United Nations

Turkmenistan at UN Human Rights Council: Adoption of Universal Periodic Review Report
CIVICUS welcomes the government of Turkmenistan's engagement with the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process. We welcome the release of journalist Saparmamed Nepeskuliev but note with concern that his health deteriorated while serving a three-year prison term on spurious drug-charges that the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found to be arbitrary.

In our UPR Submission, we documented that since its last review, Turkmenistan has not implemented any of the 27 recommendations made relating to civic space, including the 24 recommendations that were accepted.

Furthermore, there are 112 individuals forcibly disappeared, who have been targeted for political opposition or their work in civil society. We echo the recommendation made in the 3rd Cycle Review that Turkmenistan welcome a visit by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Working Group on Enforced Disappearances.

We are further concerned by state interference in the media. In April 2018, the President dismissed Kaybov Myratdurdy, the editor of Edebiýat we Sungat newspaper and replaced him with his own candidate. The state has also forcibly dismantled private satellite dishes which allow citizens to access foreign TV and radio stations.

Mr. President, we are deeply concerned by ongoing violations of freedom of assembly. The government of Turkmenistan regularly and coercively mobilises residents for public events and frequently implements subbotnik (or forced labour) days. Mr. President, this practice runs contrary to the right to freedom of assembly, a basic element of which is voluntary participation in assemblies.

Due to numerous obstacles in the 2014 Law on Public Associations, no independent human rights organisations exist in Turkmenistan. We urge the government to implement the recommendations made during the 3rd Cycle Review to simplify the legal and procedural requirements for the registration of civil society.

Mr. President, CIVICUS calls on the Government of Turkmenistan to take proactive measures to address these concerns and implement recommendations to create and maintain, in law and in practice, an enabling environment for civil society.
UGANDA: ‘Closure of the UN office will result in the loss of a crucial player in the field of human rights’
CIVICUS speaks about the human rights situation and the closure of the United Nations (UN) office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Uganda with Dr Livingstone Sewanyana, founder and Executive Director of the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) andUN independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order.

Founded in 1991, FHRI is a human rights civil society organisation (CSO) working to advance democratic development and fundamental freedoms in Uganda.

What were the achievements of the UN human rights office in Uganda, and why is it closing?

The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was established in Uganda during a period of conflict that particularly affected northern Uganda, with a head office in Kampala and regional offices based in north and northeastern Uganda. Its main objective was to promote reconciliation and peacebuilding, which was successfully achieved.

The UN office played a key role in creating awareness among communities about their rights and ways to defend them. It conducted extensive human rights monitoring to expose violations and contributed significantly to building the capacity of the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) – the national human rights institution – and various local CSOs through technical assistance and, at times, financial support for their programmes.

After the goal of rebuilding northern Uganda was achieved, the agreement was extended multiple times, with 2023 agreed as a potential cut-off. The Ugandan authorities cite the achievement of its goals as a reason not to prolong the UN office’s mandate. Civil society groups, however, think its closure will result in the loss of a crucial player in the field of human rights, given the critical role it played in terms of democratisation in Uganda, capacity development, technical assistance and human rights monitoring.

How do you assess the work of the UHRC?

The UHRC is entrusted with a broad mandate, encompassing both promotional and protective functions, along with a tribunal for handling human rights complaints. As the national human rights institution, it consistently submits annual reports to parliament.

While the UHRC’s promotional efforts are commendable, challenges arise in its protective role because this requires goodwill from the state. Insufficient resources and lack of political will, particularly on controversial issues, hinder its ability to function effectively.

The UHRC’s independence has always been questioned. Although the authorities may not interfere directly with its work, the lack of executive action on its recommendations undermines its potential and credibility. The UHRC needs more space to execute its mandate effectively.

How does FHRI defend and promote human rights?

For over 32 years, we’ve monitored, documented and reported human rights abuses. Our reports reach various stakeholders, including government, parliament, international bodies, the media and civil society. We also engage with young people through university programmes, fostering an understanding of rights and obligations. We actively assist victims of human rights violations through our legal aid programme, which handles over 1,000 cases every year, and provide mediation and administrative support services.

Our campaigns include a 30-year effort to abolish the death penalty. Although Uganda has retained it, the death penalty is now restricted to the most ‘serious crimes’, and opportunities for a prerogative of mercy have been established. If someone who’s been sentenced to death is not executed within three years, their sentence is automatically commuted to life imprisonment. We have consistently challenged the application of the death penalty in the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court.

We also engage in legislative advocacy, analysing bills and voicing our position on their human rights implications, as seen in our response to the Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023, which unfortunately retained a provision for the death penalty. However, we succeeded in securing the removal of the mandatory death penalty provision by parliament.

We actively report to the UN Human Rights Council and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. As a UN independent expert, I recently presented my sixth report to the Human Rights Council, sharing findings from my visit to the Republic of Georgia.

In sum, our work cuts across community, district, national and international divides. Taking a holistic approach, we conduct awareness raising, capacity development and advocacy campaigns and provide legal protection to victims of abuse through recourse to courts. We are affiliated with the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty and the International Federation of Human Rights Defenders.

What challenges do Ugandan human rights organisations face?

Civic space is getting more and more restricted and civil society is becoming more apprehensive. We have limited funding to carry out our work and regularly face legislative challenges, such as the restrictive Public Order and Management Act of 2013, which constrains assemblies and public meetings.

Civil society groups are confined to operating within the narrow framework of the law, and it’s difficult to expand the frontiers of your work. Recently, 54 CSOs have had to suspend their operations due to non-compliance with the NGO Act 2016.

To ensure the sustainability of our day-to-day operations we need expertise, and retaining experienced staff is difficult due to the potential lure of international organisations.

There’s a need to broaden civic space and ensure an enabling environment for everyone to exercise their rights. For this to happen, the state must implement recommendations from the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process and UN treaty bodies.

What international support do you receive, and what support do you need?

CIVICUS has been instrumental in supporting our human rights monitoring and reporting work. We have submitted several joint reports to the UN Human Rights Council and UN Human Rights Committee.

We also require assistance in capacity development to promote better understanding of the human rights architecture. Most crucially, financial support is needed to empower human rights defenders to participate in forums and carry out their work effectively. In a society grappling with poverty and high unemployment, the demand for technical and financial assistance is high, and human rights organisations are often looked upon as potential providers.

Civic space in Uganda is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with FHRI through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@FHRI2 and@LSewanyana onTwitter.
UGANDA: ‘Shrinking civic space means affected communities are not able to make their voices count’

CIVICUS discusses the hopes and roles of civil society at the forthcoming COP28 climate summit with Ireen Twongirwe, a climate activist and CEO of Women for Green Economy Movement Uganda (WoGEM).

