Rights Groups Letter to F1 CEO Ahead of Bahrain Grand Prix: 20 Years of Sportswashing

Together with other human rights organisations, we've written to the F1 CEO expressing our concerns about Bahrain’s use of the F1 Grand Prix to “sportswash” the country’s dire human rights record. As you mark two decades of racing in Bahrain, and amid claims from F1 that it has been “a force for good” in the country, we urge F1 to launch an independent inquiry to evaluate its impact on the situation for human rights in Bahrain.

State media outlets have heralded the 20th anniversary of the first Bahrain Grand Prix in 2004 as “20 years of Formula 1 glory”. Unfortunately, this does not reflect the reality on the ground in Bahrain, where authorities continue to harshly clamp down on citizens’ freedom of expression and assembly, including around the race itself.

Despite assurances provided by F1 that they "have always been clear with all race promoters and governments […] worldwide, including Bahrain, that [they] take violence, abuse of human rights and repression very seriously", Bahrain has continued to systematically violate citizens’ rights, repress dissent, silence journalists, and routinely perpetuate violence, including torture and police brutality.

Read the letter

Open Letter on Myanmar: the UN must hold the military junta accountable

To: Member States of the United Nations General Assembly

CC: The United Nations Secretary-General

Open Letter: The UN General Assembly must take decisive action to hold the military junta accountable for atrocities in Myanmar

Your Excellencies,

We – 440 Myanmar, regional, and international civil society organizations – call on Member States of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to take immediate and decisive action to hold the Myanmar military accountable under international law through all possible avenues.

We welcome the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights which provided corroborated evidence of the military junta’s intensifying brutality – particularly airstrikes, the burning of villages, and mass killings. In addressing the worsening crisis in Myanmar, High Commissioner Volker Türk described the junta’s actions as “inhumanity in its vilest form,” emphasizing that there is “no reason to believe that the military will…break the cycle of impunity that has characterized its operations for decades.” It is clear that the military has continued and will continue to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes against the people of Myanmar unless it is held accountable under international law. We thus express our strongest support for the High Commissioner’s call for the UN Security Council (UNSC) to refer “the full scope of the current situation in Myanmar to the International Criminal Court (ICC).”

Nearly one year after its adoption in December 2022, we remain extremely disappointed by the insubstantial Security Council resolution 2669 on Myanmar. With this resolution, the Council has utterly failed to uphold its responsibilities under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and to ensure justice and accountability by failing to refer the current crisis in Myanmar to the ICC.

Despite the resolution’s demand of “an immediate end to all forms of violence throughout the country,” since its adoption, the junta has launched at least 965 airstrikes. This amounts to a 150% increase in airstrikes following the resolution. These aerial bombardments, often combined with attacks by ground troops, are one reason why at least 4,149 people have been killed, as of 17 October 2023, and over 1.7 million have been internally displaced since the coup attempt. One of the latest attacks is as recent as 9 October 2023, when the junta once again launched an artillery bombardment on an internally displaced persons (IDP) camp: this time in Munglai Hkyet Village in Kachin State. The attack killed at least 29 people, including 13 children, and injured at least 57 people. Among the displaced, elderly women, pregnant women, and children have the most vulnerabilities, which are severely exacerbated by the lack of sufficient food, water, shelter, and other necessities. Moreover, the military – which has long used rape as a weapon of war – continues, with blanket impunity, its widespread sexual and gender-based violence, particularly against women and girls, in detention and in areas of its scorched-earth campaigns.

Further, in flagrant disregard of the resolution’s call for “full, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access to all people in need,” the junta continues to weaponize humanitarian aid by blocking, seizing, and destroying lifesaving supplies from displaced communities that have suffered from its heinous crimes. Even in natural disasters, such as the devastating Cyclone Mocha, the junta has proven its total disregard for human lives by blocking humanitarian access to affected communities across western Myanmar.

As the Myanmar human rights and humanitarian crisis further escalates, we express our greatest disappointment in the UN’s deferral of its responsibilities to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its futile Five-Point Consensus (5PC) over the past 29 months. The regional bloc and its current approach have utterly failed to take concrete measures to end the crisis, serving only to deter tangible action by the international community. In fact, ASEAN itself has explicitly requested UN support in addressing the crisis. To address Myanmar’s multi-faceted crisis, the UN must stop hiding behind the failed 5PC and take concrete actions to assume its responsibility to protect the people of Myanmar.

Excellencies, the loss of lives of the people of Myanmar at the hands of this ruthless military must not continue, and justice for the victims and survivors cannot wait. The Myanmar military’s decades-long impunity, and thus its systematic and widespread violence, will continue to prevail – and thousands of lives will continue to be lost – unless and until the military faces prosecution and is held to account for its genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Thus, it is with great urgency that we once again call on the UNGA and its individual Member States to strongly recommend the UNSC utilize all political and technical instruments at its disposal, namely a resolution on Myanmar under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Such a resolution must necessitate the referral of the crisis in Myanmar to the ICC or the establishment of an ad hoc tribunal; robust, coordinated, and targeted economic sanctions on the Myanmar military and linked entities; and a comprehensive arms embargo to end the flow of weapons, jet fuel, and dual-use technology to the junta. Equally, we urge the UNGA to further recommend its Member States, agencies, and mechanisms to stop lending legitimacy to the junta; impose new and further coordinated, targeted economic sanctions; cut the flow of arms; and provide financial, political, and technical support for accountability efforts under universal jurisdiction, including in ArgentinaGermany, and Turkey.

With Myanmar’s crisis reaching the point of unfathomable devastation, we look to the leadership of UN Member States to immediately actualize a UNSC resolution. If the resolution is vetoed by China or Russia, the people of Myanmar fully anticipate the UNGA’s adoption of the resolution, following in the footsteps of the decisive resolution on Ukraine promptly adopted by the same body in 2022.

Alongside a united call for a resolution, UN Member States must act immediately to ensure the response to the worsening humanitarian catastrophe across Myanmar is sufficient, effective, and harmless for affected populations. Member States must cease any partnership with the junta for the provision of aid, while increasing political and financial support through cross-border channels for locally led, frontline humanitarian responders – many of whom are women who serve and lead their communities in these roles in spite of great personal risks.

Now is the time for the UNGA and its Member States to fulfill their responsibility to the people of Myanmar. The UNGA and its Member States must ensure justice and accountability through all possible avenues, strengthen locally led humanitarian assistance, and unequivocally support the Myanmar people’s will for federal democracy.

Signed by 440 civil society organizations, including 71 who have chosen not to disclose their name:

