 Council resolutions on the country and by independent experts and organisations remain valid. For ins­tance, in his 2022 report, the Special Rapporteur, Dr. Mohamed Abdelsalam Babiker, noted that “the vast majority of the recommendations made by human rights mechanisms […], as well as the recom­mendations from the country’s universal pe­riodic review in 2019, remain unimplemented.” He added that “the persistent human rights crisis in Eritrea deepened during the reporting period” and iden­tified several worrying trends.[14]

    Similarly, in the statement delivered during the enhanced interactive dialogue on Eritrea held on 6 March 2023, the Deputy UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Nada Al-Nashif, highlighted that “[t]he human rights situation in Eritrea remains dire and shows no sign of improvement. It continues to be cha­racterised by serious hu­man rights violations.”[15] She added: “It is alarming that all these human rights violations are committed in the context of complete impunity. Eritrea has not taken any de­mons­trable steps to ensure accountability for past and ongoing human rights violations.”

    *     *     *

    The Human Rights Council should allow the Special Rapporteur to pursue his work and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to deepen its engagement with Eritrea.

    At its 53rd session, the Council should adopt a resolution:

    • Extending the mandate of the Spe­cial Rap­porteur on Eritrea for a period of one year;
    • Urging Eritrea to cooperate fully with the Spe­cial Rap­por­teur by granting him access to the country, in accordance with its obligations as a Council Member;
    • Condemning the ongoing human rights viola­tions committed by Eri­trean authorities at home and abroad and the context of complete impunity that prevails;
    • Welcoming the benchmarks for progress in improving the situ­a­tion of hu­man rights and associated indicators and recommendations, as well as recommendations formulated by other UN and African human rights bodies and mechanisms, and calling on Eri­trea to deve­lop an implementation plan to meet the benchmarks for pro­gress, in con­sul­tation with the Special Rapporteur and OHCHR; and
    • Requestingthe High Commissionerand the Special Rappor­teur to present updates on human rights concerns in Eritrea and on accountability options for serious violations at the Coun­cil’s 55th session in an enhanced interactive dia­lo­gue that also includes the participation of civil so­ciety and requesting the Special Rap­porteur to present a comprehensive written report at the Council’s 56th ses­sion and to the General Assembly at its 78th

     

    We thank you for your attention to these pressing issues and stand ready to provide your delegation with further information.

    Sincerely,

    1. Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture in the Central African Republic (ACAT-RCA)
    2. AfricanDefenders (Pan-African Human Rights Defenders Network)
    3. The America Team for Displaced Eritreans
    4. Amnesty International
    5. Burkinabè Human Rights Defenders Coalition (CBDDH)
    6. Burundian Human Rights Defenders Coalition (CBDDH)
    7. Cabo Verdean Network of Human Rights Defenders (RECADDH)
    8. CIVICUS
    9. Coalition of Human Rights Defenders-Benin (CDDH-Bénin)
    10. Coordination of Human Rights Organizations (CODDH) – Guinea
    11. CSW (Christian Solidarity Worldwide)
    12. DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
    13. Eritrean Afar National Congress
    14. Eritrea Focus
    15. Eritrean Coordination for Human Rights
    16. Eritrean Law Society
    17. Geneva for Human Rights – Global Training (GHR)
    18. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P)
    19. Global Initiative to Empower Eritrea Grassroot Movement
    20. The Horn of Africa Civil Society Forum (HoACSF)
    21. Hawai’i Institute for Human Rights
    22. Human Rights Concern - Eritrea (HRCE)
    23. Human Rights Defenders Network – Sierra Leone
    24. Human Rights Watch
    25. Institut des Médias pour la Démocratie et les Droits de l’Homme (IM2DH) – Togo
    26. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
    27. Ivorian Human Rights Defenders Coalition (CIDDH)
    28. Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada
    29. Libyan Human Rights Clinic (LHRC)
    30. Network of NGOs for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights (RONGDH) – Central African Republic
    31. Nigerien Human Rights Defenders Network (RNDDH/NHRDN)
    32. One Day Seyoum
    33. Togolese Human Rights Defenders Coalition (CTDDH)
    34. Vision Ethiopian Congress for Democracy (VECOD)
    35. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)

     

    [1] See Council resolution 38/15, available at: https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/38/15. See also reports of the Special Rapporteur to the Council, UN Docs. A/HRC/41/53, A/HRC/44/23, and A/HRC/47/21.