WoGEM is a community-based civil society organisation (CSO) dedicated to advocating for and promoting women’s and girls’ participation in a greener economy. It brings together vulnerable women and girls and equips them with knowledge and capacities to engage in the search for sustainable community livelihoods and climate change mitigation and resilience efforts.
UGANDA: ‘The UN human rights office was instrumental in addressing human rights concerns in the conflict and post-conflict period’
CIVICUS speaks about the closure of the United Nations (UN) office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Uganda with Robert Kirenga, Executive Director of the National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders-Uganda (NCHRD-U).

Founded in 2013, NCHRD-U is a civil society organisation (CSO) that coordinates Ugandan human rights defenders (HRDs) to work collectively to safeguard their work and protect their safety.

What work did the UN human rights office in Uganda do?

The UN human rights office in Uganda had a great impact on human rights over its 18 years. Initially, when Uganda was still plagued by a civil war that lasted almost 20 years, this office was instrumental in addressing human rights concerns in the conflict and post-conflict period. The UN set up sub-regional offices to monitor, document and report on the human rights situation and build state and non-state capacities in the field of human rights protection and promotion.

The UN office cooperated well with law enforcement agencies, the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC), which is the national human rights institution, and CSOs. By supporting or holding joint activities aimed at defending human rights, the UN contributed to the visibility of various national institutions. It provided civic education materials to enhance the capacities of HRDs to understand, appreciate and apply treaty and charter-based mechanisms for upholding human rights in Uganda. Sometimes the UN provided funding for initiatives commemorating international human rights events, including Human Rights Defenders Day on 9 December, Human Rights Day on 10 December, International Day for Persons with Disabilities on 3 December and the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture on 26 June, among others.

Why is the UN office closing, and what’s been the reaction of Ugandan human rights organisations?

The UN human rights office is closing because the Ugandan government decided not to renew or extend its mandate, stating it believes it has fulfilled its role. Reactions to this decision have been mixed, with some feeling it was premature, as the office had still significant work to do, particularly since it was providing crucial support to the severely underfunded UHRC.

The closure of the office also had a significant impact on its employees and service providers, as it resulted in job losses and affected the income of landlords and other service suppliers. Many CSOs that had joint programmes with the UN office are experiencing a serious gap in their operations.

Some believed the local capacities the UN had developed over time were sufficient for local institutions to take on the responsibility of protecting and promoting human rights in Uganda, while others argued that the office had become compromised by the condition that whatever it did had to be in a joint venture with the UHRC. This led some to perceive the office as weak and ineffective when it came to reporting on and condemning significant human rights abuses during the 2021 general election, which included extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture.

How do you assess the work of the UHRC?

The UHRC has made efforts despite being underfunded. Its robust legal and policy gives it the authority to carry out its mandate impartially, so what it truly needs are human and financial resources so it can execute the full range of its duties. In can be independent if it’s adequately resourced and its members are guaranteed the security of tenure.

For a long time, the UHRC was hampered by lack of leadership due to the executive’s delays in appointing its members. There’s a public perception that appointees serve the interests of the appointing authority rather than the country, as the appointment process lacks public involvement and rigorous scrutiny. The appointment procedure must be reformed to become more transparent and participatory, embedding scrutiny at every stage, from nominations to parliamentary vetting.

The UHRC has also faced criticism for not fully exercising its powers, including the ability to summon state officials accused of serious human rights violations to hold them accountable and use quasi-judicial powers such as the power to release unlawfully detained people.

What work does NCHRD-U do?

Our mission as a coalition of HRDs is to safeguard the rights of HRDs and advance their work in a secure environment by collaborating with national, regional and international like-minded organisations. We pursue this mission in three key programme areas: capacity building, emergency support and protection, and advocacy.

In our capacity-building programme, we focus on enhancing the capabilities of HRDs to maintain their personal security, including digital safety. Our emergency support and protection initiative provides assistance from various security angles to HRDs under threat. Our advocacy efforts focus on improving the working conditions for HRDs by advocating for conducive laws and policies that protect human rights activism within local jurisdictions.

We also serve as the coordinating body for UN Charter and treaty-based mechanisms in Uganda. In this capacity, we bring together Ugandan CSOs to prepare and compile shadow reports for the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process and human rights treaty bodies.

What human rights violations are experienced by LGBTQI+ people in Uganda?

LGBTQI+ people face human rights violations and abuse from a homophobic and intolerant society. They are often victims of discrimination in employment, are forcibly evicted by landlords and subjected to humiliation, derogatory name-calling, arrests, physical assaults and, in extreme cases, homicide. LGBTQI+ people can’t register organisations to advance their rights and can’t exercise their freedom of expression due to the fear of being identified, so they’re denied basic human rights. Communities are hostile to LGBTQI+ people. In essence, they do not enjoy the same freedoms and rights as others in society.

As for the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2023, there appears to be some confusion and a lack of clarity around the fact that it criminalises homosexual acts, not the fact of being homosexual. But there are mixed signals regarding who can be prosecuted under the act and what charges they can face. The law was enacted in May 2023 and is in effect. The best that civil society could do was file a petition at the Constitutional Court questioning its constitutionality, and we are currently awaiting a hearing date.

What are conditions for human rights organisations in Uganda?

We face a number of challenges ranging from accessibility of financial resources to a restrictive legal environment that imposes redundant documentation and information requirements from different statutory bodies that often overlap and are very costly, cumbersome and time-consuming.

Moreover, we confront threats of closure, non-renewal of operating licences, illegal freezing of organisational accounts and intimidation, mainly from overzealous state officials, including arrests and assaults, particularly when attempting to exercise the right to protest.

Ability to operate in this challenging context varies among organisations. Some adopt a cautious approach and practise self-censorship, while others have become even more resilient and continue to pursue their agendas while challenging the status quo through legal avenues. While not many independent CSOs have had to shut down or relocate, the inability to mobilise resources and the long suspension and eventual winding up of the Democratic Governance Facility, a donor vehicle that supported CSOs, have heavily contributed to the crisis we are currently facing.

Some resources and funding continue to flow into human rights organisations from foreign missions accredited in Uganda and international organisations and foundations headquartered outside the country. However, there is a pressing need for solidarity with human rights CSOs facing challenges related to obtaining operating licences and funding constraints. Such international support is crucial to keep them afloat so they can continue their vital work.

Civic space in Uganda is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with NCHRD-U through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@NCHRD_UG and@BRKirenga onTwitter.
UK: ‘Women in ethnic minority communities are often treated like second-class citizens’
As part of the #16DaysOfActivism campaign, CIVICUS speaks about gender-based violence and civil society efforts to eradicate it with Halaleh Taheri, founder and Executive Director of the Middle Eastern Women and Society Organisation (MEWSo).

Founded in 2010, MEWSo is a London-based civil society organisation (CSO) run by and for women from ethnic minority communities of mostly Middle Eastern, North African and Asian backgrounds.