  1. 5/ of Zaya State Strike
  2. 8888 Generation (New Zealand)
  3. Action Against Myanmar Military Coup (AAMMC) Sydney
  4. Action Committee for Democracy Development (Coalition of 14 grassroots networks)
  5. Action Committee of Basic Education Students (ACBES)
  6. Active Youths Kalaymyo
  7. Ah Nah Podcast – Conversations with Myanmar
  8. All Arakan Students’ & Youth’ Congress
  9. All Arakan Youth Organization Network
  10. All Aung Myay Thar San Schools Strike Force
  11. All Burma Democratic Front in New Zealand
  12. All Burma Federation of Student Unions (Monywa District)
  13. All Burma Indigenous People Alliance
  14. All Burma Student Democratic Front – Australia Branch
  15. All Young Burmese League (AYBL)
  16. Alliance of Students’ Union – Yangon (ASU-Yangon)
  17. ALTSEAN-Burma
  18. Anti Dictatorship in Burma – DC Metropolitan Area.
  19. Anti-coup Forces Coordination Committee (ACFCC – Mandalay)
  20. Anti-Junta Alliance Yangon-AJAY
  21. Anti-Myanmar Dictatorship Movement
  22. Anti-Myanmar Military Dictatorship Network (AMMDN)
  23. Arakan CSO Network
  24. ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
  25. Asia Justice and Rights (AJAR)
  26. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  27. ASORCOM – Alternative Solutions for Rural Communities
  28. Assistance Association for Political Prisoners
  29. Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters
  30. Athan – Freedom of Expression Activist Organization
  31. Auckland Kachin Community NZ
  32. Auckland Zomi Community
  33. Aung San Su Kyi Park, Norway
  34. Australia Burma Friendship Association, Northern Territory
  35. Australia Karen Organization WA Inc.
  36. Australia Myanmar Doctors, Nurses and Friends
  37. Australia Myanmar Youth Alliance (AMYA)
  38. Australian Burmese Muslim Organisation
  39. Australian Chin Community (Eastern Melbourne Inc)
  40. Australian Karen Organisation (AKO)
  41. AWDO (Nagphe)
  42. A-Yar-Taw People Strike
  43. Ayeyarwaddy West Development Organisation (AWDO)
  44. Bamar Community Tasmania
  45. Basic Education General Strike Committee (BEGSC)
  46. Basic Education Worker Unions – Steering Committee (BEWU-SC)
  47. Blood Money Campaign
  48. BMT counselling
  49. Boat People SOS
  50. Burma Academy
  51. Burma Action Ireland
  52. Burma Campaign UK
  53. Burma Canadian Network, Peace for Burma (Vancouver-Canada)
  54. Burma Civil War Museum
  55. Burma Human Rights Network (BHRN)
  56. Burma Lawyers’ Council (BLC)
  57. Burma Support
  58. Burmese Community – South Australia
  59. Burmese Community Development Collaboration (BCDC)
  60. Burmese Community Group (Manawatu, NZ)
  61. Burmese Community Support Group (BCSG)
  62. Burmese Friendship Association
  63. Burmese Medical Association Australia (BMAA)
  64. Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK
  65. Burmese Rohingya Welfare Organisation New Zealand
  66. Burmese Women’s Union (BWU)
  67. Campaign for a New Myanmar
  68. Canberra Karen Association
  69. CAN-Myanmar
  70. CDM Medical Network (CDMMN)
  71. Chanmyatharzi Township People’s Strike
  72. Chaung Oo Township Youth Strike Committee
  73. Chin Community – South Australia
  74. Chin Community in Norway
  75. Chin Community of Auckland
  76. Chin Community of Western Australia Inc.
  77. Chin Community Tasmania
  78. Chin Human Rights Organization
  79. Chin Youth Organization
  80. Chindwin (West) Villages Women Strike
  81. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
  82. Civil Information Network (CIN)
  83. Civil Rights Defenders
  84. Civil Society Organizations Coordination Committee (Monywa)
  85. Coalition Strike Committee – Dawei
  86. Co-operative University Mandalay Students’ Strike
  87. CRPH & NUG Supporters Ireland
  88. CRPH Funding Ireland
  89. CRPH Support Group, Norway and members organizations
  90. CRPH, NUG Support Team Germany – Deutschland
  91. CRPH/NUG support group Australia
  92. CSOs Nexus Consortium – Tanintharyi
  93. Daung Sitthe Strike
  94. Dawei (Ashaetaw) Women Strike
  95. Dawei Youths Revolutionary Movement Strike Committee
  96. Democracy for Burma
  97. Democracy, Peace and Women’s Organization
  98. Democratic Party for a New Society, Norway
  99. Democratic Youth Council
  100. Depayin Township Revolution Steering Committee
  101. Depayin Women Strike
  102. Dhobama (2021 Generation)
  103. Doh Atu – Ensemble pour le Myanmar
  104. East Bago – Former Political Prisoners Network
  105. Educational Initiatives Prague
  106. Equality Myanmar
  107. Ethnic Youth General Strike Committee (Mandalay)
  108. Falam Community – South Australia
  109. Families and Friends of LGBTIQA+ in Myanmar
  110. Federal Corner
  111. Federal Myanmar Benevolence Group (NZ)
  112. Federation of General Workers Myanmar (FGWM)
  113. Former Political Prisoners and New Generation Group – Monywa
  114. FORUMCIV – Sweden
  115. Free Burma Campaign (South Africa)
  116. Free Rohingya Coalition
  117. Future Light Center
  118. Future Thanlwin
  119. Gangaw Women Strike
  120. Gender Equality Network
  121. General Strike Collaboration Committee (GSCC)
  122. General Strike Committee of Basic and Higher Education (GSCBHE)
  123. General Strike Committee of Nationalities (GSCN)
  124. Generation Wave
  125. Global Myanmar Spring Revolution
  126. Grass-root People
  127. Human Rights Educators Network
  128. Human Rights Foundation of Monland
  129. Incorporated Organization Shilcheon Bulgyo
  130. Industrial Training Centre (ITC) Family Sydney
  131. Industries Strike
  132. Info Birmanie
  133. Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID)
  134. Inle Federal Democracy Moment (IFDM)
  135. Inle Woman Union (IWU)
  136. Inlihtan Peninsula Tenasserim
  137. Institute for Asian Democracy
  138. Integria, z.u. Prague
  139. Inter Pares
  140. International Association, Myanmar-Switzerland (IAMS)
  141. International Campaign for the Rohingya
  142. JASS (Just Associates)
  143. JMC Inn Lay
  144. Joint Action Committee for Democracy in Burma (JACDB)
  145. Justice 4 Myanmar – Hope & Development
  146. Justice For Myanmar
  147. Kachin Association Australia
  148. Kachin Association Norway
  149. Kachin Association of Australia WA Inc.
  150. Kachin Student Union
  151. Kachin Women Association Thailand
  152. Kachin Women Network
  153. Kalay Township Strike Committee
  154. Kalay Women Strike
  155. Karen Community – South Australia
  156. Karen Human Rights Group
  157. Karen Peace Support Network
  158. Karen Swedish Community (KSC)
  159. Karenni Association – Norway
  160. Karenni Civil Society Network
  161. Karenni Community of Western Australia Inc.
  162. Karenni Federation of Australia
  163. Karenni Human Rights Group
  164. Karenni National Women’s Organization
  165. Karenni Society New Zealand
  166. Kayah State Students Union
  167. Kayan New Generation Youth
  168. Kayin Community Tasmania
  169. K’cho Ethnic Association
  170. Keng Tung Youth
  171. Korean Civil Society in Support of Democracy in Myanmar (106 organizations nationwide)
  172. Kyae Lak Myay
  173. Kyain Seikgyi Spring Revolution Leading Committee
  174. Kyauktada Strike Committee
  175. La Communauté Birmane de France
  176. Latpadaung Region Strike Committee
  177. Legal Aid for Human Rights
  178. LGBT Alliance
  179. LGBT Alliance Myanmar (Kalay Region)
  180. LGBT Alliance Myanmar (Kyaukse Region)
  181. LGBT Community Yangon
  182. LGBT Union – Mandalay
  183. MAGGA Initiative
  184. Magway People’s Revolution Committee
  185. Maharaungmyay Township People’s Strike
  186. Mandalar University Students’ Strike
  187. Mandalay Alliance Coalition Strike
  188. Mandalay Medical Family (MFM)
  189. Mandalay Regional Youth Association Revolution Core Group
  190. Mandalay Strike Force (MSF)
  191. Mandalay Women Strike
  192. Mandalay Youth Strike
  193. Mandalay-based People’s Strike
  194. Mandalay-Based University Students’ Unions (MDY_SUs)
  195. Matu Burma Foundation
  196. Matu Chin Community – South Australia
  197. MayMyo Strike Force
  198. Metta Campaign
  199. Milk Tea Alliance – Friends of Myanmar
  200. Min Hla Farmers Group
  201. Minbu Farmers Group
  202. Mindat Chin Community NSW
  203. Mindat Community – South Australia
  204. Mizo Community – South Australia
  205. Mon Association – Norway
  206. Mon Families Group
  207. Mon National Council (MNC)
  208. Monywa – Amyint Road Strike Leading Committee
  209. Monywa LGBT Strike
  210. Monywa People’s Strike Steering Committee
  211. Monywa Women Strike
  212. Monywa-Amyint Road Women Strike
  213. Multi-Religions Strike
  214. Muslim Youth Network
  215. Mya Taung Strike
  216. Myanmar Accountability Project
  217. Myanmar Anti-Military Coup Movement in New Zealand
  218. Myanmar Baptist Churches in Norway
  219. Myanmar Buddhist Community of South Australia
  220. Myanmar Campaign Network
  221. Myanmar Catholic Community In Norway
  222. Myanmar Community Coffs Harbour (MCC)
  223. Myanmar Community Group Christchurch New Zealand
  224. Myanmar Community Group Dunedin New Zealand
  225. Myanmar Community in Norway
  226. Myanmar Cultural Research Society – MCRS
  227. Myanmar Democracy and Peace Committee (Australia)
  228. Myanmar Democratic Movement (MDM)
  229. Myanmar Diaspora Group Finland
  230. Myanmar Engineering Association of Australia (MEAA)
  231. Myanmar Engineers – New Zealand
  232. Myanmar Gonye (New Zealand)
  233. Myanmar Hindu Community – Norway
  234. Myanmar Institute of Information Technology Students’ Strike
  235. Myanmar Labor Alliance (MLA)
  236. Myanmar Muslim Organization – Norway
  237. Myanmar People Alliance (Shan State)
  238. Myanmar People Residing in Canberra
  239. Myanmar Refugee Policy Group
  240. Myanmar Students’ Association Australia (MSAA)
  241. Myanmar Students’ Union in New Zealand
  242. Myanmar Teachers’ Federation
  243. Myaung Youth Network
  244. Myingyan Civilian Movement Committee
  245. Nelson Myanmar Community Group New Zealand
  246. Netherlands Myanmar Solidarity Platform
  247. Network for Human Rights Documentation – Burma (ND-Burma)
  248. Network of University Student Unions – Monywa
  249. New Zealand Doctors for NUG
  250. New Zealand Karen Association
  251. New Zealand Zo Community Inc.
  252. NLD Organization Committee (International) Norway
  253. NLD Solidarity Association (Australia)
  254. No Business With Genocide
  255. No.12 Basic Education Branch High School (Maharaungmyay) Students’ Union
  256. Norway Falam Community
  257. Norway Matu Community
  258. Norway Rawang Community
  259. NRFF – New Rehmonnya Federated Force
  260. NSW Karenni (Kayah) Communities
  261. Nyan Lynn Thit Analytica
  262. OCTOPUS (ရေဘဝဲ)
  263. Overseas Mon Association. New Zealand
  264. Padauk Finland – Myanmar Association
  265. Pale Township People’s Strike Steering Committee
  266. Parents, Families and Friends of LGBTIQA+ in Myanmar (PFLAG – Myanmar)
  267. Patriotic War Vetrans of Burma (PWVB)
  268. Perth Myanmar Youth Network
  269. Political Prisoners Network – Myanmar
  270. Progressive Karenni People Force (PKPF)
  271. Progressive Voice
  272. Pwintphyu Development Organisation
  273. Pyi Gyi Tagon Strike Force
  274. Pyit Taing Htaung Social Club
  275. Pyithu Gonye (New Zealand)
  276. Queensland Kachin Community (QKC)
  277. Queensland Myanmar Youth Collective (QMYC)
  278. Queensland Rohingya Community
  279. Rangoon Scout Network – RSN
  280. Red Campaign Nirvana Exhortation Group
  281. Remonya Association of WA (Mon Community)
  282. Representative Committee of University Teacher Associations (RC of UTAs)
  283. Rohingya Community in Norway
  284. Rural Community Development Society
  285. Rvwang Community Association New Zealand
  286. Samgha Sammaga-Mandalay
  287. Save and Care Organization for Ethnic Women at Border Areas
  288. Save Myanmar – USA
  289. Save Myanmar Fundraising Group (New Zealand)
  290. Save Myanmar San Francisco
  291. Seinpann Strike
  292. Shan Community (New Zealand)
  293. Shan MATA
  294. Shwe Pan Kone People`s Strike Steering Committee
  295. Shwe Youth Democratic Alliance (SYDA)
  296. Sitt Nyein Pann Foundation
  297. Social Garden
  298. Southcare Medical Centre
  299. Southern Youth Development Organization (SYDO)
  300. Spring Friends
  301. Spring Sprouts
  302. Spring Traveller
  303. Student Voice
  304. Sujata Sisters Group (NZ)
  305. Support for Myanmar
  306. Support Group for Democracy in Myanmar (Netherlands)
  307. Swedish Burma Committee
  308. Swedish Foundation for Human Rights
  309. Swiss Burma Association (ASB)
  310. Sydney Friends for Myanmar Unity
  311. Synergy – Social Harmony Organization
  312. Ta Mar Institute of Development
  313. Ta’ang Women’s Organization
  314. Tamar Institute of Development
  315. Tanintharyi MATA
  316. Tanintharyi Nationalities Congress
  317. Taze Strike Committee
  318. Taze Women Strike
  319. Tenasserim Student Unions’ Network
  320. Thakhin Kodaw Mhine Peace Network (Monywa)
  321. Thayat Chaung Women Strike
  322. The 88 Generation Peace and Open Society (Monywa)
  323. The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS)
  324. The Helpers for Perfect Democracy (HPD)
  325. The Institution of Professional Engineers Myanmar (IPEM)
  326. The Ladies
  327. The Mindanao Peacebuilding Institute Foundation, Inc. (MPI)
  328. Twitter Team for Revolution (TTFR)
  329. U.S. Campaign for Burma
  330. Union of Karenni State Youth (UKSY)
  331. United Myanmar Community of South Australia
  332. University Students’ Unions Alumni Force
  333. Victorian Burmese Care Community (VBCC)
  334. Victorian Myanmar Youth (VMY)
  335. Volunteers in Myanmar
  336. We Pledge CDM (Australia)
  337. Western Australia Myanmar Community (WAMC)
  338. Western Australia Myanmar Democratic Network (WAMDN)
  339. Wetlet Revolution Leading Committee
  340. Wetlet Township Women Strike
  341. White Coat Society Yangon (WCSY)
  342. Women Activists Myanmar (WAM)
  343. Women Advocacy Coalition – Myanmar
  344. Women Alliance Burma (WAB)
  345. Women’s League of Burma
  346. Women’s Peace Network
  347. Yadanabon University Students’ Union (YDNBUSU)
  348. Yadanar Foundation
  349. Yangon Women Strike
  350. Yasakyo Township People`s Strike Steering Committee
  351. Yinmarpin and Salingyi All Villages Strike Committee
  352. Youth for Democratization of Myanmar (UDM)
  353. Youth Heart Beams
  354. Zo Community – South Australia
  355. Zomi Association Australia Inc.
  356. Zomi Christian Fellowship of Norway
  357. Zomi Community – South Australia
  358. Zomi Community Queensland
  359. ကန့်ဘလူမြို့နယ် အထွေထွေသပိတ်
  360. ကရင်နီပြည်စစ်ဘေးရှောင်ကူညီစောင့်ရှောက်ရေးကွန်ယက်
  361. ခုနစ်စဥ်ကြယ်အဖွဲ့
  362. ဒို့မြေကွန်ရက် – LIOH
  363. နားဆင်သူများအဖွဲ့
  364. ပဉ္စမမဏ္ဏိုင်
  365. ပွင့်ဖြူလယ်ယာမြေကွန်ရက်
  366. မျက်မှောက်ခေတ်
  367. မျိုးဆက်-Generations
  368. ယောဒေသစစ်ဘေးရှောင်ကူညီရေးအဖွဲ့
  369. ရပ်ဝန်းသစ် (Yat Wun Thit)
    Civic space in Myanmar is rated 'Closed' by the CIVICUS Monitor.

 

Joint Letter: NGOs call on Bahrain to Free Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace after Two Years of Hunger Strike

King of Bahrain, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, Crown Prince and Prime Minister, Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa

8 July 2023

RE: Free Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace after Two Years of Hunger Strike 

Your Majesties,

We, the undersigned, write to you again to express grave concern for the well-being of Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace, an academic, award-winning human rights defender and blogger serving a life sentence in Bahrain solely for exercising his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

We previously wrote to you on January 15, 2023, and August 13, 2022, urging you to secure Dr. Al- Singace’s immediate and unconditional release and, in the meantime, ensure that he receives adequate health care, is protected from torture and other ill-treatment, and that his academic work be transferred to his family. Our requests have neither been met nor acknowledged, and Dr. Al-Singace’s deteriorating health is one of increasing concern.

July 8, 2023, marks an astounding two years since Dr. Al-Singace began his hunger strike in response to the prison authorities’ confiscation of his manuscript on Bahraini dialects of Arabic that he spent four years researching and writing. During his hunger strike, he has been sustaining himself only on multivitamin liquid supplements, tea with milk and sugar, water, and salts.

Dr. Al-Singace has been held in solitary confinement within his room in Kanoo Medical Centre, where he has been prohibited from going outside, exposure to direct sunlight, and receiving the physiotherapy he requires for his disability. He has also been deprived of necessary examinations, including MRI scans of the shoulder and head, physiotherapy, and treatment for joints, vision, prostate, and tremors. Authorities have refused to provide Dr. Al-Singace with necessary items, such as medical slippers to prevent falling in the bathroom and a hot water bottle to relieve pain.

The deliberate denial of healthcare has placed Dr. Al-Singace’s life in grave danger and amounts to a failure to provide healthcare in line with Bahrain’s obligations under international human rights law. His treatment also constitutes a violation of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

As of June 23, 2023, Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace decided to suspend family visits and telephone calls, the only means of communication with his family, in protest of continued medical negligence and prevention of treatment in light of his declining medical condition. Additionally, authorities continue to limit his access to information by banning English and Arabic newspapers and reducing the number of accessible TV channels.

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) adopted an opinion on Dr. Al- Singace’s case during its ninety-sixth session on 27 March–5 April 2023. The ruling confirms repeated allegations of torture at the hands of the Bahraini government, states that his arrest was unlawful, and finds that he was “subjected to enforced disappearance” (Para 80).

Dr. Al-Singace’s case “follow[s] a familiar pattern of arrest without a warrant, pretrial detention with limited access to judicial review, denial of access to lawyers, forced confessions, torture and ill- treatment and denial of medical care. The Working Group recalls that, under certain circumstances, widespread or systematic imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty in violation of the rules of international law may constitute crimes against humanity” (Para 112). These damning findings illustrate clear breaches of international law and necessitate the immediate release of Dr. Al-Singace.

In light of the above, we renew our call for you to release Dr. Al-Singace immediately and unconditionally, and in the meantime, to ensure he is held in conditions that meet international standards, receives his medication without delay and has access to adequate healthcare, in compliance with medical ethics, and ensure that his arbitrarily confiscated research is immediately transferred to his family members.

Sincerely,

  1. Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
  2. ALQST for Human Rights
  3. Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
  4. Amnesty International
  5. British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES)
  6. CIVICUS
  7. English PEN
  8. European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)
  9. Front Line Defenders
  10. Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
  11. Human Rights First
  12. IFEX
  13. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
  14. PEN America
  15. PEN International
  16. Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED)
  17. REDRESS
  18. Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
  19. Scholars at Risk

Request to raise the case of human rights defender Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja to Bahraini authorities on the 12th anniversary of his detention

Joint Letter:

Mr. Josep Borrell Fontelles
High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Vice-President of the European Commission
Rdpt Robert Schuman 9
1046 Bruxelles
Belgium
7 April 2022

Request to raise the case of human rights defender Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja to Bahraini authorities on the 12th anniversary of his detention

Dear High Representative,

The undersigned organisations write on the occasion of the 12th anniversary of the arbitrary detention in Jau prison of prominent Danish-Bahraini human rights defender Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja.

Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja is an internationally respected human rights defender who won the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders in 2022, elected by a jury of ten of the world’s leading human rights NGOs. He has a long history of working to promote human rights in the MENA region and championing the protection of human rights defenders at risk, including working as the MENA Protection Coordinator for Front Line Defenders, serving as President of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR) and Founding Director of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR).

Mr Al-Khawaja was arrested on 9 April 2011, and was detained, tortured and subjected to an unfair trial on fabricated charges, that led to him being sentenced to life in prison because of his human rights work. That sentence was deemed arbitrary by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention as far back as 2012.

Throughout his detention, Mr Al-Khawaja has endured various forms of reprisals, including physical and mental torture. On 28 November 2022, the Second Lower Criminal Court in Bahrain upheld two additional, separate criminal charges levelled against Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja. On 28 February 2023, the human rights defender experienced intense elevated and rapid heartbeats, in addition to laboured breathing, and was transferred to an emergency room for several hours. He was actively prevented from seeing a cardiologist by the Bahraini authorities, contrary to the advice of the prison doctor.

In December 2022, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for the release of Mr Al-Khawaja. This resolution also called on you as the High Representative and Vice President of the EU to publicly and privately raise Mr Al-Khawaja’s case and to demand his unconditional release.

While the above updates on the human rights defender’s situation have been shared with your services as well as the Danish government, it remains unclear how Mr Al-Khawaja’s case is being taken up at the political level. As Mr Al-Khawaja’s medical condition deteriorates, it is crucial that all diplomatic channels are mobilized to ensure his immediate and unconditional release. We therefore urge you to press for his release, both directly to the Bahraini authorities and in international fora, both privately and publicly.

Sincerely,

Signatories:

  1. Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
  2. CIVICUS
  3. Danish PEN
  4. DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture
  5. #FreeAlKhawaja campaign
  6. Front Line Defenders
  7. Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
  8. Human Rights Watch
  9. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
  10. Martin Ennals Foundation

Joint Letter – NGOs Call on Secretary Blinken to Urge Egypt to Withdraw Its Upcoming NGO Registration Deadline

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken

U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520  

RE: Upcoming registration deadline under Egypt’s 2019 NGO law  

Dear Secretary Blinken, 

Our organizations write to you with serious concern regarding the upcoming deadline imposed by Egyptian authorities, requiring all local and foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) operating in Egypt to register with the government by April 11, 2023, in accordance with the draconian 2019 NGO law. Registration and further implementation of this law will further erode civic space in Egypt, and we fear its detrimental impact given that human rights defenders and government critics in Egypt are already operating in a landscape of systemic repression. The U.S. government should swiftly urge the Egyptian authorities to withdraw this registration deadline until it amends the NGO law and its bylaws by removing the undue restrictions it imposes on freedom of association and expression in Egypt.  

The 2019 NGO law prohibits any form of “civic work” without prior registration and government permission. It places severe restrictions on the activities of NGOs in Egypt, including by mandating government approval for standard activities such as conducting studies or publications, and completely prohibiting activities that are considered “political” or allegedly undermine “national security.” None of these terms are specifically defined in the law, leaving space for sweeping interpretations and arbitrary application.

Without defining what is exactly meant by “political” work, the 2019 law bans NGOs from carrying out any work that could be remotely construed as “political.” It could also be used to target and eliminate the work of independent NGOs that work on  human rights issues. This includes those who work on political and civil rights, as well as groups that support women and girls survivors of gender-based violence or undertake climate change advocacy.  Many of these organizations have been targeted by the government and security agencies for years, through arbitrary detention, politically motivated prosecutions, travel bans, asset freezes, unlawful surveillance and other forms of harassment and intimidation.     

The convoluted registration process spelled out in the 2019 law requires an organization to provide the Ministry of Social Solidarity with an unreasonably lengthy and complex set of documents and reports, in most cases amounting to hundreds of pages, clearly intended to negate the essence of the right to freedom of association and the ability to work without prior government permission. As of October 2022, only 32,000 out of 52,500 NGOs operating in the country have managed to register, according to the Ministry of Social Solidarity. According to the law, NGOs that are unable to register by the April deadline will be forcibly closed and authorities will freeze their assets. Some organizations, such as the Arab Network for Human Rights Information, have already ended operations citing the onerous registration requirements. Several leading activists described registering under this law as a “death sentence” for their organization.  

The United States should  urge the Egyptian government to change course, starting with abolishing the registration deadline. The Biden administration should also send a clear message to the Egyptian government that it should not punish any organizations who do not register until the NGO law is amended in accordance with international law and standards. 

For Fiscal Year 2022 and 2023, the U.S. Congress has conditioned a portion of security assistance to Egypt on “sustained and effective” human rights progress, including the implementation of reforms that allow civil society organizations (CSOs) the ability to operate freely. The NGO law, and its expected consequences on CSOs, explicitly demonstrates that the Egyptian government is not advancing such reforms but is instead pursuing avenues to further restrict the work of such actors. Congress has provided the administration with the tools to push back.  

The U.S. government has also repeatedly committed to elevating human rights in its engagement with the Egyptian government. Following your January meeting with President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi in Cairo, you claimed that the U.S.-Egypt relationship is “strengthened by progress on human rights.” Similarly, after your meeting with Egyptian human rights defenders on the same trip, the State Department emphasized “steadfast support for human rights defenders.”  

To follow through on such strong human rights rhetoric with tangible policy responses, the U.S. government should prioritize challenging the severe undue restrictions on civil society posed by the NGO law. Without significant international pressure, particularly from a close security partner, basic rights and freedoms of Egyptian civil society will be further eroded or denied.  

Sincerely, 

  1. Amnesty International
  2. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
  3. CIVICUS
  4. Committee for Justice
  5. Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN)
  6. Egyptian Front for Human Rights (EFHR)
  7. Egyptian Human Rights Forum (EHRF)
  8. EgyptWide for Human Rights
  9. FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights), in the framework of the Observatory for the protection of human rights defenders
  10. Freedom House
  11. The Freedom Initiative
  12. Human Rights First
  13. Human Rights Watch
  14. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
  15. MENA Rights Group
  16. OMCT (World Organisation Against Torture), in the framework of the Observatory for the protection of human rights defenders
  17. PEN America
  18. Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) 
  19. Refugees Platform in Egypt (RPE)
  20. Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
  21. The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP)

Bangladesh: Civil society groups call on government to cease harassment of journalist Rozina Islam

Rozina Islam Bangladesh


CIVICUS joins other human rights organisations in calling for an immediate end to the harassment of Bangladeshi journalist and human rights defender Rozina Islam.


Mr. Asaduzzaman Khan, MP
Minister of Home Affairs
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
 
Mr. Zahid Maleque, MP
Minister of Health and Family Welfare
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
 
CC: Mr. Anisul Haq
Minister of Law, Justice, and Parliament
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
CC: Mr. A.K. Abdul Momen, MP
Minister of Foreign Affairs
People’s Republic of Bangladesh

Dear Ministers Khan and Maleque,

We, the undersigned press freedom and human rights groups, write to seek your leadership in ensuring an immediate end to the harassment of Bangladeshi journalist and human rights defender Rozina Islam. Islam faces an ongoing investigation under the colonial-era Official Secrets Act and the penal code in apparent retaliation for merely exercising her right to freedom of expression through her reporting on alleged government corruption and irregularities in the public health sector at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. If formally charged and convicted under the Official Secrets Act, Islam faces up to 14 years in prison, or a death sentence. Islam was arbitrarily detained for seven days in May 2020, when a health ministry official filed the complaint accusing the journalist of taking photos of official documents in the ministry’s secretariat, leading to the ongoing investigation.

Since her release on bail, Islam has been routinely summoned for court appearances, many of which have been unduly delayed and rescheduled in violation of her right to a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Bangladesh is a state party. In August 2021, the Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit asked banks to provide transaction details of any accounts held by Islam, in an apparent move to further intimidate the journalist.

Islam continues to face unlawful restrictions on her right to freedom of movement in violation of Article 12 of the ICCPR. She was granted bail on the condition that she surrender her passport, imposing an effective travel ban despite the fact that there is no provision for conditional bail in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In January 2022, a Dhaka court temporarily permitted the return of her passport for six months. Since then, however, Islam has been obliged to request her passport from the court whenever she plans to travel abroad.

After 14 months of investigation, the detective branch of the Dhaka police submitted its final report to court in July 2022, and called for the case against Islam to be dropped due to lack of evidence. Seven months later, in January 2023, the health ministry official filed a naraji (no-confidence) petition against the detective branch’s report, in response to which the court directed the Police Bureau of Investigation to further investigate Islam. We are deeply disturbed by a government official’s use of a naraji petition to prolong the investigation of a journalist under a national security law, particularly given that police have failed to produce a charge sheet or present any concrete evidence indicating that she has committed a crime.

Islam’s work, for which she received the United States Department of State’s Anti-Corruption Champions Award in 2022, is a public service, not a crime, and should be protected under Sections 4 and 5 of the Disclosure of Public Interest Information (Protection) Act.

We urge the authorities to fully respect and protect the human rights of journalist and human rights defender Rozina Islam, including her right to a fair trial, and to immediately cease all forms of judicial harassment against her, facilitating the return of her passport from judicial custody, and ensuring that she is not subjected to further retaliation for her work.

Signed:

  • Amnesty International
  • Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network
  • Capital Punishment Justice Project
  • Coalition For Women In Journalism
  • Committee to Protect Journalists
  • CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
  • Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma
  • Free Media Movement
  • Front Line Defenders
  • International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
  • International Federation of Journalists
  • International Women’s Media Foundation
  • Overseas Press Club of America
  • Pakistan Press Foundation
  • PEN America
  • PEN Bangladesh
  • PEN International
  • Reporters Without Borders
  • Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
  • South Asian Journalists Association
  • World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

Civic space in Bangladesh is rated as "Repressed" by the CIVICUS Monitor

Thai officials must drop all the ongoing prosecutions under the Emergency Decree

CIVICUS and various civil society organisations have written a letter expressing concern over the use of the Emergency Decree to restrict human rights and silence dissent in Thailand. 


 Joint Letter Thailand09112022 2

Dear Honorable Ambassador,

We, the undersigned non-governmental organizations, are writing to express our serious concern regarding the ongoing impact of the implementation of the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation B.E. 2548 (“Emergency Decree”) in response to the Covid-19 pandemic in Thailand. We are troubled by reports of the continuing prosecution of individuals charged under the Emergency Decree, despite the end of the declaration of the “emergency situation” in all areas of Thailand as well as the effect of regulations, announcements, and orders issued thereunder.

We urge you to call on Thailand to cease all intimidation, harassment and prosecution of all individuals solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression, information, peaceful assembly, movement, and public participation through the abuse of laws and administrative regulations, and to immediately drop all charges, issue non-prosecution orders, and refrain from further charges, against any individual, including those facing prosecution solely for peacefully exercising their human rights for alleged violation of the Emergency Decree.

Purportedly to combat the Covid-19 outbreak, Thailand had been operating under a state of emergency since 26 March 2020, with the executive government having extended the declaration of an emergency situation 19 times since then. During this period, a series of regulations containing several Emergency Decree measures have been periodically announced pursuant to Emergency Decree powers. These include several vague and overbroad restrictions on the rights to freedom of movement, expression, peaceful assembly and public participation.

READ THE FULL LETTER IN ENGLISH | THAI

Cambodia: Halt crackdown on striking trade union activists

H.E. Dr. Ith Sam Heng
Minister of Labour and Vocational Training
Russian Federation Blvd (110),
Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Your Excellency,

Cambodia: Halt crackdown on striking trade union activists

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation is a global alliance of civil society organisations (CSOs) and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society around the world. Founded in 1993, CIVICUS has more than 10,000 members in more than 175 countries throughout the world.

We are writing to you with regards to our concerns around the crackdown against union activists from the Labour Rights Supported Union of Khmer Employees of NagaWorld (LRSU), a casino workers’ union. On 18 December 2021, around 2000 members from LRSU went on strike in the capital Phnom Penh demanding, among other things, the reinstatement of 365 workers laid off by the company in April 2021. They had refused to accept termination packages from the Hong Kong-listed casino group NagaCorp.

According to human rights groups, the layoffs unfairly targeted union members and leaders. Union leaders have filed complaints to the Ministry of Labour and Arbitration Council arguing the company violated Cambodian law and several ILO conventions. The layoffs were also often accompanied by improper compensation, according to LRSU leaders.

According to a report received, the authorities have attempted to disrupt the strike and arrested union activists involved. Soon after the strike had begun, representatives from the Phnom Penh municipal court read out a provisional disposition declaring the strike action to be illegal and ordering striking workers to resume work.

On the evening of 31 December 2021, there was a large presence of police around the strike site and a drone was seen flying over despite it being a drone-prohibited area. The police then detained eight union members from the union’s office in Chamkarmon district. They include Chhim Sokhorn, Kleang Soben, Sun Sreypich, Hai Sopheap, Ry Sovandy, Rin Phalla, Eng Sreybo and Sun Sreymom. Police arrested a ninth worker, Touch Sereymeas, on her way back home after the strike. The police claimed that arrests were made because of the union’s ‘illegal strike’ affecting public order and social security. The police also attempted to arrest another LRSU member, Choup Channat, who was often on a megaphone at the strike site in front of Naga World. However, Channat managed to get away from the site.

While three activists were released after signing contracts with the police, six were questioned at Phnom Penh Municipal Court on 3 January and formally charged with ‘incitement’ under Articles 494 - 495 of the Criminal Code. They are all being held in pre-trial detention at Correction Centre 2 (CC2) prison.