    [2] See Annex for a review of elements contained in successive Council resolutions on Eritrea (2012-2022).

    [3] See DefendDefenders et al., “The Human Rights Council should strengthen its action on Eritrea,” 20 May 2022, https://defenddefenders.org/the-human-rights-council-should-strengthen-its-action-on-eritrea/ (accessed on 12 April 2023), as well as previous civil society letters, namely DefendDefenders et al., “Eritrea: maintain Human Rights Council scrutiny and engagement,” 5 May 2020, https://defenddefenders.org/eritrea-maintain-human-rights-council-scrutiny-and-engagement/; DefendDefenders et al., “Eritrea: renew vital mandate of UN Special Rapporteur,” 10 May 2021, https://defenddefenders.org/eritrea-renew-vital-mandate-of-un-special-rapporteur/. See also CSW, “Eritrea: General Briefing,” 22 March 2022, https://www.csw.org.uk/2022/03/22/report/5629/article.htm (accessed on 11 April 2023).

    [4] See for instance One Day Seyoum, “About Eritrea,” https://onedayseyoum.org/about-eritrea (accessed on 12 April 2023).

    [5] See, among others, Amnesty International, “Eritrea: Ten years on, Ciham Ali’s ongoing enforced disappearance ‘a disgrace’,” 7 December 2022, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/12/eritrea-ten-years-on-ciham-alis-ongoing-enforced-disappearance-a-disgrace/ (accessed on 11 April 2023).

    [6] Human Rights Concern - Eritrea, “Eritrea Hunts Down its Young People for Enforced Military Service,” 6 September 2022, https://hrc-eritrea.org/eritrea-hunts-down-its-young-people-for-enforced-military-service/ (accessed on 11 April 2023). See also Human Rights Watch, “Eritrea: Crackdown on Draft Evaders’ Families,” 9 February 2023, https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/02/09/eritrea-crackdown-draft-evaders-families (accessed on 12 April 2023).

    [7] Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/regular-sessions/session50/res-dec-stat

    [8] Human Rights Watch, “Eritrea: Crackdown on Draft Evaders’ Families,” op. cit.

    [9] CIVICUS, Civic Space Monitor, “Eritrea,” https://monitor.civicus.org/country/eritrea/

    [10] CSW – FoRB in Full blog, “Let Us Honour The Memory of Patriarch Antonios By Bringing an End to the Violations of the Eritrean Regime,” 9 February 2023, https://forbinfull.org/category/sub-saharan-africa/eritrea/; CSW, “Eritrean Church Leader Denied Burial Site in His Hometown,” 21 April 2023, https://www.csw.org.uk/2023/04/21/press/5988/article.htm; “HRC52: Oral statement on the situation of human rights in Eritrea,” 6 March 2023, https://www.csw.org.uk/2023/03/06/report/5948/article.htm (all accessed on 24 April 2023).

    [11] Despite its obli­ga­tions as a Council Member to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and pro­tection of human rights” and to “fully cooperate with the Council,” the Government refuses to co­ope­rate with the Special Rapporteur or other special procedure mandate holders. As of 2023, Eritrea remains among the very few countries that have never received any visit by a special procedure (see https://spinternet.ohchr.org/ViewCountryVisits.aspx?visitType=all&Lang=en).

    On 9 February 2023, President Afwerki said that his country’s forces “never committed any human rights violations or interfered in the war” in Tigray and referred to allegations of crimes under international law, which have been credibly documented, as a “disinformation campaign” (Anadolu, “Eritrean leader denies rights violations by his forces in Ethiopian war,” 10 February 2023, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/eritrean-leader-denies-rights-violations-by-his-forces-in-ethiopian-war/2814756 (accessed on 27 April 2023)).

    [12] See footnote 3 above.

    [13] See https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/co-i-eritrea/commissioninquiryonhrin-eritrea (accessed on 12 April 2023).