The 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence is an annual international campaign that kicks off on 25 November, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and runs until 10 December, Human Rights Day.

What work does MEWSo do?

MEWSo was founded with the aim of supporting women, especially those displaced from the Middle East, Asia and North Africa, in London. We help women who are vulnerable and have no access to resources that will help them. Our services include advice and support on issues of domestic abuse and violence. We offer women assistance to navigate court procedures and help them seek refuge. Over the past few years we have worked a lot with migrant women because their situation is very hard. When they are faced with domestic violence and want to leave their homes, we support them emotionally, with accommodation and with their status with Home Office.

We also offer free workshops to help improve women’s skills and empower them. We bring in specialists to give talks about mental and physical wellbeing so women can gain the confidence to leave the abusive spaces they find themselves in. Every year we tackle about 300 cases of domestic violence. We have five advisors working in different languages to accommodate those who struggle with English.

We have created three campaigns. One is Polygamy Matters, which we run jointly with Greenwich University. It is aimed at empowering women to be independent. Another one is End Virginity Myth. We first formed a coalition against virginity testing; now both virginity testing and hymenoplasty have been banned, but the reality is that communities still continue practising it, so the campaign continues.

A third campaign focused on the rights of LGBTQI+ people. LGBTQI+ issues are a big taboo in our communities and people suffer a lot of abuse from their families and community members. We have a range of projects to support them and ensure that they remain safe in their communities and live the life they deserve.

Finally, we are part of two coalitions,Solidarity Knows No Borders Network andStep Up Migrant Women, advocating for the rights of migrant women and providing protection to those in abusive situations.

What challenges have you faced in your work?

We have faced several challenges. One of them is that in our communities the government has for years left people in the hands of community leaders. These leaders do not have a proper connection with women and children because they are driven by patriarchal values. They tend to lead people based on the most oppressive traits of their culture and enforce religious practices that exclude women and children. Women are often treated like second-class citizens and find it difficult to exercise their freedom. We have seen women trying to get out of abusive marriages being denied their request by their communities’ leadership. Community leaders should not have that much power over people because they are misusing it.

Because of the nature of our work, community leaders have tried to make it difficult for us to reach certain vulnerable women and girls. They very rarely encounter someone who challenges them and if they see you as a threat, they immediately start making your work difficult. Nonetheless, we have been able to continue doing our work, finding ways to bring safety to women and children.

Another challenge is that some of the women we help end up going back to their abusive partners because they are under pressure or have been abandoned by family and community. Sometimes there is no support with accommodation available and they worry they may end up in the street. Despite all our efforts, loyalty to family and fear of punishment makes them want to stay in abusive relationships. When faced with these situations, we continue creating spaces so that women can gradually gain the confidence to be free.

Finally, we don’t have enough access to resources to help us carry out our work. Unfortunately, we can only offer limited support to women seeking safety.

What are you doing for the #16DaysOfActivism campaign?

This year, our efforts to raise awareness about women’s rights are focused on showing solidarity to the women’s liberation movement in Iran. Over the past two months Iranian women havespoken up andprotested against the oppression they face, sacrificing their life for freedom. I am originally a Kurdish freedom fighter from the 1979 revolution in Iran. I have lived four decades in exile and rebuilt my life in different countries. I am passionate about and active in the women’s liberation movement, following all the news and analysis of the recent uprising in Iran. For this reason, we have organised an international event,Raise Your Voice International Women's Conference, that will be held on 28 November and will feature speakers from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Palestine, where women face similar issues as a result of religious restrictions.

What should the international community do to contribute to eradicating gender-based violence?

Countless women around the world are being discriminated against socially, economically and politically. Cases of abuse and femicide are on the rise and there are few mechanisms in place to stop them. Unaddressed issues range from forced marriage and female genital mutilation to unemployment and lack of health and educational resources.

We cannot stand it anymore; we need governments and international bodies to take action. The United Nations has many member states who are mistreating their citizens. These states attend meetings and are given a global platform although they are doing a miserable job at home. They shouldn’t have such privileges when they are torturing and executing women.

The protests in Iran and the actions of resistance in Afghanistan and elsewhere are showing that people, and specifically women, are taking charge and fighting for their freedom. Women in many places are connected because they carry the same pain and so it is only natural for them to unite to fight against their common oppressor. Women’s liberation movements are making it globally known that freedom is women’s natural right and they are willing to claim it. They are fed up with the empty promises that governments and international bodies have repeatedly made to fight against gender-based violence. This year cannot be one of further promises – it has to be one of action.

https://myanmar-now.org/en/news/election-officials-censor-parties-campaign-speeches-like-the-dictatorship-did

Civic space in the UK is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with MEWSo through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@MewsOrg on Twitter.
UN CSD Education Caucus releases report from Rio+20
Through this summary report, the Education Caucus provides a detailed account of their many successes at the conference, lessons learned, and partnerships made.

Read more at the UN CSD Education Caucus
UN CYBERCRIME TREATY: ‘Civil society is fact-checking the arguments made by states’
CIVICUS speaks with Ian Tennant about the importance of safeguarding human rights in the ongoing process to draft a United Nations (UN) Cybercrime Treaty.

Ian isthe Chair of theAlliance of NGOs on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, a broad network of civil society organisations (CSOs) advancing the crime prevention and criminal justice agenda through engagement with relevant UN programmes and processes. He’s the Head of the Vienna Multilateral Representation and Resilience Fund at theGlobal Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, a global CSO headquartered in Geneva, focused on research, analysis and engagement on all forms of organised crime and illicit markets. Both organisations participate as observers in negotiations for the UN Cybercrime Treaty.

Why is there need for a UN treaty dealing with cybercrime?

There is no consensus on the need for a UN treaty dealing with cybercrime. The consensus-based bodies dealing with cybercrime at the UN, primarily the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), could not agree on whether there was a need for the treaty since the issue was first raised officially at the UN Crime Congress in 2010, and in 2019 it was taken to a vote at the UN General Assembly. The resolution starting the process towards a treaty was passed with minority support, due to a high number of abstentions. Nevertheless, the process is now progressing and member states on all sides of the debate are participating.

The polarisation of positions on the need for the treaty has translated into a polarisation of views of how broad the treaty should be – with those countries that were in favour of the treaty calling for a broad range of cyber-enabled crimes to be included, and those that were against the treaty calling for a narrowly focussed treaty on cyber-dependent crimes.

What should be done to ensure the treaty isn’t used by repressive regimes to crack down on dissent?

Balancing effective measures against cybercrime and human rights guarantees is the fundamental issue that needs to be resolved by this treaty negotiation process, and at the moment it is unclear how this will be accomplished. The most effective way to ensure the treaty is not used to crack down on dissent and other legitimate activities is to ensure a treaty focused on a clear set of cyber-dependent crimes with adequate and clear human rights safeguards present throughout the treaty.