On 3rd January, as the six union activists were being questioned, 17 more protesters were arrested. 16 of them were detained at the Phnom Penh Municipal Police headquarters while one, who is a pregnant woman, was released.

Three other union activists were arrested on 4 January are also facing ‘incitement’ charges. The nine include Ry Sovanndy, Sun Sreypich, Hai Sopheap, Klang Soben, Touch Sereymeas, Chim Sokhon, Sok Narith, Sok Konkhea and Chim Sithar, the LRSU union leader. Sithar was arrested with excessive force by plain clothes police outside the Australian Embassy, as she entered the barricades cordoning off the workers’ strike.

The arrest and charges against the union activists are a violation of the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly that are guaranteed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by Cambodia in 1992. These freedoms are also guaranteed in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia (articles 41 and 42) the Law on Peaceful Assembly (article 2) and the Labour Law (article 320). We are also concerned about the use of vaguely worded ‘incitement’ provisions under article 494 and 495 of the Criminal Code which has been systematically used to obstruct and punish the legitimate activities of human rights defenders and critics.

As such, we urge the Cambodian authorities to take the following steps as a matter of priority:

  • Drop the charges against the union activists, release them immediately and unconditionally, and refrain from conducting further reprisals against them;
  • Halt the harassment of the LRSU Union and respect and protect their right to freedom of expression and peaceful protest;
  • Create a safe and enabling environment for activists, human rights defenders and other members of civil society to peacefully exercise their civic freedoms without intimidation, harassment, arrest or prosecution.

We express our sincere hope that you will take these steps to address the concerns highlighted above.

Yours sincerely,

David Kode
Advocacy & Campaigns Lead.
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

Cc:

H.E. An Sokkhoeurn, Cambodia's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva

H.E. Mr. Yeap Samnang, Cambodia’s Permanent Representative to ASEAN

H.E. Mrs Polyne Hean, Representative of Cambodia to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR)

Ms. Irene Khan, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of freedom of opinion and expression

Mr. Clément Voule, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association

Prof. Vitit Muntarbhorn, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia


 Civic space in Cambodia is rated as "repressed" by the CIVICUS Monitor

ICC urged to resume its investigation into alleged crimes against humanity in the Philippines

Honourable Karim A. A. Khan QC
Prosecutor
The Office of the Prosecutor
International Criminal Court
Oude Waalsdorperweg 10, 2597 AK Den Haag, Netherlands

To ICC Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan

We, human rights organisations working on the Philippines, call on your office to resume its investigation into alleged crimes against humanity, in relation to the country’s ‘war on drugs’.

In its 10 November 2021 letter, the Philippine Government raised issues of complementarity, citing that it has domestic mechanisms in place to investigate the killings. However, we reiterate concerns that of an estimated tens of thousands killed in the ‘war on drugs’, only a small number were covered in the review of documents by the country’s Department of Justice. Of these cases, the Justice Department cited only procedural errors, and most police officers involved in human rights violations merely received suspensions, raising concerns on the Philippines’ commitment to justice.

The government likewise refuses to investigate the national policy landscape that enabled these killings, including the National Police Commission’s Memorandum Circular, which launched Operation Double Barrel, implementing the President’s ‘war on drugs’. On this account, the highest officials most responsible for the widespread human rights violations are escaping official domestic investigations.

The Philippines’ human rights record speaks for itself. There has only been one criminal conviction out of the huge number of estimated extrajudicial killings. The government continues to refuse to work with the National Human Rights which has done intensive investigations into many cases of such killings.

To date, there has been no independent body established and relatives of victims remain fearful of reprisals should they cooperate with independent investigations.The country’s President has incited violence against his critics while assuring protection to the police officers involved in the ‘war on drugs’. In light of this, what we see is a government that has used domestic mechanisms only to shield perpetrators from international accountability.

We reiterate that the ICC investigation has wider implications beyond the Philippines. When the investigation was announced, it sent a message of hope to victims in the country and across the region where people continue to face State-sponsored violence. Civil society had hoped that the ICC would serve as a deterrent to human rights atrocities perpetrated by many authoritarian leaders across Asia. However, an order of deferment may be used to incite a disregard for international accountability.

We have, over the past five years, documented cases of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and other crimes against humanity. We work with victims, who, until this day, are afraid to speak because of the real threat of reprisals. The ‘war on drugs’ has expanded into a war on civic space and a war against its people, where critics and civil society opposing the ‘war on drugs’ have been systematically targeted.

As perpetrators of these violations once again try to take power in the coming 2022 national elections, any deferment poses risks that this cycle of impunity will only continue. The ICC was established to provide justice to victims of the gravest violations. We remain committed in supporting the Court in the pursuit of this mission.

Signatories

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
BALAOD Mindanaw
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
Karapatan Alliance Philippines
DAKILA - Philippine Collective for Modern Heroism
Human Rights Online Philippines (HRonlinePH)
In Defense of Human Rights and Dignity Movement (iDefend)
LILAK (Purple Action for Indigenous Women's Rights)
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights)
Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP)

Civic space in the Philippines is rated as repressed by the CIVICUS Monitor

Call on INTERPOL to ban the illegal junta from representing Myanmar at its General Assembly

To: Kim Jong Yang, INTERPOL President; Jürgen Stock, INTERPOL General Secretary; the INTERPOL Executive Committee and INTERPOL Member Countries

Dear INTERPOL President Kim Jong Yang, INTERPOL Vice Presidents Benyamina Abbad and Šárka Havránková,INTERPOL General Secretary Jürgen Stock, INTERPOL Executive Committee Delegates Khaled Jameel Al Materyeen, Ahmed Nasser Al-Raisi, Jean-Jacques Colombi, Rogerio Galloro, Robert Guirao Bailén, Destino Pedro, Olushola Kamar Subair, Jannine Van den Berg, and Member Countries.

We, the undersigned 259 organizations, call on INTERPOL to immediately ban the Myanmar military junta from representing Myanmar as a member of INTERPOL. We demand you ensure that the military junta is excluded from the upcoming 89th INTERPOL General Assembly and all benefits and future cooperation that membership entails.

According to media reports, the Myanmar military junta’s police force is currently representing Myanmar in INTERPOL and its members, led by the Head of Police and Deputy Home Affairs Minister Lieutenant-General Than Hlaing, will act as delegates for the Myanmar government at the INTERPOL General Assembly. This is a matter of grave concern to us and raises serious credibility issues for INTERPOL itself for the following reasons:

  1. The military junta does not represent the government of Myanmar. The international community has refused to recognise the military junta as the legitimate government of Myanmar and has prevented members of the military junta from participating in international forums including the UN General Assembly, the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) and the ASEAN Summit.
  2. The attempted coup on 1 February 2021, under the leadership of Senior General Min Aung Hlaing by violent means violated the Myanmar Constitution, international law and the principle of rule of law.
  3. The head of the UN Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar recently stated that since the attempted coup the Myanmar military junta’s widespread and systematic attack on the civilian population amounts to crimes against humanity.
  4. The Special Advisory Council for Myanmar, composed of international experts including former members of the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar and a former Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, has recently argued that, in addition to crimes against humanity, the Myanmar military is engaging in terrorism and should be classified as a terrorist organization.
  5. Lt. General Than Hlaing, as the junta’s Deputy Minister of Home Affairs and Chief of Police, is directly responsible for decision making concerning repressive policies and violent actions committed by police against peaceful demonstrators and is therefore responsible for serious human rights violations in Myanmar/Burma.
  6. For this and other reasons, Lt. General Than Hlaing has been placed by the European Union under a travel ban and asset freeze as of 3 March 2021.
  7. Targeted sanctions against Lt. General Than Hlaing also remain in place by the US, UK, and Canada (overview with links here).
  8. Lt General Than Hlaing has been appointed to lead operations in Chin State. Escalating military attacks against civilians there and in Sagaing and Magwe Regions have caused rights groups to draw similarities to “clearance operations” used to violently oppress the ethnic Rohingya population – now at issue in the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice

INTERPOL’s vision is to connect police for a “safer world” and to support security for the world’s citizens. The people of Myanmar are in dire need of safety and security. The single biggest threat to their security is the Myanmar military junta, who is attempting to represent Myanmar in INTERPOL and use the General Assembly as a platform for political gain and international legitimacy. This will embolden the Myanmar military to continue to commit international crimes with blanket impunity.

We note that countering the threat of terrorism is the first of INTERPOL’s seven Global Policing Goals, and INTERPOL has a responsibility to counter and disrupt terrorism wherever it occurs, including in Myanmar.

We draw your attention to condemnation by the UN Security Council regarding the junta following the February 2021 coup, including a November 2021 statement by the Council’s President Juan Ramón de la Fuente Ramírez citing “deep concern at further recent violence across Myanmar”.

We note that upholding human rights is central to INTERPOL’s mandate. We implore you to meet the commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated in Article 2 of the Constitution of the ICPO-INTERPOL. Recognizing the Myanmar military junta, responsible for systemic and grave human rights violations would be a clear violation of this article.

We appeal to you to adhere to INTERPOL’s commitment to political neutrality stated in Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution. Awarding an unlawful military junta that lacks domestic and international recognition with legitimacy would violate this article, and amount to a partisan intervention that would embolden the military to continue to commit international crimes with total impunity.

Instead of legitimizing the military junta through INTERPOL membership, we appeal to you to uphold international law by supporting the ongoing investigation at the International Criminal Court concerning crimes of genocide against the Rohingya, and future investigations, to bring all perpetrators of Myanmar atrocities to account. The Myanmar military must be recognized as a terrorist organization, not recognized as representatives of the Myanmar people who are the very victims of the junta’s daily barrage of violence that INTERPOL aims to protect.

We therefore call on INTERPOL to:

  • Ban the Myanmar military junta from INTERPOL, including the 89th General Assembly.
  • Support efforts to bring Senior Gen Min Aung Hlaing, Lt Gen Than Hlaing and all other perpetrators of atrocity crimes to justice by identifying and arresting suspects.
  • Take all measures available to prevent the Myanmar military junta’s continued acts of terrorism by disrupting terrorism movement and tracing and disrupting their international revenue and arms supply networks.

At this fragile and crucial time in Myanmar, INTERPOL and their member countries must act in the interests of the safety and security of Myanmar people, victims and survivors of crime and in accordance with international law and norms.

-----

For more information, please contact:

Khin Ohmar, Progressive Voice,

Veronica Pedrosa, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights,

Annie Boyajian, Freedom House,

Signed by:

  1. 8888 Generation (New Zealand)
  2. Action Committee for Democracy Development
  3. Activists Group for Human Rights ‘BARAM’
  4. Albany Karen Community, Albany
  5. All Arakan Students’ and Youths’ Congress
  6. All Burma Democratic Face in New Zealand
  7. ALL FOR LITTLE ONE
  8. Alliance for Gender Inclusion in Peace Process (AGIPP)
  9. Alternative Solutions for Rural Communities (ASORCOM)
  10. ALTSEAN-Burma
  11. Arizona Kachin Community
  12. ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights – APHR
  13. Asia Pacific Solidarity Coalition (APSOC)
  14. Asian Dignity Initiative
  15. Assistance Association for Political Prisoners
  16. Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters
  17. Athan – Freedom of Expression Activist Organization
  18. Auckland Kachin Community NZ
  19. Auckland Zomi Community
  20. B-Farm
  21. Blood Money Campaign
  22. Boat People SOS
  23. Burma Action Ireland
  24. Burma Campaign UK
  25. Burma Human Rights Network
  26. Burma Rohingya Organisation UK
  27. Burmese Relief Center - Japan
  28. Burmese Rohingya Welfare Organisation New Zealand
  29. Burmese Women’s Union
  30. Calgary Karen Community Association (CKCA)
  31. California Kachin Community
  32. Campaign for a New Myanmar
  33. Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights Committee (CENTRAL)
  34. Chin Community of Auckland
  35. CHRF
  36. Christian Solidarity Worldwide
  37. Citizen of Burma Award-New Zealand
  38. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
  39. Coalition to Abolish Modern-day Slavery in Asia (CAMSA)
  40. Committee for Free and Fair Elections in Cambodia (COMFREL)
  41. Committee for Religions Freedom in Vietnam
  42. COVIL
  43. CRPH & NUG Supporters Austria
  44. CRPH & NUG Supporters Ireland
  45. CRPH Funding Ireland
  46. Dallas Kachin Community
  47. DANA
  48. Decency & Clarity
  49. DEEKU-Karenni Community of Amarillo, TX
  50. Democracy for Myanmar - Working Group (NZ)
  51. Democracy, Peace and Women’s Organization – DPW
  52. DONEUIDONG
  53. Dongjadong Sarangbang
  54. Edmonton Karen Community Youth Organization
  55. Education Community Woorijari Social Cooperation
  56. Equality Myanmar
  57. European Karen Network
  58. Federal Myanmar Benevolence Group (NZ)
  59. Federation of General Workers Myanmar
  60. Federation of Workers' Union of the Burmese Citizen in Japan
  61. Freedom House
  62. Future Light Center
  63. Future Thanlwin
  64. Gangbuk Housing Welfare Center
  65. Gender and Development for Cambodia (GADC)
  66. Gender Equality Network
  67. Georgia Kachin Community
  68. Global Movement for Myanmar Democracy (GM4MD)
  69. Global Myanmar Spring Revolution
  70. Gwangju Asia sisterhood
  71. Gyeonggi Association of Self-Sufficiency Promotion Center
  72. HANBARAGI
  73. Houston Kachin Community
  74. Human Rights Foundation of Monland
  75. Incorporated Organization Shilcheon Bulgyo
  76. Independent Trade Union Federation (INTUFE)
  77. Info Birmanie
  78. Initiatives for International Dialogue
  79. International Campaign for the Rohingya
  80. International Child Rights Center
  81. International Karen Organisation
  82. International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)
  83. Iowa Kachin Community
  84. Jangsuwon
  85. JCMK
  86. JPIC of Sisters of Charity of Seton Hill
  87. Junta Denouncing Committee Korea
  88. Justice For Myanmar
  89. Kachin American Community (Portland – Vancouver)
  90. Kachin Community of Indiana
  91. Kachin Community of USA
  92. Kachin Gender Star Group
  93. Kachin Women’s Association Thailand
  94. Kaesong Tourism Center
  95. Kansas Karenni community, KS
  96. Karen American Association of Milwaukee, WI
  97. Karen Association of Huron, SD
  98. Karen Community of Akron, OH
  99. Karen Community of Canada (KCC)
  100. Karen Community of Czech Republic
  101. Karen Community of Finland
  102. Karen Community of Hamilton
  103. Karen Community of Iowa, IA
  104. Karen Community of Ireland
  105. Karen Community of Israel
  106. Karen Community of Kansas City
  107. Karen Community of Kitchener & Waterloo
  108. Karen Community of Leamington K
  109. Karen Community of Lethbridge
  110. Karen Community of London
  111. Karen Community of Minnesota, MN
  112. Karen Community of North Carolina
  113. Karen Community of Ottawa
  114. Karen Community of Regina
  115. Karen Community of Saskatoon
  116. Karen Community of Thunderbay
  117. Karen Community of Toronto
  118. Karen Community of Windsor
  119. Karen Community of Winnipeg
  120. Karen Community Society of British Columbia (KCSBC)
  121. Karen Human Rights Group
  122. Karen Organization of America
  123. Karen Organization of Illinois, IL
  124. Karen Thai Group
  125. Karen Women’s Organization
  126. Karen Youth Education Pathways
  127. Karen Youth Networks
  128. Karen Youth of Norway
  129. Karen Youth of Toronto
  130. Karen Youth Organization
  131. Karenni Civil Society Network
  132. Karenni Community of Arizona, AZ
  133. Karenni Community of Arkensas, AK
  134. Karenni Community of Austin, TX
  135. Karenni Community of Bowling Green, KY
  136. Karenni Community of Buffalo, NY
  137. Karenni Community of Chicago, IL
  138. Karenni Community of Colorado, CO
  139. Karenni Community of Dallas, TX
  140. Karenni community of Des Moines, IA
  141. Karenni Community of Florida, FL
  142. Karenni Community of Fort Worth, TX
  143. Karenni Community of Georgia, GA
  144. Karenni Community of Houston, TX
  145. Karenni Community of Idaho, ID
  146. Karenni Community of Indianapolis, IN
  147. Karenni Community of Massachusetts, MA
  148. Karenni Community of Michigan, MI
  149. Karenni Community of Minnesota, MN
  150. Karenni Community of Missouri, MO
  151. Karenni Community of North Carolina, NC
  152. Karenni Community of Portland, OR
  153. Karenni Community of Rockford, IL
  154. Karenni Community of San Antonio, TX
  155. Karenni Community of Sioux Falls, SD
  156. Karenni Community of Utah, UT
  157. Karenni Community of Utica, NY
  158. Karenni Community of Washington, WA
  159. Karenni Community of Wisconsin, WI
  160. Karenni Human Rights Group
  161. Karenni National Women’s Organization
  162. Karenni Society New Zealand
  163. Karenni Society of Omaha, NE
  164. Karenni-American Association
  165. Keng Tung Youth
  166. Kentucky Kachin Community
  167. Kijamii Table
  168. Kim Wan Sik (MR)
  169. Korea Christian Solidarity for Democracy and Human Rights in Myanmar
  170. Korea Karen Organization
  171. Korea Karen Youth Organization
  172. Korea Women's Associations United (KWAU)
  173. Korean House for International Solidarity
  174. Korean Solidarity for Overseas Community Organization
  175. Let’s Help Each Other
  176. Louisiana Kachin Community
  177. Maryland Kachin Community
  178. May18 Seoul Memorial Society
  179. Metta Campaign Mandalay
  180. Michigan Kachin Community
  181. Migrant Health Association in Korea WeFriends
  182. Milk Tea Alliance (Friend For Myanmar)
  183. MINBYUN - Lawyers for a Democratic Society International Solidarity Committee
  184. Minnesota Kachin Community
  185. Myanmar Accountability Project
  186. MYANMAR Action Supporters
  187. Myanmar Community Austria
  188. Myanmar Democratic Force (Denmark)
  189. Myanmar Engineers - New Zealand
  190. Myanmar Family Community in Ireland
  191. Myanmar Gonye (New Zealand)
  192. Myanmar People Alliance (Shan State)
  193. Myanmar Students Organization
  194. Myanmar Students' Union in New Zealand
  195. National Clergy Conference for Justice and Peace
  196. NeT Organization
  197. Network for Advocacy Action
  198. Network for Human Rights Documentation Burma (ND-Burma)
  199. Neutinamu
  200. New Bodhisattva Network
  201. New York Kachin Community
  202. New Zealand Doctors for NUG
  203. New Zealand Karen Association
  204. New Zealand Zo Community Inc.
  205. No Business With Genocide
  206. North Carolina Kachin Community
  207. NUG & CRPH Supporter Denmark
  208. Nyan Lynn Thit Analytica
  209. Olive Organization
  210. Omaha Kachin Community
  211. Organization of Social Welfare Service Bokumjari
  212. Oversea Karen Organization Japan
  213. Overseas Mon Association. New Zealand
  214. Pa-O Youth Organization
  215. Pennsylvania Kachin Community
  216. People’s Initiatives for Development Alternatives
  217. People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD)
  218. Progressive 3.0
  219. Progressive Korea
  220. Progressive Voice
  221. Pyeongchang
  222. Pyithu Gonye (New Zealand)
  223. RCSD/FSS Chiang Mai University
  224. Rvwang Community Association New Zealand
  225. SAMYANG CITIZENS NETWORK
  226. SARANGBANG Group for Human Rights
  227. Save and Care Organization for Ethnic Women at Border Areas
  228. Save Myanmar Fundraising Group (New Zealand)
  229. Shan Community (New Zealand)
  230. Shan MATA
  231. Sisters 2 Sisters
  232. Sitt Nyein Pann Foundation
  233. Social Action for Community and Development (SACD)
  234. Solidarity for Another World
  235. South Carolina Kachin Community
  236. Support Group for Democracy in Myanmar (Netherlands)
  237. Supporters group for migrant workers in Korea
  238. Suwon Migrants Center
  239. Swedish Burma Committee
  240. Synergy – Social Harmony Organization
  241. Ta’ang Women’s Organization
  242. Ta'ang Legal Aid
  243. Tanintharyi Women Network
  244. Tennessee Kachin Community
  245. The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  246. The People Center for Development and Peace (PDP-Center)
  247. Tongirinreoygeo
  248. Union of Karenni State Youth
  249. US Campaign for Burma
  250. Utica Karen Community, NY
  251. Virginia Kachin Community
  252. Washington Kachin Community
  253. West Virginia Kachin Community
  254. With Gilbut Welfare Foundation
  255. Women Advocacy Coalition – Myanmar (WAC-M)
  256. Women’s League of Burma
  257. Women’s Peace Network
  258. Youth of Kim Dae-jung Foundation
  259. Youth Resource Development Program (YRDP)

Civic space in Myanmar is rated as repressed by the CIVICUS Monitor

International human rights orgs: Stop ‘paid prioritisation’ bill

 한국어  

Moon Jae-in
President of the Republic of Korea
1 Cheongwadae-ro, Jongno-gu
Seoul 03048
Republic of Korea

Joint open letter to President Moon Jae-in

Re: Respect Net Neutrality, Oppose Bill Mandating ‘Paid Prioritization’ for Content Producers

Dear Mr. President Moon,

We the undersigned thirty (30) human rights and freedom of expression organizations are concerned by your recent apparent support for an amendment to the Telecommunications Business Act that would allow Korean internet service providers (ISPs) to impose financial barriers on content providers’ (CPs) network access. The proposed amendment risks eroding net neutrality in contravention of international standards regarding access to the internet. We call on you to oppose the proposed amendment, and to instead take steps to protect net neutrality in Korea.

The proposal, if passed, would impose the world’s first law mandating paid prioritization by requiring content providers like Naver, Kakao, Netflix, and Google to pay Korean ISPs termination fees based on network usage in order to have their content be sent to the ISP’s customers. This amendment comes a year after the Telecommunications Business Act was last revised to include vaguely defined requirements on content providers to ensure stable internet service, foreboding imposition of some sort of burdens on content providers. Since 2016, Korea has already imposed the world’s first mandatory Sending Party Network Pays (SPNP) rule albeit only among ISPs, where ISPs charge one another for sending data to other ISPs resulting in high internet connectivity charges for content providers.

The new amendment allows ISPs in Korea to restrict access to content based on how much money has been paid by the sender or to block traffic from CPs unable to pay network usage fees. This would contradict the principle of net neutrality, which protects internet users’ rights to access content, applications, services, and hardware of their choice by ensuring all data is treated without discrimination. The plurality and diversity of expression and information on the internet risks being stifled if ISPs are allowed to use their control of network infrastructure to slow, block, or prioritize content depending on whether money has been paid for its delivery.

Net neutrality principles have been upheld as an international human rights standard. In particular, in his 2017 report to the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Expression stated that “the State’s positive duty to promote freedom of expression argues strongly for network neutrality in order to promote the widest possible non-discriminatory access to information.” Speaking specifically in regards to paid prioritization, as now proposed in Korea, the Special Rapporteur explained that paid prioritization schemes give preferential treatment to certain types of traffic over others for payment, which undermines user choice and forces them to engage with content that has been prioritized without their knowledge. In its 2021 resolution on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, the UN Human Rights Council further called on States to “ensure net neutrality” and “to prohibit attempts by Internet access service providers to assign priority to certain types of Internet content or application over others for payment or other commercial benefit.”

From a comparative perspective, such practices as now proposed in Korea have previously been banned in the United States under the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2011 Preserving the Open Internet order and that ban was also included in the 2015 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet order . Even though these rules were revoked in 2017 under the Trump administration, the Biden administration in 2021 issued an executive order to restore them and their reimposition is now under review by the FCC. In Europe the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication already rejected a similar proposal in 2012. When the European Union  adopted their Open Internet Regulation in 2015 that protects the principle of Net Neutrality union-wide, a similar decision was made by the European Parliament and the Council of EU member states to not establish a ‘Sending Party Network Pay’-regime that would charge termination fees..

Proponents of the amendment claim that content providers are “free-riding” on Korean ISPs and not paying their fair share, but in reality all users of the internet, including individuals and companies, are already paying for bandwidth and access to content delivery systems. Domestic content providers in Korea are already paying high fees to connect to domestic ISPs, who in turn pay to connect to overseas ISPs, thereby connecting Korea to the world. Small foreign content providers pay to connect to their home ISPs who pay to connect to higher-tier foreign ISPs who help deliver their data to Korean ISPs, while the big foreign content providers like Google and Netflix are spending their own resources to deliver directly to domestic ISPs in Korea or nearby either through sub-sea cables or cache servers. Once connected, these network routers are bound by a mutual promise of delivering data packets to their neighbor routers without discrimination based on origin, type, content, or whether or how much the sender has paid for delivery. It is through this promise of net neutrality and the mutually cooperative efforts to connect to one another that the world has entered the golden age of communication where an ordinary person can start a movement or a business of global scale from his or her computer.

President Moon, you were a human rights lawyer and should understand how, in addition to its economic promise, internet access is crucial to and has become a necessary ingredient of the global democratization and human rights movement. Without net neutrality, people’s ability to share their ideas with many will be severely restricted by the imposition of charges for data delivery. This will impact more than the delivery of streaming media; it will impact the global spread of ideas in the fight for democracy and human rights.

We, therefore, reiterate our call that you immediately oppose the proposed amendments to the Telecommunications Business Act and take positive steps to protect net neutrality in line with Korea’s obligations to protect the right to freedom of expression and access to information. This includes repealing or amending existing laws that challenge net neutrality, such as the requirement on CPs to ensure service stabilization measures and the 2016 SPNP rules.

Signatories:

Human Rights Watch

Article 19

Wikimedia Foundation

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

Electronic Frontier Foundation

European Digital Rights (EDRi)

Access Now

PEN America

Public Knowledge

epicenter.works – for digital rights

Open Net Association

Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet

Software Freedom Law Center of India
Internet Freedom Foundation

Southeast Asian Freedom of Expression Net

Citizen D / Državljan D

Wikimedia France

Ubunteam

Last Mile4D

i freedom – Uganda Network

Campaign for Human Rights and Development International

Sassoufit Collective

Youths and Environmental Advocacy Centre (YEAC) Nigeria

Elektronisk Forpost Norge

Chaos Computer Club (Germany)

IT-Pol Denmark

Point of View

Derechos Digitales

MediaJustice

Fight for the Future

Civic space in the Republic of Korea is rated as narrowed by the Civicus Monitor 

Another Wave of Atrocity Crimes in Chin State UN Security Council Must Act Now to End Myanmar Junta’s Campaign of Terror

We, the undersigned 521 Myanmar, regional and international civil society organizations, call on the UN Security Council to urgently convene a meeting on the escalating attacks in Chin State, and address the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian, human rights and political crisis in Myanmar. We call for the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution to consolidate international action to stop the military's violent assault against the people of Myanmar. The UN Security Council must also impose a global arms embargo to stop the flow of weapons and dual-use goods to the Myanmar military junta.