    [14] A/HRC/50/20, available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/regular-sessions/session50/list-reports. See in particular paras. 75-76. These trends include the increased militarization of the country and the continued inde­finite conscription; the country’s continued involvement in human rights and humanitarian law violations in the context of the conflict in Ethiopia, as well as the increase in round-ups (giffas), recruitment of child soldiers, and kidnapping and forced conscription of Eritrean refugees to fight in the conflict; the continued closure of civic space, which remains “hermetically shut,” with no possibility for Eritreans to express dis­sent or participate in decision-making, the prolonged and arbitrary detention of hundreds of Eritreans for their real or perceived opposition to the Government; the increased pressure being placed on religious groups and on diaspora communities; and an increase in ethnic and political tensions in the diaspora as a result of the rifts opened by the war in Tigray.

    [15] She further highlighted: “Our Office continues to receive credible reports of torture; arbitrary detention; in­hu­mane conditions of detention; enforced disappearances; restrictions of the rights to freedoms of ex­pres­sion, of association, and of peaceful assembly. Thousands of political prisoners and prisoners of con­s­cience have, reportedly, been behind bars for decades. Furthermore, the harassment and arbitrary deten­tion of people because of their faith continues unabated with estimated hundreds of religious leaders and followers affected.”
  • EUROPEAN MEDIA FREEDOM ACT: ‘National security cannot justify the use of spyware on journalists’

    Jordan HigginsCIVICUS speaks about the role of civil society in the drafting process of the European Media Freedom Act with Jordan Higgins, Press and Policy Officer at the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF).

    Founded in 2015, ECPMF is a civil society organisation that seeks to promote, preserve and defend media freedom by monitoring violations,providing practical support and engaging diverse stakeholders across Europe.

    Why was the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) needed?

    The EMFA aims to support media freedom and promote media pluralism in the European Union (EU). While media-related matters have traditionally fallen under the competence of member states, EU-wide action has become necessary due to the severity of the threats media freedom faces across Europe.

    The EMFA was introduced in September 2022 and underwent successive rounds of negotiations, culminating in a political agreement reached on 15 December 2023. It is comprehensive and seeks to address critical threats to media freedom, including the independence of public service broadcasters, concentration of media ownership and the capture of media through the allocation of state advertising, among other issues.

    It safeguards the right of audiences to access pluralistic media sources and establishes a European Board for Media Services, composed of national media authorities that will advise the European Commission on the consistent application of key provisions of the Act in all member states. It also focuses on ensuring the safety of journalists, protecting them and their sources from surveillance and the use of spyware.

    In sum, the EMFA is a crucial tool to address some of the major threats faced by journalists and protect the editorial and market independence of media.

    What did civil society bring to negotiations?

    This initiative aimed to strengthen press freedom in Europe and was widely welcomed by civil society, including us at ECPMF.

    From the early stages, media freedom organisations proposed critical amendments to specific aspects of the EMFA that did not comply with the highest media freedom standards. In particular, we pushed for greater transparency in media ownership, comprehensive rules regulating financial relations between the state and media, including the allocation of state advertising, and full protection of journalists from all forms of surveillance, including spyware. We also advocated for the independence of national media regulators and the European Board for Media Services.

    The process incorporated the perspectives of media freedom experts and journalists and culminated in the final trilogue negotiations between the European Parliament, Council and Commission. One of the key areas of interest for media freedom advocates during these negotiations was EMFA Article 4 on the protection of journalistic sources. In particular, we hoped to see the removal of provisions – promoted by Cyprus, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Malta and Sweden – that included ‘threats to national security’ as justification for the use of spyware on journalists.

    To what extent did the final text address civil society concerns?

    Civil society, particularly media freedom organisations, advocated for a robust version of the EMFA that considered the needs of those most affected by it. Throughout the negotiation process, we voiced our objections to concerns from publishers’ groups and regarding proposed amendments to Article 4, which could have removed legal safeguards that shield journalists from the deployment of spyware under the pretext of national security. Fortunately, the final version no longer cites ‘national security’ as a justification for using spyware on journalists.

    Now our work will shift towards ensuring the effective implementation of the EMFA through active monitoring, particularly in EU member states where press freedom is under the greatest threat.