In the absence of a digital rights treaty, this treaty has to provide those guarantees and safeguards. If a broad cooperation regime without adequate safeguards is established, there is a real risk that the treaty could be used by some states as a tool of oppression and suppression of activism, journalism and other civil society activities that are vital in any effective crime response and prevention strategy.

How much space is there for civil society to contribute to the negotiations process?

The negotiations for the treaty have been opened for CSOs to contribute to the process through an approach that does not allow states to veto individual CSOs. There is space for CSOs to bring in their contributions under each agenda item, and through intersessional meetings where they can present and lead discussions with member states. This process is in some ways a model that other UN negotiations could follow as a best practice.

CSOs, as well as the private sector, are bringing vital perspectives to the table on the potential impacts of proposals made in the treaty negotiations, on practical issues, on data protection and on human rights. Fundamentally, CSOs are providing fact-checking and evidence to back up or challenge the arguments made by member states as proposals are made and potential compromises are discussed.

What progress has been made so far, and what have been the main obstacles in the negotiations?

On paper, the Ad Hoc Committee has only two meetings left until the treaty is supposed to be adopted – one meeting will take place in August and the other in early 2024. The Committee has already held five meetings, during which the full range of issues and draft provisions to be included in the treaty have been discussed. The next stage will be for a draft treaty to be produced by the Chair, and then for that draft to be debated and negotiated in the next two meetings.

The main obstacle has been the existence of quite fundamental differences in visions for the treaty – from a broad treaty allowing for criminalisation of and cooperation on a diverse range of offences to a narrow treaty focussed on cyber-dependent crimes. Those different objectives mean that the Committee has so far lacked a common vision, which is what negotiations need to discover in the coming months.

What are the chances that the final version of the treaty will meet international human rights standards while fulfilling its purpose?

It is up to the negotiators from all sides, and how far they are willing to move in order to achieve agreement, whether the treaty will have a meaningful impact on cybercrime while also staying true to international human rights standards and the general human rights ethos of the UN. This is the optimal outcome, but given the current political atmosphere and challenges, it will be hard to achieve.

There is a chance the treaty could be adopted without adequate safeguards, and that consequently only a small number of countries ratify it, thereby diminishing its usefulness, but also directing the rights risks to only those countries who sign up. There is also a chance the treaty could have very high human rights standards, but again not many countries ratify it – limiting its usefulness for cooperation but neutering its human rights risks.

Get in touch with the Alliance of NGOs on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice through itswebsite and follow@GI_TOC and@IanTennant9 on Twitter.
UN CYBERCRIME TREATY: ‘This is not about protecting states but about protecting people’
CIVICUS speaks withStéphane Duguin aboutthe weaponisation of technology and progress being madetowards a United Nations (UN) Cybercrime Treaty.

Stéphaneis an expert onthe use of disruptive technologies such as cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns and online terrorism and theChief Executive Officer of the CyberPeace Institute,a civil society organisation (CSO) founded in 2019 to help humanitarian CSOs and vulnerable communitieslimit the harm of cyberattacks andpromote responsible behaviour in cyberspace. It conducts research and advocacy and provides legal and policy expertise in diplomatic negotiations, including theUN Ad Hoc Committee elaborating the Cybercrime Convention.

Why is there need for a new UN treaty dealing with cybercrime?

Several legal instruments dealing with cybercrime already exist, including the 2001 Council of Europe Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, the first international treaty aimed at addressing cybercrimes and harmonising legislations to enhance cooperation in the area of cybersecurity, ratified by 68 states around the world as of April 2023. This was followed by regional tools such as the 2014 African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection, among others.

But the problem behind these instruments is that they aren’t enforced properly. The Budapest Convention has not even been ratified by most states, although it is open to all. And even when they’ve been signed and ratified, these instruments aren’t operationalised. This means that data is not accessible across borders, international cooperation is complicated to achieve and requests for extradition are not followed up on.

There is urgent need to reshape cross-border cooperation to prevent and counter crimes, especially from a practical point of view. States with more experience fighting cybercrimes could help less resourced ones by providing technical assistance and helping build capacity.

This is why the fact that the UN is currently negotiating a major global Cybercrime Convention is so important. In 2019, to coordinate the efforts of member states, CSOs, including CyberPeace Institute, academic institutions and other stakeholders, the UN General Assembly established the Ad Hoc Committee to elaborate a ‘Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communication Technologies for Criminal Purpose’ – a Cybercrime Convention in short. This will be the first international legally binding framework for cyberspace.

The aims of the new treaty are to reduce the likelihood of attacks, and when these happen, to limit the harm and ensure victims have access to justice and redress. This is not about protecting states but about protecting people.

What were the initial steps in negotiating the treaty?

The first step was to take stock of what already existed and, most importantly, what was missing in the existing instruments in order to understand what needed to be done. It was also important to measure the efficacy of existing tools and determine whether they weren’t working due to their design or because they weren’t being properly implemented. Measuring the human harm of cybercrime was also key to define a baseline for the problem we’re trying to address with the new treaty.

Another step, which interestingly has not been part of the discussion, would be an agreement among all state parties to stop engaging in cybercrimes themselves. It’s strange, to say the least, to be sitting at the table discussing definitions of cyber-enabled and cyber-dependent crimes with states that are conducting or facilitating cyberattacks. Spyware and targeted surveillance, for instance, are being mostly financed and deployed by states, which are also financing the private sector by buying these technologies with taxpayers’ money.

What are the main challenges?

The main challenge has been to define the scope of the new treaty, that is, the list of offences to be criminalised. Crimes committed with the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) generally belong to two distinct categories: cyber-dependent crimes and cyber-enabled crimes. States generally agree that the treaty should include cyber-dependent crimes: offences that can only be committed using computers and ICTs, such as illegally accessing computers, performing denial-of-service attacks and creating and spreading malware. If these crimes weren’t part of the treaty, there wouldn’t be a treaty to speak of.

The inclusion of cyber-enabled crimes, however, is more controversial. These are offences that are carried out online but could be committed without ICTs, such as banking fraud and data theft. There’s no internationally agreed definition of cyber-enabled crimes. Some states consider offences related to online content, such as disinformation, incitement to extremism and terrorism, as cyber-enabled crimes. These are speech-based offences, the criminalisation of which can lead to the criminalisation of online speech or expression, with negative impacts on human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Many states that are likely to be future signatories to the treaty use this kind of language to strike down dissent. However, there is general support for the inclusion of limited exceptions on cyber-enabled crimes, such as online child sexual exploitation and abuse, and computer-related fraud.