It has been nine months since the attempted coup by the brutal Myanmar military. 1,236 people have been killed and 9,667 arbitrarily detained as of 3 November, 2021. The junta has continued its violent assault throughout Myanmar, recently deployed troops and increased its attacks against civilians in Chin State, Sagaing and Magwe Regions in north-western Myanmar, while continuing its attacks in Karenni, Karen and Shan States.

On Friday 29 October, the Myanmar military began shelling the town of Thantlang in Western Chin State, setting as many as 200 houses and at least two churches on fire. Soldiers also deliberately torched houses at random.

Save the Children - whose office in Thantlang was set on fire alongside local civil society organizations including Chin Human Rights Organization - strongly condemned the recent attacks stating “the incident is further evidence of a deepening crisis in Myanmar” as the violence continues to affect large numbers of children across the country. Such indiscriminate attacks against civilians and humanitarian organizations are violations of international law and constitute war crimes.

Following the 1 February attempted coup, Chin State has been at the forefront of some of the strongest resistance to the Myanmar military junta. This has been met with fierce attacks by the military, including use of fighter jets and heavy artillery used against civilians while hundreds have been arbitrarily detained, and dozens killed. Prior to this most recent attack, approximately 10,000 residents had already fled Thantlang as the military junta indiscriminately shot into homes and set off fires by shelling in September. At the time, a Christian pastor who was attempting to put out the fires was shot dead, and his ring finger cruelly cut off and removed, along with his wedding ring. Those displaced have taken shelter in nearby villages and others have sought refuge in India. Many of those who have been displaced have been unable to access humanitarian aid as the junta weaponizes aid for their own political benefit, often blocking access or destroying it in an effort to weaken the resistance.

In early October, amid increasing deployment of heavy weapons and troops by the military junta, the spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights urged “the international community to speak with one voice, to prevent the commission of further serious human rights violations against the people of Myanmar.” The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights also warned of greater human rights catastrophe and further mass atrocity crimes amid the deployment of tens of thousands of troops stating, “These tactics are ominously reminiscent of those employed by the military before its genocidal attacks against the Rohingya in Rakhine State in 2016 and 2017.” Echoing these concerns, 29 Rohingya organizations have urged the Council not to repeat the mistakes it made in 2017 by failing to act on warnings of an impending military offensive against the Rohingya.

Since the start of the attempted coup nine months ago, hundreds of Myanmar and international society organizations have repeatedly and vehemently called for the UN Security Council to act. This includes a statement from 92 Chin civil society organizations and Burma Campaign UK, who have called on the UK as the “penholder” of Myanmar at the UN Security Council to urgently act. The Special Advisory Council for Myanmar have also called for the UN Security Council to “issue a resolution to consolidate international action towards resolving the crisis.”

Yet, the Security Council has failed to take any effective actions beyond statements. As the offensives escalate in Chin State, the UN Security Council must act before it is too late. It must convene an urgent meeting on the escalating attacks in Chin State and the overall deepening political, human rights and humanitarian crisis as a result of the Myanmar military leaders search for power and greed that has caused immense suffering. The human security risk not only threatens the people of Myanmar but also regional and thus global security and peace. The Council must immediately build on previous statements with concrete action by adopting a resolution that consolidates international action to resolve the deepening crisis, a global arms embargo to stop the flow of weapons, including dual-use goods, and refer the situation in Myanmar to the International Criminal Court. The Council must demonstrate that it will take concrete actions to stop the junta from committing further atrocity crimes and posing further risk to human security of the people of Myanmar.

The UN must not continue to fail the people of Myanmar.

For more information, please contact:

Signed by 521 Myanmar, regional and international civil society organizations* including:

 

  1. 8888 Generation (New Zealand)
  2. Action Committee for Democracy Development
  3. African Great Lakes Action Network
  4. All Burma Democratic Face in New Zealand
  5. All Burma IT Student Union
  6. Alternative Solutions for Rural Communities (ASORCOM)
  7. ALTSEAN-Burma
  8. America Rohingya Justice Network
  9. American Baptist Churches USA
  10. American Rohingya Advocacy
  11. Ananda Data
  12. Anti-Dictatorship in Burma - DC Metropolitan Area
  13. Arakan CSO Network
  14. Arakan Institute for Peace and Development
  15. Arakan Rohingya Development Association – Australia
  16. Arakan Rohingya National Organisation (ARNO)
  17. Arakan Rohingya Union
  18. Arizona Kachin Community
  19. ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
  20. Asho University Students Association (AUSA)
  21. Asho Youth Organization
  22. Asian Dignity Initiative
  23. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  24. Asian Resource Foundation
  25. Asia-Pacific Solidarity Coalition
  26. Assistance Association for Political Prisoners
  27. Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters
  28. Association of Women for Awareness & Motivation (AWAM)
  29. Athan – Freedom of Expression Activist Organization
  30. Auckland Kachin Community Inc.
  31. Auckland Zomi Community
  32. Australian Burmese Rohingya Organisation
  33. Backpack Health Workers Team
  34. Balaod Mindanaw
  35. Bangkok Chin University Student Fellowship
  36. Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM)
  37. Baptist World Alliance
  38. Blood Money Campaign
  39. British Rohingya Community in UK
  40. Buddhist Solidarity for Reform
  41. Burma Action Ireland 
  42. Burma Campaign UK 
  43. Burma Human Rights Network
  44. Burma Medical Association
  45. Burma Task Force
  46. Burmese American Millennials
  47. Burmese Community Support Group (Australia)
  48. Burmese Democratic Forces
  49. Burmese Rohingya Association in Queensland-Australia (BRAQA)
  50. Burmese Rohingya Association Japan (BRAJ)
  51. Burmese Rohingya Association of North America
  52. Burmese Rohingya Community Australia (BRCA)
  53. Burmese Rohingya Community in Denmark
  54. Burmese Rohingya Community of Georgia
  55. Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK
  56. Burmese Rohingya Welfare Organisation New Zealand
  57. Burmese Student Association at UCSB
  58. Burmese Women’s Union
  59. California Kachin Community
  60. Calvary Burmese Church 
  61. Campaign for a New Myanmar
  62. Canadian Burmese Rohingya Organisation
  63. Canadian Rohingya Development Initiative
  64. Cantors' Assembly
  65. CAU Buddhist
  66. CDM Supporter Team (Hakha)
  67. Central Chin Youth Organization (CCYO)
  68. Centre for Human Rights and Development, Mongolia
  69. Cherry Foundation (Yangon), Burma/Myanmar
  70. Chin Baptist Association, North America
  71. Chin Baptist Churches USA
  72. Chin Civil Society Network (CCSN)
  73. Chin Community of Auckland
  74. Chin Community of USA-DC Area 
  75. Chin Education Initiative (CEI)
  76. Chin Human Rights Organization
  77. Chin Humanitarian Assistance Team Rakhine State (CHAT)
  78. Chin Leaders of Tomorrow (CLT)
  79. Chin Literature and Culture Committee (Universities of Yangon)
  80. Chin Student Union - Kalay
  81. Chin Student Union - Pakokku
  82. Chin Student Union - Sittwe
  83. Chin Student Union of Myanmar
  84. Chin University Student Fellowship – Paletwa
  85. Chin University Students in Rakhine State (CUSRS)
  86. Chin Women Organization (CWO)
  87. Chin Women's Development Organization (CWDO)
  88. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
  89. Coalition for Democracy
  90. Community Resource Centre (CRC)
  91. Dallas Kachin Community
  92. Darfur and Beyond, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
  93. DEEKU-Karenni Community of Amarillo, TX
  94. Democracy for Ethnic Minorities Organization
  95. Democracy for Myanmar - Working Group (NZ)
  96. Democracy, Peace and Women's Organization – DPW
  97. Equality Myanmar
  98. European Rohingya Council (ERC)
  99. Falam Phunsang Tlawngta Pawlkom
  100. Federal Myanmar Benevolence Group (NZ)
  101. Fidi Foundation (Hakha)
  102. Florida Kachin Community
  103. Free Burma Action Bay/USA/Global
  104. Free Myanmar Campaign USA/BACI
  105. Free Rohingya Coalition (FRC)
  106. Freedom for Burma
  107. Freedom, Justice, Equality for Myanmar
  108. Future Light Center
  109. Future Thanlwin
  110. Gender and Development Institute – Myanmar
  111. Gender Equality Myanmar
  112. Generation Wave
  113. Georgia Kachin Community
  114. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
  115. Global Justice Center 
  116. Global Movement for Myanmar Democracy
  117. Global Myanmar Spring Revolution
  118. Global Witness
  119. Globe International Center
  120. Grassroots Movement for Burma
  121. Green Party Korea International Committee
  122. Hakha Campaign for Justice
  123. Hakha University Student Organization (HUSO)
  124. Houston Kachin Community
  125. Human Rights Alert
  126. Human Rights Development for Myanmar
  127. Human Rights Foundation of Monland
  128. Human Rights Watch
  129. Imparsial
  130. Incorporated Organization Shilcheon Bulgyo
  131. Infinite Burma
  132. Initiatives for International Dialogue
  133. Institute for Asian Democracy
  134. Inter Pares
  135. International Campaign for the Rohingya
  136. International Karen Organisation 
  137. Iowa Kachin Community
  138. Ipas
  139. Jewish World Watch
  140. Jogye Order Chapter of Korea Democracy Union
  141. Justice For Myanmar
  142. Kachin Alliance
  143. Kachin American Community (Portland – Vancouver)
  144. Kachin Community of Indiana
  145. Kachin Community of USA
  146. Kachin National Organization USA
  147. Kachin Peace Network (KPN)
  148. Kachin State Women Network
  149. Kachin Women’s Association Thailand
  150. Kanpetlet University Student Organization
  151. Kansas Karenni Community, KS
  152. Karen American Association of Milwaukee, WI
  153. Karen Association of Huron, SD 
  154. Karen Community of Akron, OH 
  155. Karen Community of Iowa, IA 
  156. Karen Community of Kansas City, KS & MO 
  157. Karen Community of Minnesota, MN 
  158. Karen Community of North Carolina, NC 
  159. Karen Environmental and Social Action Network
  160. Karen Human Rights Group
  161. Karen Organization of America
  162. Karen Organization of Illinois, IL
  163. Karen Organization of San Diego
  164. Karen Peace Support Network
  165. Karen Rivers Watch
  166. Karen Women’s Organization
  167. Karen Youth Education Pathways 
  168. Karenni Civil Society Network
  169. Karenni Community of Arizona, AZ
  170. Karenni Community of Arkensas, AK
  171. Karenni Community of Austin, TX
  172. Karenni Community of Bowling Green, KY
  173. Karenni Community of Buffalo, NY
  174. Karenni Community of Chicago, IL
  175. Karenni Community of Colorado, CO
  176. Karenni Community of Dallas, TX
  177. Karenni Community of Des Moines, IA
  178. Karenni Community of Florida, FL
  179. Karenni Community of Fort Worth, TX
  180. Karenni Community of Georgia, GA
  181. Karenni Community of Houston, TX
  182. Karenni Community of Idaho, ID
  183. Karenni Community of Indianapolis, IN
  184. Karenni Community of Massachusetts, MA
  185. Karenni Community of Michigan, MI
  186. Karenni Community of Minnesota, MN
  187. Karenni Community of Missouri, MO
  188. Karenni Community of North Carolina, NC
  189. Karenni Community of Portland, OR
  190. Karenni Community of Rockford, IL
  191. Karenni Community of San Antonio, TX
  192. Karenni Community of Sioux Falls, SD
  193. Karenni Community of Utah, UT
  194. Karenni Community of Utica, NY
  195. Karenni Community of Washington, WA
  196. Karenni Community of Wisconsin, WI
  197. Karenni Human Rights Group
  198. Karenni National Women’s Organization
  199. Karenni Society New Zealand
  200. Karenni Society of Omaha, NE
  201. Karenni-American Association
  202. Kaung Rwai Social Action Network
  203. Keng Tung Youth
  204. Kentucky Kachin Community
  205. Korean Ashram
  206. L'chaim! Jews Against the Death Penalty
  207. Los Angeles Rohingya Association
  208. Louisiana Kachin Community
  209. Manyou Power People
  210. Maryland Kachin Community
  211. Matupi University Student Fellowship
  212. Metta Campaign Mandalay
  213. Metta-Vipassana Center
  214. Michigan Kachin Community
  215. MINBYUN - Lawyers for a Democratic Society International Solidarity Committee
  216. Mindat University Student Union
  217. Minnesota Kachin Community
  218. Mizo Student Fellowship
  219. Myanmar Advocacy Coalition
  220. Myanmar Cultural Research Society (MCRS)
  221. Myanmar Engineers - New Zealand
  222. Myanmar Ethnic Rohingya Human Rights Organisation in Malaysia
  223. Myanmar Gonye (New Zealand)
  224. Myanmar Peace Bikers
  225. Myanmar People Alliance (Shan State)
  226. Myanmar Students' Union in New Zealand
  227. Nationalities Alliance of Burma USA
  228. NeT Organization
  229. Network for Human Rights Documentation (ND-Burma)
  230. Never Again Coalition
  231. New Bodhisattva Network
  232. New York Kachin Community
  233. New Zealand Doctors for NUG
  234. New Zealand Karen Association
  235. New Zealand Zo Community Inc.
  236. Ninu (Women in Action Group)
  237. No Business With Genocide
  238. North Carolina Kachin Community
  239. Nyan Lynn Thit Analytica
  240. Olive Organization
  241. Omaha Kachin Community
  242. Overseas Mon Association. New Zealand
  243. Pa-O Women’s Union
  244. Pa-O Youth Organization
  245. Pennsylvania Kachin Community
  246. People’s Initiative for Development Alternatives
  247. People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD)
  248. Progressive Voice
  249. Pyithu Gonye (New Zealand)
  250. Rohingya Action Ireland
  251. Rohingya American Society
  252. Rohingya Arakanese Refugee Committee
  253. Rohingya Community in Netherlands
  254. Rohingya Community in Norway
  255. Rohingya Culture Centre Chicago
  256. Rohingya Human Rights Initiative
  257. Rohingya Human Rights Network (Canada)
  258. Rohingya Organisation Norway
  259. Rohingya Refugee Network
  260. Rohingya Society Malaysia
  261. Rohingya Women Development Network (RWDN)
  262. Rohingya Youth Development Forum (RYDF)
  263. Rvwang Community Association New Zealand
  264. Save and Care Organization for Ethnic Women at Border Areas
  265. Save Myanmar Fundraising Group (New Zealand)
  266. Save the Salween Network
  267. SEA Junction
  268. SEGRI
  269. Shan Community (New Zealand)
  270. Shan MATA
  271. Sitt Nyein Pann Foundation
  272. Solidarity for Another World
  273. South Carolina Kachin Community
  274. Spring Revolution Interfaith Network
  275. Stepping Stone for Peace
  276. Students for Free Burma
  277. Support the Democracy Movement in Burma
  278. Swedish Burma Committee
  279. Swedish Rohingya Association
  280. Synergy - Social Harmony Organization
  281. Ta’ang Women’s Organization
  282. Tedim Youth Association (TYA)
  283. Tennessee Kachin Community
  284. Thantlang Revolutionary Campaigner
  285. Thantlang University Student Organization (TUSO)
  286. Thantlang Youth Association (TYA)
  287. The Center for Freedom of Information
  288. The Pastors Fellowship
  289. The Sound of Hope
  290. The Spring University Myanmar (SUM)
  291. Thint Myat Lo Thu Myar
  292. S. Campaign for Burma 
  293. UION
  294. Union for Reform Judaism (URJ)
  295. Union of Karenni State Youth
  296. Unitarian Universalist Association
  297. Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC)
  298. Virginia Kachin Community
  299. Washington Kachin Community
  300. West Virginia Kachin Community
  301. Women Peace Network 
  302. Women’s Advocacy Coalition – Myanmar
  303. Women’s League of Burma
  304. WOREC Nepal
  305. Yeollin Seonwon
  306. Zomi Federal Union (ZFU)
  307. Zomi Siamsim Kipawlna - Myanmar
  308. Zotung Student Society (ZSS - Myanmar)