    Get in touch with ECPMF through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@ECPMF on Twitter.
  • Hard Battle Ahead for Independent Arab Media

    By Mouna Ben Garga, Innovation Officer CIVICUS

    This article is part of a series on the current state of civil society organisations (CSOs), the focus of International Civil Society Week (ICSW)

    Sometimes a peak into the future reminds us just how stuck we are in the past and present.

    It was the talk of the Middle East’s largest annual media industry gathering: a robot journalist – the region’s first – that wowed some 3,000 industry leaders and practitioners at the Arab Media Forum (AMF) in Dubai recently.

    In an address titled “Future News Anchors”, the robot, known as A20-50, waxed lyrical about robots that would report ‘tirelessly’ all day, every day and be programmed to do any task.

    Read on: Inter Press Service

     
  • Hong Kong: Restrictions on civic space increase as independent media outlets are forced to close
    •  Prominent independent news site to cease operations 
    • Authorities using restrictive laws to silence the media 
    • The international community must take steps to restore fundamental freedoms
  • Hungary: CIVICUS calls on the Orbán government to stop interference within independent media

    CIVICUS calls on Hungary to respect media freedom and to stop interfering in independent news site, Index.hu.
  • India: Drop charges and release NewsClick workers and end harassment of media

    India statement On Newsclick media crackdown Gallo October2023

    CIVICUS, a global civil society alliance, calls on the Indian authoritiesto end the crackdown against NewsClick and release its editor and staff held under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The UAPA, a draconian anti-terror law that has been increasingly used against human rights activists is now being used to target journalists and independent media. 

    On 3 October 2023, Delhi Police conducted simultaneous raids in nearly40 locations including the office of NewsClick and homes of its journalists, staff and contributors including activists. Later, the police arrested and detained the founder and editor of NewsClick Prabir Purkayastha and head of Human Resources Amit Chakraborthy under charges ofterrorism and criminal conspiracy. 

    Today, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)registered a case against NewsClick for alleged violations of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act - a law that has been used to impose discriminatory restrictions on civil society.

    NewsClick has beentargeted by the Indian authorities since 2021, when the Enforcement Directorate in February 2021 searched their office to investigate an alleged money-laundering probe. Later in September 2021, the Income Tax Department conducted‘surveys’, at the office of NewsClick. 

    In August 2023, the New York Times published aninvestigative article that alleged NewsClick has received funds from a US businessman, and it had “sprinkled its coverage with Chinese government talking points”. Days after this article was published, the Delhi police registered a case based on this article against NewsClick and carried out these raids.

    During the raids, journalists were forced to hand over their laptops and mobile phones without any due process. This action raises concerns because of the reports of  ‘incriminating evidence’ been planted onto UAPA case implicated activists’ devices. After a day long search, the office of NewsClick was sealed by the police. At least46 journalists associated with NewsClick were reportedly questioned with some being asked if they hand covered the protests against discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act and Farm laws. 

    “This is a complete assault on press freedom in India and an act of reprisal against the critical and independent journalism of NewsClick. Charging a news outlet under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, is a brazen attempt to silence and harass independent media, activists and citizens. We call for the immediate release of Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakraborthy. All charges against NewsClick must be dropped,” said David Kode, Advocacy and Campaigns Lead at CIVICUS. 

    The First Information Report (FIR) registered against NewsClick, levels a range ofaccusations  including conspiring “to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India” by accepting illegal foreign funds over five years, actively spreading false information to discredit the government, 'causing disaffection against India', providing legal defence for Chinese companies and peddling “paid news” to criticise domestic policies and development project.

    NewsClick hasrefuted all these accusations outrightly and said that it doesn’t publish any news or information “at the behest of any Chinese entity or authority, directly or indirectly”. It says all funding is received legitimately and reported to relevant authorities as per the legal requirements. 

    The CIVICUS Monitor hasdocumented how India’s UAPA law has been used to target activists and stifle dissent. Over the years, it has been invoked against human rights activists as an act of reprisal for their human rights work.  UN experts have raisedconcerns about UAPA’s negative impact on India’s international human rights obligations and called for its review. During India’s Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council in November 2022,several states also raised concerns about the use of UAPA against activists. 