There is no way we can reach a wide definition of cyber-enabled crimes unless it’s accompanied with very strict human rights safeguards. In the absence of safeguards, the treaty should encompass a limited scope of crimes. But there’s no agreement on a definition of safeguards and how to put them in place, particularly when it comes to personal data protection.

For victims as well as perpetrators, there’s absolutely no difference between cyber-enabled and cyber-dependent crimes. If you are a victim, you are a victim of both. A lot of criminal groups – and state actors – are using the same tools, infrastructure and processes to perform both types of attacks.

Even though there’s a need to include more cyber-enabled crimes, the way it’s being done is wrong, as there are no safeguards or clear definitions. Most states that are pushing for this have abundantly demonstrated that they don’t respect or protect human rights, and some – including China, Egypt, India, Iran, Russia and Syria – have even proposed to delete all references to international human rights obligations.

Another challenge is the lack of agreement on how international cooperation mechanisms should follow up to guarantee the practical implementation of the treaty. The ways in which states are going to cooperate and the types of activities they will perform together to combat these crimes remain unclear.

To prevent misuse of the treaty by repressive regimes we should focus both on the scope of criminalisation and the conditions for international cooperation. For instance, provisions on extradition should include the principle of dual criminality, which means an act should not be extraditable unless it constitutes a crime in both the countries making and receiving the request. This is crucial to prevent its use by authoritarian states to persecute dissent and commit other human rights violations.

What is civil society bringing to the negotiations?

The drafting of the treaty should be a collective effort aimed at preventing and decreasing the amount of cyberattacks. As independent bodies, CSOs are contributing to it by providing knowledge on the human rights impacts and potential threats and advocating for guarantees for fundamental rights.

For example, the CyberPeace Institute has been analysing disruptive cyberattacks against healthcare institutions amid COVID-19 for two years. We found at least 500 cyberattacks leading to the theft of data of more than 20 million patients. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The CyberPeace Institute also submits recommendations to the Committee based on a victim-centric approach, involving preventive measures, evidence-led accountability for perpetrators, access to justice and redress for victims and prevention of re-victimisation.

We also advocate for a human-rights-by-design approach, which would ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms through robust protections and safeguards. The language of the Convention should refer to specific human rights frameworks such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is important that the fight against cybercrime should not pit national security against human rights.

This framing is especially significant because governments have long exploited anti-cybercrime measures to expand state control, broaden surveillance powers, restrict or criminalise freedoms of expression and assembly and target human rights defenders, journalists and political opposition in the name of national security or fighting terrorism.

In sum, the goal of civil society is to demonstrate the human impact of cybercrimes and make sure states take this into consideration when negotiating the framework and the regulations – which must be created to protect citizens. We bring in the voices of victims, the most vulnerable ones, whose daily cybersecurity is not properly protected by the current international framework. And, as far as the CyberPeace Institute is concerned, we advocate for the inclusion of a limited scope of cybercrimes with clear and narrow definitions to prevent the criminalisation of behaviours that constitute the exercise of fundamental freedoms and human rights.

At what point in the treaty process are we now?

A consolidated negotiating document was the basis for the second reading done in the fourth and fifth sessions held in January and April 2023. The next step is to release a zero draft in late June, which will be negotiated in the sixth session that will take place in New York between August and September 2023.

The process normally culminates with a consolidation by states, which is going to be difficult since there’s a lot of divergence and a tight deadline: the treaty should be taken to a vote at the 78^th UN General Assembly session in September 2024.

There’s a bloc of states looking for a treaty with the widest possible scope, and another bloc leaning towards a convention with a very limited scope and strong safeguards. But even within this bloc there is still disagreement when it comes to data protection, the approach to security and the ethics of specific technologies such as artificial intelligence.

What are the chances that the final version of the treaty will meet international human rights standards while fulfilling its purpose?

Considering how the process has been going so far, I’m not very optimistic, especially on the issue of upholding human rights standards, because of the crucial lack of definition of human rights safeguards. We shouldn’t forget negotiations are happening in a context of tense geopolitical confrontation. The CyberPeace Institute has been tracing the attacks deployed since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. We’ve witnessed over 1,500 campaigns of attacks with close to 100 actors involved, many of them states, and impacts on more than 45 countries. This geopolitical reality further complicates the negotiations.

By looking at the text that’s on the table right now, it is falling short of its potential to improve the lives of victims in cyberspace. This is why the CyberPeace Institute remains committed to the drafting process – to inform and sensitise the discussions toward a more positive outcome.

Get in touch with the CyberPeace Institute through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@CyberpeaceInst and@DuguinStephane on Twitter.
UN General Assembly vote today: CIVICUS calls on South Africa to reject attempts at the UN to block the appointment of the first-ever independent LGBTI expert
Global civil society alliance, CIVICUS urges the South African government to reject attempts at the UN to block the appointment of the first-ever independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity. A vote is due today at the UN General Assembly in New York to overturn the appointment of the expert which was mandated by the Geneva based UN Human Rights Council in June this year following a resolution.

The current situation has arisen out of a move by the 54 members of the Africa Group to suspend the September 2016 appointment of Thai international lawyer, Professor Vitit Muntarbhorn as the first UN Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Independent Expert, who began his work on 1 November, is responsible for monitoring and reporting on implementation of international human rights standards to overcome violence and discrimination against LGBTI persons.

“The creation of the mandate of the Independent Expert reflects the sustained and concerted efforts of a broad coalition of civil society stakeholders, UN bodies and states against violence and discrimination against the LGBTI community,” said Mandeep Tiwana Head of Policy and Research for CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance. “We hope South Africa will stand firm on its constitutional commitment against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

In a global climate of continued prejudice and hostility against the LGBTI community, a vote to suspend the work of the Independent Expert would undermine the development of crucial international mechanisms to ensure that LGBTI individuals and groups subject to discrimination, harassment and attacks at home access have access to necessary protections and scrutiny. According to global civil society group the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), over 70 countries maintain laws that criminalise same sex relations.

CIVICUS urges South Africa to take a principled position in line with its constitutional values by (i) voting against the resolution to defer the appointment of an Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and (ii) by engaging the states opposed to the expert’s mandate on the need to uphold not undermine the international human rights framework.

Note to editors

In June 2016, the UN Human Rights Council, the world’s premier human rights body adopted Resolution 32/2 establishing the mandate of the Independent Expert. The resolution, presented by the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Uruguay, was approved by the 47 member UN Human Rights Council. The resolution expands and elaborates on two prior resolutions including in 2011, led by South Africa, and in 2014 led by Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Uruguay to counter and violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
UN Human Rights Council adopts resolution on civil society space
Today, the United Nations Human Rights council adopted a new resolution recognising the role of civil society during the pandemic and in the recovery efforts.
UN Human Rights Council adopts resolution on Myanmar
Resolution on Myanmar adopted at the 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council

This resolution, adopted by consensus, represents an important step towards achieving accountability and justice in Myanmar
UN Human Rights Council falls short of action needed on Cambodia’s human rights crisis
Resolution on Cambodia adopted at the 48th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council

The Human Rights Council has renewed the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Cambodia, but the resolution adopted by the Council today does not reflect nor adequately address the escalating political and human rights crisis in the country.