*Note: 213 organizations' names are not disclosed at their request due to security concerns.

Civic space in Myanmar is considered repressed by the CIVICUS Monitor

Myanmar’s presence at the ASEAN Summit

To: ASEAN Leaders
H.E. Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah, Prime Minister of Brunei
H.E Hun Sen, Prime Minister of Cambodia
H.E Joko Widodo, President of Indonesia
H.E Thongloun Sisoulith, Prime Minister of Laos
H.E Dato’ Sri Ismail Sabri, Prime Minister of Malaysia
H.E Rodrigo Roa Duterte, President of the Philippines
H.E Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore
H.E Prayut Chan-o-cha, Prime Minister of Thailand
H.E. Nguyen Xuan Phuc, Prime Minister of Vietnam

CC: ASEAN Dialogue Partners
H.E. Will Nankervis, Ambassador of Australia to ASEAN
H.E. Diedrah Kelly, Ambassador of Canada to ASEAN
H.E. Deng Xijun, Ambassador of China to ASEAN
H.E. Igor Driesmans, Ambassador of the European Union to ASEAN
H.E. Shri Jayant N. Khobragade, Ambassador of India to ASEAN
H.E. Chiba Akira, Ambassador of Japan to ASEAN
H.E. Lim Sungnam, Ambassador of Korea to ASEAN
H.E. Pam Dunn, Ambassador of New Zealand to ASEAN
H.E. Alexander Ivanov, Ambassador of Russia to ASEAN
H.E. Melissa A. Brown, Chargé d’Affaires, a.i., U.S. Mission to ASEAN

Your Excellencies,

We, the undersigned organisations, write to you to urge you not to extend an invitation to Myanmar's military junta to the upcoming ASEAN Summit on 25 to 28 October because of the military’s blatant disregard for the Five Point Consensus agreed at the ASEAN Leaders' Meeting and continuing refusal to cooperate with ASEAN towards its implementation.

We welcome the remarks made by the Foreign Ministers of Indonesia and Malaysia who questioned whether the junta should be invited to the Summit and urge the other Member States to come to the same conclusion.

ASEAN's credibility depends on its ability to act decisively and bring an end to the Myanmar military junta’s relentless violence against the people of Myanmar. A lack of decisiveness and consequences for the military’s total contempt for the ASEAN’s leaders' agreement risks undermining the bloc’s legitimacy as a key regional player that can bring peace and stability.

On 24 April 2021, the leaders of nine Member States and the Myanmar junta, represented by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, agreed on a consensus that included the "immediate cessation of violence", constructive dialogue among all parties, the appointment of an ASEAN special envoy on Myanmar, humanitarian assistance to be delivered to the country, and for the Special Envoy and delegation to visit Myanmar to "meet with all parties concerned".

Myanmar's junta has failed to respect this consensus on every single count.

Since the Myanmar junta agreed to immediately cease the violence on 25th April till the end of September there have been 3,534 attacks either on civilians by the military or armed clashes that failed to protect civilians - that’s an 840% increase from the same period in 2020 (376). Thousands have been forced to flee their homes in search of safety. Violent acts amounting to crimes against humanity have been documented. It is clear that junta leader Min Aung Hlaing will not stop in his attempts to crush the democratic opposition to his rule.

The military junta has also continually opposed any form of dialogue. Zaw Min Tun, the military's spokesman, recently said that dialogue between the ASEAN Special Envoy and the State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, the National Unity Government and People's Defence Forces could not take place because they have been declared by the junta as "illegal organizations". The junta's stalling tactics also contributed to the delay in announcing Brunei's Foreign Affairs Minister II Erywan Yusof as ASEAN's special envoy to Myanmar.

While we note aid commitments made to the AHA Centre and delivered through the Myanmar Red Cross, it is important to recall that the Myanmar military’s own actions are creating the current humanitarian crisis engulfing the country. According to the United Nations (UN), three million people require assistance. That number has tripled over the last eight months. In addition to that, there are now 20 million people living below the poverty line – nearly half the population. Yet, the military junta is weaponizing humanitarian aid; blocking the distribution of supplies, placing travel restrictions on humanitarian workers, hoarding and destroying aid, and attacking civilians, health and humanitarian aid workers.

It is clear that Myanmar's military has displayed a flagrant lack of respect for ASEAN, and in fact since the coup, it appears to have used the bloc to try to gain legitimacy while at the same time increasing its brutal reprisals against the people.

The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has also warned that the opportunity to prevent the Myanmar junta from entrenching its rule could be narrowing. He has called for unified regional and international action to prevent the crisis from becoming a large-scale conflict and multi-faceted “catastrophe” in Southeast Asia and beyond.

It is time for ASEAN to act decisively. This starts by denying the Myanmar junta the legitimacy it craves, and which has been rejected constantly by the people of Myanmar. The junta has refused to cooperate with regional and international neighbors, failed to stand by the commitments it has made, and exposed to the world not only its barbaric brutality but also an inability to deal with the deepening social and economic disaster currently taking place in the country, which includes the dereliction of public health services amid the global pandemic.

Reiterating the remarks of Malaysia and Indonesia's foreign ministers, a firm united response by the other Member States is required. The Myanmar junta’s actions must not be accepted as “business as usual.” They are endangering the stability, prosperity, peace and health of the region.

We therefore call on ASEAN leaders to deny the head of the Myanmar military junta a seat at the table and display to him that his callous disregard for the people, and his regional neighbors, does not come free of consequences.

Sincerely,

Signatories:

1. A Lin Thitsar
2. A Lin Yaung Pan Daing
3. A Naga Alin
4. Action Committee for Democracy Development
5. All Arakan Students’ and Youths’ Congress
6. ALTSEAN Burma
7. ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
8. Assistance Association for Political Prisoners
9. Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters
10. Athan – Freedom of Expression Activist Organization
11. Backpack Health Workers Team
12. Burma Medical Association
13. Burmese Women’s Union
14. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
15. Democracy for Ethnic Minorities Organization
16. Democracy, Peace and Women's Organization – DPW
17. Equality Myanmar
18. FORUM-ASIA
19. Freedom and Labor Action Group
20. Future Light Center
21. Future Thanlwin
22. Generation Wave
23. Human Rights Foundation of Monland
24. Kachin Women’s Association Thailand
25. Karen Environmental and Social Action Network (KESAN)
26. Karen Human Rights Group
27. Karen Peace Support Network
28. Karen River Watch (KRW)
29. Karen Women’s Organization
30. Karenni Civil Society Network
31. Karenni Human Rights Group
32. Karenni National Women’s Organization
33. Keng Tung Youth
34. Let’s Help Each Other
35. Metta Campaign Mandalay
36. Myanmar Peace Bikers
37. Myanmar People Alliance (Shan State)
38. Network for Advocacy Action Tanintharyi Women Network
39. Network for Human Rights Documentation – Burma (ND-Burma)
40. Olive Organization
41. Progressive Voice
42. Save and Care Organization for Ethnic Women at Border Areas
43. Save the Salween Network (SSN)
44. Shan MATA
45. Southern Youth Development Organization
46. Spring Revolution Interfaith Network
47. Synergy - Social Harmony Organization
48. Tanintharyi MATA
49. Thint Myat Lo Thu Myar
50. Union of Karenni State Youth
51. Women Advocacy Coalition – Myanmar
52. Women’s League of Burma
     1. Burmese Women's Union (BWU)
     2. Kachin Women's Association-Thailand (KWAT)
     3. Karen Women's Organization (KWO)
     4. Karenni National Women's Organization (KNWO)
     5. Kayan Women's Organization (KyWO)
     6. Kuki Women's Human Rights Organization (KWHRO)
     7. Lahu Women's Organization (LWO)
     8. Pa-O Women's Union (PWU)
     9. Shan Women's Action Network (SWAN)
    10. Ta'ang Women's Organization (TWO)
    11. Tavoy Women's Union (TWU)
    12. Women for Justice (WJ)

Civic space in Myanmar is rated as repressed by the CIVICUS Monitor

Singapore: Withdraw Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill

Today, eleven undersigned organizations called on the Government of Singapore to withdraw the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill (‘FICA’). FICA’s provisions contravene international legal and human rights principles – including the rights to freedom of expression, association, participation in public affairs, and privacy – and will further curtail civic space, both online and offline.

On October 4, 2021, the Parliament of Singapore passed FICA, three weeks after it was tabled on September 13 by the Ministry of Home Affairs purportedly to “prevent, detect and disrupt foreign interference in (...) domestic politics”. This was despite serious concerns that the law could undermine civic freedoms – raised by members of the public, civil society, legal fraternity, independent media, political opposition, academia and industry in Singapore. The bill went through both its second and third readings in one parliament sitting and FICA was passed without significant amendments to address key concerns.

While the protection of national security may be a legitimate aim, FICA contravenes the rule of law and the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality under international human rights law. Overbroad and ambiguous provisions draw within its scope a wide range of conduct, activities and communications “directed towards a political end in Singapore”. As a result, almost any form of expression and association relating to politics, social justice or other matters of public interest in Singapore may be ensnarled within the ambit of the legislation – making it difficult, in turn, for the average individual to reasonably predict with precision what conduct may fall foul of the law. Vague provisions also allow for unfettered executive discretion in interpretation and implementation of the law. Unlimited executive discretion – together with severe penalties under the law – can result in executive overreach into what it deems permissible as civic discussion and public debate. FICA also provides no mechanism for independent judicial oversight or provision of remedy where human rights violations occur as a result of the enforcement of its provisions. The law thus fails to provide for the least intrusive mechanisms to achieve its stated aim of protecting national security while greatly enhancing the risk of executive abuse.

FICA empowers the Minister for Home Affairs to order the removal or disabling of online content – undermining the right to freedom of expression. The Minister is, for example, empowered to order publication of mandatory messages drafted by the authorities, ban apps from being downloadable in Singapore, and order disclosure of private communications and information, when the Minister “suspects or believes” that someone is undertaking or planning to undertake online communications activity “on behalf of a foreign principal”, and that it is in the “public interest” to act. The law makes it a criminal offence to undertake “clandestine” electronic communications on behalf of a foreign principal under certain circumstances, including when that activity “diminishes or is likely to diminish public confidence in (...) the Government or a public authority” or “is likely to be directed towards a political end in Singapore”. Activity “directed towards a public end” includes conduct influencing or seeking to influence government decisions or public opinion on matters of “public controversy” or “political debate” in Singapore. The government can also designate individuals as “politically significant persons” after which they can be required to follow strict limits on sources of funding and disclose all links with foreigners or foreign entities.

FICA’s provisions can also facilitate violations of the rights to freedom of association and participation in public affairs. “Conduct” committed in connection with a “foreign principal” and “directed towards a political end in Singapore” is criminalized where this involves “covert” communication or “deception” – which is defined as including any “deliberate” use of “encrypted communication platforms”. The expansive and vaguely worded definition of activities “directed towards a political end” can cover a broad range of activities – including social justice advocacy, artistic commentary, academic research, social enterprise or journalistic reporting – carried out by, among others, members of civil society, academia, media, the arts and industry. Meanwhile, the overbroad configuration of connection with a “foreign principal” as “arrangements” with any “foreigner” or “non-Singapore registered entity” that can be “written or unwritten” brings within the law’s remit nearly all forms of cross-border collaboration or engagement. Use of “encrypted platforms” as a reflection of “covert” communications also allows for criminal intent to be inferred from a wide range of modes of communications via modern electronic devices and platforms – including through encrypted messaging and email services; and the use of online platforms through secure connection services, such as virtual private networks (VPNs).