    “This crackdown against independent media is further testimony of the deterioration of civic space in India. The authorities stop misusing repressive laws like the UAPA against activists, civil society and journalists. They must comply with India’s obligations under international human rights laws and standards”, added Kode.

     Civic space in India is rated as "repressed" by the CIVICUS Monitor
  • Journalists on the front lines of global assault

    By Cathal Gilbert, David Kode and Teldah Mawarire

    With reporters under attack the world over, it is imperative that citizens rally to protect press freedom. We live in a time when hard-won human rights protections are at risk of being swept aside by a rising tide of authoritarianism, fear mongering and xenophobia. The resulting global assault on fundamental civic freedoms is, in turn, devastating press freedom and exposing an increasing number of journalists to the threat of censure, the loss of livelihood and physical attack.

    Read on: News24
  • LEBANON: ‘Civil society has taken the lead in advocating for social change, human rights and political reforms’

    fadel-fakih.png

    CIVICUS speaks about deteriorating civic space conditions amid political and security instability in Lebanon with Fadel Fakih, Executive Director of the Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH).

    Founded in 1997, CLDH is a civil society organisation (CSO) working to enforce human rights for all, denounce human rights violators and fight impunity by providing legal and rehabilitation services.

    What’s been the impact of the ongoing political paralysis?

    Since April 2023, Lebanon’s parliament has repeatedly postponed municipal elections under the pretext of lack of funding and technical and logistical obstacles. This has impeded local democratic processes critical for addressing community needs, allocating resources and delivering essential services. The prolonged delay in holding elections has diminished people’s ability to raise concerns, hold local authorities accountable and participate in decisions directly affecting their lives.

    Parliament has also been unable to designate a president since the incumbent’s mandate expired in October 2022. It has tried and failed to elect a new president 12 times already. This political deadlock has significantly impacted on national governance and decision-making processes.

    A fully functional presidency is essential to guide Lebanon through its multifaceted crises and ensure the effective operation of government institutions. The absence of a president has obstructed the formation of a new government that would have to enact reforms and address urgent political, economic and security concerns. This has exacerbated public frustration and deepened a pervasive sense of uncertainty.

    What’s the current security and human rights situation in southern Lebanon?

    Since 8 October 2023, villages in South Lebanon have endured daily Israeli bombardments and exchanges of fire. As a result, at least 14 civilians have been killed, including women, children and older people. The press has also been deliberately targeted, resulting in the death of Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah on 13 October. According to the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, as of 14 November the death toll stood at 77 people, with 328 wounded.

    The deteriorating security situation prompted the closure of 52 schools and forced many people to evacuate their homes, pushing the number of internally displaced people in Lebanon to over 46,000.

    Moreover, the Israeli army has deployed artillery shells containing white phosphorus, in violation of international humanitarian law. This has caused extensive damage to private properties, public infrastructure and agricultural land. Israeli shelling in southern Lebanon has also sparked fires that destroyed approximately 40,000 olive trees and scorched hundreds of square kilometres of land, dealing a severe blow to one of Lebanon’s primary agricultural crops.

    What are the conditions for civil society in Lebanon?

    In recent years Lebanese civil society has grappled with significant challenges. In the absence of basic government action, CSOs have taken the lead in advocating for social change, human rights and political reforms. Over the past year, civil society has tried to maintain momentum for change despite escalating problems, including the vacuum in the presidency, arbitrary deportations of Syrian refugees, targeted attacks on LGBTQI+ people and external security threats.

    But civil society efforts have been hindered by limited resources and a context of economic crisis, political instability, widespread corruption and a challenging humanitarian situation. Moreover, a smear campaign that powerful politicians launched in 2019 has caused a surge in hate speech and the targeting of civil society as a whole.

    Additionally, during 2023 we have experienced significant backsliding on freedom of expression, as media outlets and journalists have been increasingly targeted through legal actions, arrests, harassment and intimidation. Journalists critical of political figures or parties face reprisal, as influential groups abuse their power to try to suppress media coverage that contradicts their interests. For example, several journalists were recently summoned to the Cybercrimes Bureau in retaliation for their online publications. In October, CLDH faced direct threats from former military personnel for advocating for accountability in the case of a murdered Syrian national.