With Cambodia’s main opposition party dissolved in 2017 and its politicians barred from politics, the fragile veneer of democracy engendered by the Paris Peace Accords has disintegrated, leaving the country a de facto one-party state.

The resolution mandates one additional update by the Special Rapporteur to the Council in March 2022, which will allow for further scrutiny of the country ahead of the communal election, set for June 2022. A second additional update, set for March 2023 ahead of the national elections in June that same year, was removed from the draft resolution shortly before its adoption.

‘It is disappointing that the resolution does not reach the bare minimum needed to address the ongoing deterioration of human rights in Cambodia,’ said Cornelius Hanung, Asia Advocacy Officer for CIVICUS. ‘The human rights situation in the country has drastically deteriorated since the last time this resolution was negotiated in 2019, and conditions for free and fair elections are fundamentally and conspicuously absent. There is no sign of domestic or international political will to address this.’

Calls from civil society for enhanced monitoring and reporting by the High Commissioner were not considered.

‘Free and fair elections depend not only on the ability of political parties to participate, but also on press freedom, the ability to dissent without fear of harassment and reprisals, and on civil society being able to organize and assemble,’ said Cornelius Hanung. ‘But we consistently see repressive laws and judicial harassment used in Cambodia to restrict civic freedoms, undermine and weaken civil society, and criminalize individuals for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly.’

Cambodia has consistently cited its constructive engagement with the Human Rights Council to pre-empt stronger action, such as additional monitoring, to address its human rights crisis.

‘Attacks against the Special Rapporteur and his mandate by Cambodia during the Interactive Dialogue to his report represented just the latest example of ‘constructive engagement,’ which to date has been minimal at best and weaponized by Cambodia at worst,’ said Cornelius Hanung. ‘Human rights defenders and those calling for democratic reform on the ground can no longer afford for the Council to seek consensus resolutions at the expense of their protection.’

The adoption of the resolution under the Council’s technical cooperation and capacity-building Item ensures that Cambodia stays on the Council’s agenda for a further two years. CIVICUS maintains its call for the Council to establish a robust monitoring mechanism to adequately assess and address the human rights crisis and further election-related violations.

Civic space in Cambodia is rated 'repressed' by the CIVICUS Monitor.
UN Human Rights Council: Civic space in Eritrea
38th Session of UN Human Rights Council
Dialogue with UN Special Rapporteur on Eritrea

On behalf of CIVICUS, Reporters without Borders, the Eritrean Movement for Democracy and Human Rights, the Eritrean Law society, Eritrea Focus, Network of Eritrean Women, Amnesty International, and the Horn of Africa Civil Society Forum, I would first like to express our deepfelt gratitude and appreciation to the Special Rapporteur for her unwavering support to Eritrean victims of human rights violations.

Today, her work is all the more important. The latest reports emerging from the country indicate that the human rights situation is not improving. Following the imprisonment and death in detention of respected Muslim elder Haji Musa in March 2018, Eritrean authorities have conducted mass arrests and disappearances of youth.

We are also concerned by the Special Rapporteur’s reports that individuals who dare to exercise their right to freedom of expression have been targeted with arrest and detention, while peaceful demonstrations in October 2017 following the arrest of Haji Musa were met with scores of arrests and night house raids without search or arrest warrants.

Since the publication of the UN Commission of Inquiry’s (COI) report, government officials have continued to torture, imprison, and arbitrarily detain people without notifying them of the reason for their arrest.

Mr President, since the publication of the CoI report, not a single individual has been held accountable for the human rights violations, including crimes against humanity, committed in Eritrea. Civil society remains forced to work outside the country and independent press is still not permitted to operate inside the country. Eritrea remains the largest jailer of journalists in sub-Saharan Africa.

The Eritrean government has repeatedly ignored the Special Rapporteur’s requests for access to conduct investigations.

Mr President, we urge the UN Human Rights Council to renew the Special Rapporteur’s mandate and maintain attention on some of the most egregious human rights violations in sub-Saharan Africa. The Human Rights Council has a responsibility to follow up on the CoI’s serious findings and ensure that accountability for crimes against humanity committed in Eritrea remains a priority.
UN Human Rights Council: New Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association
38th Session of the Human Rights Council
Interactive Dialogue with Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity

CIVICUS welcomes this occasion to dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity.

We note with great appreciation the Special Rapporteur’s prioritisation of consultation and engagement with a range of civil society actors during the first months of his mandate.

Mr President, the report presented by the Special Rapporteur today exemplifies the endemic threat civil society across the world is facing. In both severity and frequency, the 1156 communications sent to governments by the mandate since 2011 expose the systematic campaigns to silence dissent as well as the resoluteness of civil society to continue protecting and promoting human rights.

CIVICUS’ research comports with the Special Rapporteur’s analysis that state and non- state actors are using a range of unwarranted and pernicious tactics with the explicit intent to stifle fundamental rights.

We remain deeply concerned that many governments in this chamber routinely pay lip service to the need to protect all human rights and at the same time actively persecute defenders and civil society leaders who work tirelessly to defend these very same rights. This hypocrisy and deceit has rarely, if ever, been so acute.

On this, the first day of the 38th Council Session, we call on all states to heed the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation to treat civil society an ally, rather than an adversary.

We further urge all States to pledge their support to the Special Rapporteur including by providing all necessary informational and financial resources to discharge the mandate and to work closely with civil society.

See latest updates from CIVICUS' work at the UN Human Rights Council here. Follow the latest events on Twitter #HRC38
UN Human Rights Council: Response to High Commissioner´s update
CIVICUS deeply appreciates High Commissioner’s update, regretfully on an ever darker and more dangerous world.

We are shocked by the report of the man-made disaster in Yemen. In addition, according to the CIVICUS Monitor journalists and human rights defenders continue work in risky conditions caused by the ongoing conflict that has forced three million people to flee their homes. The conflict has left more than seven million at risk of famine and there are currently 500,000 suspected cases of cholera - a third of these are children. NGOs have called for an independent international Inquiry into human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law, and we strongly reiterate this call and urge members of the Council to vote for a resolution with such a mandate.