    Reporting on sensitive issues such as sectarian conflicts, government policies, corruption and security challenges often draws excessive attention from authorities who seek to control the narrative and conceal information that could destabilise the status quo. They also intend to use a draft media law currently under parliamentary discussion to further restrict freedom of expression.

    How does CLDH work to advance human rights, and what challenges do you face?

    CLDH advances human rights through a comprehensive approach that includes advocacy, research, public mobilisation, pro bono legal services for vulnerable groups regardless of nationality or migratory status, rehabilitation services for victims of torture and enforced disappearance and capacity development for key stakeholders in the human rights field. Through a project funded by the United Nations Democracy Fund, we are working to empower victims of human rights violations to become civic activists engaged in public awareness campaigns and policy reforms.

    Given the multifaceted nature of our work, we frequently encounter challenges such as limited funding and resources, security risks associated with handling sensitive cases, legal restrictions, widespread misinformation and apathy, and difficulties in accessing vulnerable groups. Other obstacles arise from the economic crisis, deteriorating conditions in Lebanese prisons and financial hardships faced by excluded groups.

    What forms of international support does Lebanese civil society receive, and what further support do you need?

    Lebanese CSOs receive international support in the form of financial assistance and grants, which are particularly crucial during crises when resources are scarce. Support also comes in the form of capacity development programmes and technical assistance aimed at increasing impact. International partnerships and networks also help amplify the voices of Lebanese civil society and strengthen our calls for policy changes.

    Further assistance is needed to ensure the financial sustainability of local CSOs and their resilience to external shocks, enabling consistent operation in difficult circumstances. Donors must align their support with local needs and priorities to address context-specific challenges.

     

    Civic space in Lebanon is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

    Get in touch with LCHR through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@HumanRightsCLDH onTwitter.

    The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIVICUS.
  • LESOTHO: ‘We need constitutional protections for press freedom and access to information’

    KananeloBoloetseCIVICUS speaks about press freedoms in Lesotho with Kananelo Boloetse, chairperson of the Lesotho Chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA Lesotho).

    Established in 1996, MISA Lesotho is a civil society organisation (CSO) dedicated to monitoring, investigating and reporting on violations and promoting media freedoms and the freedom of expression through research, advocacy, collaboration and capacity development.
  • Maldives: amend provision in the evidence act that compels journalists to reveal sources

    The undersigned 10 organizations call on the government of Maldives to repeal or amend the deeply problematic provision in the Evidence Act (Act No. 11/2022) that compels journalists to reveal sources on court orders and to ensure the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and the press in line with international human rights law.
  • New digital security law a further blow to media freedom and free expression in Bangladesh
    • The Digital Security Act was passed despite protests from civil society and journalists
    • DSA  incorporates other legislation that has been systematically used to silence dissent
    • New law comes amid a growing, brutal crackdown on peaceful protests and dissent  
    • NGO letter to EU Ministers on rule of law and human rights situation in Poland

      As the EU General Affairs Council prepares to hold a hearing on 22 February on the rule of law in Poland under the Article 7.1 TEU procedure, the undersigned civil society organisations would like to draw your attention to some alarming developments. Since the Council last discussed the situation in June 2021, a severe and steady decline in the respect for EU values in Poland has continued unabated. Despite the numerous actions undertaken by EU institutions since the procedure was launched in 2017, the Polish government has continued to systematically infringe upon those standards and ignore EU recommendations and the EU Court’s rulings.

    Página 2 de 4

CONTACTA CON NOSOTROS

CANALES DIGITALES

SUDÁFRICA
25  Owl Street, 6th Floor
Johannesburgo,
Sudáfrica,
2092
Tel: +27 (0)11 833 5959
Fax: +27 (0)11 833 7997

UN HUB: GINEBRA
11 Avenue de la Paix
Ginebra
Suiza
CH-1202
Tel: +41.79.910.34.28

UN HUB: NUEVA YORK
CIVICUS, c/o We Work
450 Lexington Ave
Nueva York
NY 10017
Estados Unidos