We equally share the HC’s concern about Venezuela. Findings from CIVICUS Watch show that there are serious violations of the rights to freedom of association, peaceful assembly and expression. Freedom of expression is severely constrained; Radio and Television channels have been closed and, according to Espacia Publica 49 radio stations removed from the air. 800 attacks against freedom of expression documented. Due to new regulations on peaceful assembly more than 5000 were detained during anti -government protest since April 2017 with more than 1,300 persons still in detention. Detainees were often subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and, in several cases documented, the ill-treatment amounted to torture. We call on members of the Council to address the situation in Venezuela as a matter of urgency. The government should be made aware of the fact that those responsible for these human rights abuses will be brought to justice once judicial independence is restored. In addition we call on the Maduro government to:
- End the repression and release all political prisoners
- Set a date for free and fair elections with proper independent oversight
- Restore judicial independence and the power of the National Assembly, and
- Immediately allow sufficient international aid into the country
UN Human Rights Council: Statement on widespread arbitrary detention
UN Human Rights Council
36th session
12 September 2017

Statement at the UN Human Rights Council during interactive diialogue with the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
CIVICUS welcomes the annual and mission reports of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. We applaud the Working Group for its unstinting dedication and invaluable work in exposing the wilful and unwarranted persecution of human rights defenders.

As noted by the Working Group from its annual missions to both Azerbaijan and the United States, politically motivated detention of those who dare to speak out against the government or its policies afflicts both mature and emerging democracies across the world.

It is a matter of deep concern that despite constitutional protections, peaceful demonstrators engaged in legitimate activities continue to face judicial harassment in the US. At least 20 states that have proposed legislation making it harder to protest, creating harsher penalties for protesters who are arrested.

One recent example of the criminalisation of protests is the trial of protesters arrested during the mass demonstration on Inauguration Day in January 2017. Initially, approximately 230 people were arrested and charged with felony rioting. However, on 27th April 2017, additional charges were made against 212 defendants, including three of whom had not previously been charged.

In Azerbaijan, the authorities have failed to head repeated calls from the Work Group and a range of independent UN experts to end the use of judicial harassment to suppress independent dissent. On 3 March 2017, Journalist and blogger, Mehman Huseynov was sentenced to two years in prison on libel charges.

Weeks earlier on 17 February 2017, another Azeri journalist, Elchin Ismayilli, was arrested. Ismayilli is well-known for his articles detailing acts of corruption and human rights violations in Azerbaijan. The authorities haev since charged him with extortion and abuse of power in a position of influence.

We urge both Azerbaijan and the United States to immediately and unconditionally implement the recommendations made by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, including releasing all persons detained for exercising their legitimate rights and repeal all laws and policies which criminalise international and national enshrined rights to association, assembly and expression.
UN Launches Global Survey on Development Agenda
The United Nations Information Centre (UNIC) has launched a global survey which will provide a more open and inclusive planning of the global development agenda post 2015.

The survey called MY World “The United Nations Global Survey for A Better World” will be available online in bahasa Indonesia later this week.

UNIC director Michele Zaccheo said Tuesday that MY World would allow as many people as possible to voice their opinions. This is a chance to tell decision makers what you want prioritized in the global development agenda post 2015. The survey will give them an accurate global picture of what citizens were thinking about, he added.

Take the survey at http://www.myworld2015.org/

Read more at The Jakarta Post
UN Member States must protect the independence of the special procedures
Amnesty International delivers this statement on behalf of 15 NGOs.

We are deeply concerned by continued attacks on the Special Procedures and efforts to undermine their independence. We urge all states to affirm their commitment to human rights and the effectiveness of the international human rights system, by rejecting and condemning these efforts.

We welcome the continued efforts of the Coordination Committee to address objective non-compliance of mandate holders under the Internal Advisory Procedure, including in response to the failure of the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy to submit his reports to the Council in time for their consideration at this session. We urge all states to support the Coordination Committee in their efforts to respond to concerns related to the working methods of the Special Procedures, as well as complaints against individual mandate holders.

At the same time, we deplore the efforts of some states to use this process as a cover to undermine the independence and effectiveness of the Special Procedures for political reasons. As on numerous previous occasions, certain states repeatedly accuse the Special Procedures of politicization but fail to substantively address the human rights concerns they raise.

We particularly regret the Russian Federation’s efforts, on 5 March, to suspend the HRC session altogether and their continued attempts, together with other states, to introduce unwarranted state oversight on the Special Procedures.

We were also alarmed to witness personal attacks on the Special Procedures, most worryingly against the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, by the Chinese delegation, who during the interactive dialogue accused the mandate holder of ‘spread[ing] false information’ and ‘lack[ing] minimum professional ethics.” Such ad hominem attacks are unacceptable, and the Council must respond in the strongest terms to condemn such incidents. They also reveal a broader rejection of dialogue on human rights challenges – despite repeated statements urging the Council to privilege ‘dialogue and cooperation’ - and a lack of willingness on the part of the state concerned to take action to protect human rights.

It is time for states at this Council to take a strong proactive stand for its independent mechanisms, ensuring that they have the support and resources needed to fulfil their mandates and to hold states accountable when they commit human rights violations.

Amnesty International
ARTICLE 19
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Center for Reproductive Rights
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
Forum Menschenrechte e.V.
Human Rights House Foundation
Human Rights Watch
International Commission of Jurists
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Privacy International
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
UN must condemn systematic violations of fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong
The UN’s highest official principally responsible for human rights, High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet, should publicly denounce the Hong Kong Government for its systematic violations of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, and condemn the unnecessary and disproportionate use of force by police in Hong Kong.

The Hong Kong Police Force have systematically suppressed the right to peaceful assembly by using excessive force against individuals exercising their rights, including beating peaceful protesters and using tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets. Police have increasingly denied permits for assemblies and marches and arbitrarily detained individuals for “unlawful assembly.”

The Hong Kong and Chinese Central governments have allowed police to operate with complete impunity. No police officer has faced legal action over excessive use of force or abuse of power in connection to the violent suppression of the protests since the demonstrations broke out. In contrast, police have arrested almost 4,500 individuals in connection to the protests since June 9. There has been credible evidence of torture and ill-treatment of protestors by police in detention.

On November 19, the Office of the High Commissioner released a press briefing which stated incorrectly that the Hong Kong “authorities have by and large respected the exercise of [the] right [to peaceful assembly].” The Office of the High Commissioner failed to condemn police violence. This amounts to a denial of the extensive documentation from credible sources of violations of human rights in Hong Kong and ignores concerns raised by other UN independent experts.

According to the mandate determined by the UN General Assembly, the High Commissioner has the responsibility to “promote and protect the effective enjoyment by all of all human rights,” and to “play an active role in removing the current obstacles and in meeting the challenges to the full realization of all human rights and in preventing the continuation of human rights violations throughout the world.”

This mandate asks that the High Commissioner use her position to raise serious concerns about human rights abuses everywhere in the world. By not doing so, the Office has harmed its credibility by ignoring police brutality and the suppression of the Hong Kong people’s largely peaceful exercise of their fundamental freedoms.

China’s Government in Beijing has increasingly signalled that it is ultimately in charge in Hong Kong. On November 16, People’s Liberation Army soldiers cleared up debris and bricks, without being invited by the Hong Kong Government to assist, as required by the Basic Law. On November 18, China’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom Liu Xiaoming said, “We [the Central Government] have enough resolution and power to end the unrest.” Holding the China-controlled Hong Kong Government accountable for its human rights abuses is a key test if the UN can resist interference in the UN human rights system by an increasingly powerful China.

Beginning in June, millions of people in Hong Kong have publicly demonstrated against an extradition bill to Mainland China that would have undermined the separate freedoms that are enshrined in law in Hong Kong. The police have repeatedly responded to these peaceful protests with excessive force, and the protests have since morphed into a movement denouncing police violence and demanding full democratic rights for the people of Hong Kong. Police inaction in the face of attacks on protesters, journalists and bystanders at the Yuen Long MTR Station on July 21 represented a clear failure to protect the rights to life and security of persons. Journalists trying to cover the protests have faced violence, intimidation, and threats from police, including an incident in which police shot an Indonesian journalist in the face with a rubber bullet while she covered the protests, permanently blinding her in one eye. Medics and social workers providing assistance to arrestees and injured individuals have also faced police obstruction.

The political situation in Hong Kong has deteriorated since October. Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam used colonial-era emergency powers to ban face-masks at assemblies (which was later ruled unconstitutional) and police have used live ammunition to shoot three young protesters. The death of 22-year-old student Chow Tsz-lok (周梓樂) on November 8 after being injured close to a police operation sparked the most recent outbreak of violence; the campuses of Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) and Polytechnic University have been turned into battlefields. While certain protestors have used violence, including petrol bombs, bricks and arrows, the Hong Kong Police Force’s response has been severe and disproportionate. Hong Kong police must distinguish violent elements from peaceful protestors and restrict the use of force to the minimum extent necessary, in accordance with the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

On June 28, four UN independent human rights experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council sent a communication to the Chinese Government raising concern over allegations of excessive use of force by Hong Kong police on June 12 against “overwhelmingly peaceful” demonstrators. These same four experts then issued a public statement on September 12 stating, “We are seriously concerned by credible reports of repeated instances where the authorities failed to ensure a safe environment for individuals to engage in public protest free from violence or interference.” We are disappointed that this language does not appear in the Office of the High Commissioner’s November 19 press statement.

On August 13, the High Commissioner’s spokesperson said the Office has “credible evidence” of law enforcement officials using some anti-riot measures which are “prohibited by international norms and standards” and urged the Hong Kong authorities to “act with restraint.” The failure of Hong Kong authorities to heed this call from the High Commissioner’s office should have been raised in the latest press statement. Instead, the statement lacks a sense of proportion between the violent actions of small groups of protesters and the systematic use of unnecessary and disproportionate force by police against unarmed protesters.

The High Commissioner herself called on the Hong Kong Government to immediately carry out an “effective, prompt, independent and impartial investigation” into violence during a press conference on October 5. Hong Kong has no independent mechanism to investigate excessive use of force by authorities, as the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC)’s expert advisers themselves re-confirmed recently. The IPCC does not have investigatory powers such as subpoenaing documents and summoning witnesses. The Human Rights Committee, which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, raised concern over the lack of independence of the IPCC to the Hong Kong Government in 2013.

The High Commissioner for Human Rights must call on Hong Kong authorities to take concrete steps to de-escalate tensions and reduce violence on both sides - police and protesters. As a minimum first step, Hong Kong authorities must establish an independent commission of inquiry into excessive use of police force, bringing to justice any law enforcement official responsible for unlawful use of force, as well as their superior officers. Any response to allegations of violent attacks on police must be handled through a fair judicial process. Those detained solely for exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and free expression should be unconditionally released and charges against them should be immediately dropped.

This statement is endorsed by:

Amnesty International
Article 19
Australia Tibet Council
Child Rights International Network (CRIN)
Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD)
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
Covenants Watch Taiwan
CSW (Christian Solidarity Worldwide)
Free Tibet
Geneva for Human Rights
International Campaign for Tibet
International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
International Tibet Network Secretariat
International Women's Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific
Safeguard Defenders
Students for a Free Tibet
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Tibet Action Institute
Tibet Justice Center
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
World Uyghur Congress
UN NGO Committee Consultations
On Friday 22nd June 2018, the UN NGO Committee convened consultations with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in consultative status with the United Nations. The consultations, the first of their kind, were an opportunity for NGOs to respond to questions from the committee on ways to improve NGO engagement with the United Nations. In total, 195 organisations submitted written statements and more than 50 organisations delivered oral statements. A summary of the written statements can be found here. CIVICUS' statement can be found below and our written submission here.

CIVICUS Statement
UN NGO Committee Consultations
Friday 22 June 2018

As a global alliance of civil society organisations with members in more than 175 countries, CIVICUS welcomes the opportunity to participate in this consultation.

We also welcome the committee’s call for inputs and recognition that organisations from the Global South continue to be less represented than organisations from the Global North at the United Nations.

This is also a priority for many of our members, who have indicated that they would most value additional opportunities to engage with the UN at the national and regional level at local ons outside of Geneva and New York. To this end we call on the committee to encourage more major ECOSOC meetings and consultatons to be held at regional centres.

We also note, that for non‐governmental organisations from the Global South, the barriers to fully participate at the UN remain considerably higher.

Organisations from the Global South in particular o en lack the resources to navigate complex accreditation on processes. As noted in the joint NGO statement delivered by our colleague from CONECTAS, we call for the the committee to make the accreditation on process as transparent and efficient as possible, including through publishing clear guidelines and allowing applicants to respond to questions posed to them in a reasonable me frame.

We also urge the Committee to enable robust participate on of NGOs in various activities of the UN. We share the concerns raised by our NGO colleagues that numerous NGO representatives were unable to obtain visas to a end this year’s Commission on that Status of Women despite receiving formal invitations and support from UN agencies and ECOSOC accredited organisations.

In order for non‐governmental organisations to fully participate in the UN’s work, it is also essen al that the committee considers the importance of enabling environments for non‐governmental organisations, both at the global and national level. It is critical that member States and the UN system take the lead in global efforts to create an enabling environment for civil society and support effective partnerships in line with Agenda 2030 commitments. States elected to the NGO Committee should demonstrate commitment to modeling enabling environments for NGOs domestically.

Notably, an important function of NGOs is to speak ‘truth to power’ and ensure that the voices of the excluded are factored in decision making. In this respect we urge the NGO Committee to remain ever vigilant with regards to reprisals against civil society members for engaging with UN mechanisms. UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres has stressed that civil society is a key instrument for the success of today’s UN. We look forward to working with the NGO Committee.

Page 19 sur 22