FICA will disproportionately impact members of civil society, independent journalists, academics, researchers, artists, writers and other individuals who express opinions, share information and collaborate to advocate on socio-political issues and matters of public interest. As their work can involve critical opinions and is often underpinned and supported by cross-border collaboration, research and funding, they are exposed to increased scrutiny and sanctions under FICA. The issues on which they work will also come under increased State oversight and control. Executive oversight and control can, in turn, infringe not only their rights to freedom of expression and association but the rights of other individuals in Singapore who rely on their work to participate in public affairs, which includes conduct of citizens to “exert influence through public debate and dialogue with their representatives or through their capacity to organize”.

Severe penalties under FICA are disproportionate. In addition, many of those penalties may be imposed without adequate independent oversight or remedy in case of human rights violations, which can result in a chilling effect on civic space and discussion. Directions can be issued by the authorities to censor, restrict or block access to online content, accounts, services, apps or locations deemed to violate the law. The law also allows for the authorities to designate “politically significant” individuals and entities and order them to “disclose foreign affiliations” and “arrangements” or to end “reportable arrangements”. However, there is a lack of independent oversight over these restrictions and designations. These directions may only be appealed to a Reviewing Tribunal appointed by the President on advice of the Cabinet, and decisions made by this Tribunal cannot be appealed to the High Court except for non-compliance with procedural requirements. Further, individuals can face criminal sanctions under the law for “clandestine foreign interference by electronic communications activity” and non-compliance with directions, which may result in steep fines and imprisonment terms. These criminal offences are arrestable and non-bailable.

These penalties and restrictions not only risk undermining the right to privacy, but increase the risk of individuals self-censoring and deliberately deciding not to participate in or engage with cross-border networks to avoid potentially falling foul of the law. Their negative impacts can be particularly severe on independent online platforms, which can be banned from receiving funding or other financial support from foreign individuals or entities, and on journalists, political commentators, civil society members and community researchers who often nurture public opinion and debate through information, opinions and advocacy shared online.

In light of these significant concerns, we request that the Government of Singapore withdraw FICA. The law risks imminently and substantially narrowing already limited civic space in the country – particularly where this space is significantly restricted through abuse of other existing laws such as defamation and contempt of court provisions; the Protection Against Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), the Public Order Act and the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act. The imminent enactment and future enforcement of FICA will significantly undermine the Government of Singapore’s obligations under international law to protect, promote and fulfil human rights – instead allowing for the State to expand curtailment of civic freedoms to the detriment of its people.

Signatories:

Access Now
Amnesty International
ARTICLE 19
ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
Digital Defenders Partnership
Human Rights Watch
International Commission of Jurists
Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada
Wikimedia Foundation

Summary Legal Analysis

International legal principles are clear that even as the protection of national security is a legitimate purpose for the restriction of certain rights, restrictions must be narrowly defined, strictly necessary and proportionate to this aim. The UN Human Rights Committee has clarified that this three-part test of legality, necessity and proportionality applies to freedom of expression. Limitations on this right must “conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality” and be “directly related to the specific need on which they are predicated”. Restrictions on the right to freedom of expression also negatively impact upon the rights to association and participation in public affairs as freedom of expression underpins the “free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues between citizens, candidates and elected representatives”. Meanwhile, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has noted that the three-part test also applies to the right to privacy in the digital age – noting that any interference with privacy must be “necessary and in proportion to” a legitimate aim, “be the least intrusive option available,” and “not render the essence of the right meaningless”.

Overbroad and ambiguous provisions

FICA’s overbroad and ambiguous provisions allow for abusive interpretation and implementation by the authorities, while failing to provide clarity to the public on what conduct would fall foul of the legislation. Its potential to encompass a wide range of conduct fails to ensure compliance with the principle of legality and confers overbroad discretion in interpretation and implementation upon those charged with enforcement of the law.

FICA applies to “conduct” engaged on behalf of a “foreign principal” directed “towards a political end in Singapore”. (ss 4; 8) This includes “arrangements” with any “foreigner” or “non-Singapore registered entity” that can be “written or unwritten” to “influence or seek to influence” “public opinion” on matters of “public controversy” or “to promote or oppose political views, or public conduct relating to activities that have become the subject of a political debate”. (ss 4; 5; 8(f); 8(g))

Criminal penalties apply where a person “undertakes electronic communications activity on behalf of a foreign principal” in a “covert” or other manner that “involves deception” which results in the publication in Singapore of “information or material” which “is likely to be prejudicial” to “public tranquillity” or “public order”; “likely to diminish public confidence in the Government” or is “likely to be directed towards a political end.” (ss 17-19)

The expansive and vaguely worded definition of activities “directed towards a political end” encompasses a broad range of activities – including social justice advocacy, artistic commentary, academic research, social enterprise or journalistic reporting relating to a “political” issue – of civil society, academia, media, the arts and industry, amongst others. Individuals and organizations are therefore unable to accurately define what conduct can risk violating the law. Engagement “on behalf of a foreign principal”, for example, can also cover collaboration with foreign actors to conduct and share research; receive funding to hold events or implement projects; and cross-border training and education.

Matters of “public controversy” and “political debate” can also overbroadly apply to pertinent issues of public interest on which individuals engage – potentially limiting their rights to freedom of expression, association and participation in public affairs. This risks impacting particularly on civil society engaging in research and advocacy – whose purpose is specifically to nurture and direct “political debate” on matters of public interest, including “controversy”, and to oversee and check powers of the executive. There is a risk that the authorities may bring within FICA’s remit civil society’s cross-border engagement and information-sharing, both of which are fundamental to policy and advocacy work, thereby negatively affecting collaboration among civil society actors in Singapore and organizations based outside the country, such as the organizations that are signatories to this statement.

“Public tranquillity” and matters which “likely diminish public confidence in the Government” also allow for an overly broad interpretation to target critical commentary on government policy even in the absence of any legitimate reason to limit freedom of expression. “Covert” conduct includes “deliberately moving onto encrypted communication platforms” (p. 205), which can apply to the use of most modern electronic devices and be relied on to infer criminal intent from a broad range of potential communications – including through encrypted messaging and email services; and the use of online platforms through secure connection services, such as virtual private networks (VPNs).

Unfettered executive discretion

FICA allows for unfettered executive discretion to censure expression and association deemed impermissible by the State. In fact, it provides for wide potential for the authorities to encroach on the rights to free expression, association, participation in public affairs, and privacy, even in circumstances when such encroachment is not strictly necessary to achieve the purported aim of protecting national security.

FICA allows authorities to designate individuals and entities as “politically significant” if their activities are “directed in part towards a political end” and if “it is in the public interest”. (ss 47, 48) This can result in any individual being potentially targeted under the law for expression or advocacy on issues relating to politics or public interest in Singapore. It can also apply to any individual currently working on these issues for a foreign organization or in collaboration with foreign actors – either through academic, civil society or other modes of arrangement.

Designated “politically significant” individuals and entities can be ordered to “disclose foreign affiliations” and “arrangements” through reports to the authorities on their activities, even where they are “not directed towards a political end in Singapore”. (ss 76, 78) The authorities can also direct these “reportable arrangements” to end. (s 84) This can result in infringements of the rights to privacy and association of designated individuals working on issues of social concern in Singapore – particularly journalists, academics and researchers who may be required to reveal information and communications with foreign actors in contravention of professional ethics. Designated “politically significant” journalists and independent media outlets can also be issued a “transparency directive” – requiring them to disclose any “political matter with a foreign link” published in Singapore and identify the author’s name and nationality and any links to a “foreign principal”. (s 81)

FICA also prohibits “politically significant” individuals and entities from accepting “donations” from “impermissible donors” who are not Singaporean individuals or companies (ss 55, 56); caps anonymous donations at S$5,000 a year (ss 57, 58); and bans foreigners from provision of “voluntary labour” to such individuals and entities. (ss 55, 56) These provisions risk being abused to muzzle social justice initiatives, civil society organizations and independent media outlets that rely on independent funding and potential support of individuals who are not Singaporeans to volunteer work or research time.

Notably, FICA empowers the authorities to order any person to “provide any document or any information or material” on activities “directed towards a political end in Singapore” where it is deemed “necessary” for the exercise of powers under FICA. (s 108) This potentially violates the rights to privacy and association of any individual in connection with any individual or entity in relation to any matter under FICA – with a penalty of a fine of up to S$5,000 (approx. US$3,685) and continuing fines of up to S$500 (approx. US$368) for “every day or part of a day” of non-compliance. (s 108)

Severe penalties

Severe penalties can result in a chilling effect on the free exercise of the rights to expression, association, and participation in public affairs. Directions can be issued by the authorities under Part 3 of the law to “stop”, “disable” or “block access to” online content; and “restrict accounts or services” and “remove apps” for apparent violations. An online location which is deemed a “proscribed online location” by the Minister (s 24) on a Part 3 direction can then be prohibited from “soliciting or procuring” “any expenditure to operate” or for “services” provided for the platform. (s 39) Non-compliance with these restrictions amounts to a criminal offence, which is arrestable and non-bailable. Individuals can be slapped with severe criminal sanctions for alleged “clandestine foreign interference by electronic communications activity” – they can be fined up to S$100,000 (approx. US$74,000) and/or imprisoned for up to fourteen years. (ss 17 – 19)

The UN Human Rights Committee has noted that criminal sanctions constitute severe interference with the right to freedom of expression and are disproportionate responses in all but the most egregious cases. These severe penalties are likely to exert a chilling effect on everyone, and particularly on journalists, political commentators, civil society members, academics and community researchers, who often publish information and opinions online.

Lack of independent judicial oversight

FICA does not provide for any independent oversight or remedial mechanism to address potential human rights violations. Appeals against Part 3 directions and Part 4 designations are provided for under the law – however, they are to first be made to the Minister in charge of issuing the order in the first place (ss 92, 93) and/or to a “Reviewing Tribunal” chaired by a Supreme Court Judge but consisting of three individuals closely linked to the government, “each of whom is appointed by the President on the advice of the Cabinet”. (s 94) The rules for such Tribunal’s proceedings are to, in turn, be determined by the Minister for Home Affairs. (s 99)

Independent judicial review is severely limited as any appeal decision made by the Reviewing Tribunal, Minister or other authorities is “final” and “not to be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court” – except where the requested review of the Tribunal’s or Minister’s decision refers to procedural requirements, that will not analyze substantive questions relating to executive implementation of the law. (s 104) This limitation on the judiciary’s review powers undermines the rule of law, which requires judicial oversight as a check and balance against the executive’s exercise of discretionary power. Lack of oversight accentuates risks of violations perpetuated by severe penalties and the law’s stipulation that non-compliance with any order is an offence with penalties incurred from the time of alleged offending, regardless of any appeal.

Civic space in Singapore is rated as "obstructed" by the CIVICUS Monitor

UAE: Appeal for UAE to release detained human rights activists ahead of Dubai Expo

UAE Open Letterعربي

 

Your Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan,

As the Expo Dubai 2020 opens for six months starting on 1 October 2021 in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) under the motto “Connecting Minds and Creating the Future through sustainability, mobility and opportunity”, we the undersigned call on the Emirati authorities to demonstrate their commitment to these values by releasing all imprisoned human rights defenders and activists, detained in violation of their right to freedom of expression.

We further call on the UAE authorities to comply with international standards for prisoners, including by allowing regular family visits, access to healthcare and regular consultations with their lawyers, and ending the practice of holding them in solitary confinement.

Approaching ten years behind bars, the group of pro-democracy advocates, known as the “UAE 94”, remain unjustly jailed for signing an online petition calling for political reform in 2011. Following a grossly unfair mass trial, 69 members of the UAE 94 were sentenced to between seven and 15 years, including eight in absentia. They are held in Al-Razeen prison, a maximum-security facility in the desert of Abu Dhabi, where activists, government critics and human rights defenders are commonly held. They face arbitrary and unlawful disciplinary measures, such as solitary confinement, deprivation of family visits, and intrusive body searches.

Sentenced to seven years in prison, four of these political prisoners remain imprisoned even after completing their sentences, according to Emirati activists. Abdullah Al-Hajiri, Omran Al-Radwan Al-Harathi and Mahmoud Hasan Al-Hosani completed their sentences in 2019, and Fahd Al-Hajiri in 2020. Instead of being granted release, these prisoners were transferred to a so-called Munasaha centre, a “counselling centre” within Abu Dhabi’s Al-Razeen prison facility. Three UAE 94 prisoners currently serving 10-year sentences are human rights lawyers Dr. Mohammed Al-Roken and Dr. Mohammed Al-Mansoori, and Mohammed Abdul Razzaq Al-Siddiq.

Prior to the authorities’ arbitrary dissolution of the UAE’s Jurists Association in 2011, Dr. Al-Roken and Dr. Al-Mansoori served terms as its president. In 2012, they were arbitrarily arrested for signing the 2011 reform petition and for their dedicated work as human rights lawyers defending victims of repression. Detained in Al-Razeen prison, the men reported that they were tortured, as well as subjected to arbitrary disciplinary measures such as denial of family visits, according to Emirati activists.

In 2011, Dr. Al-Roken bravely defended five human rights activists in a case known as the “UAE5”. Among them were prominent human rights activist and poet Ahmed Mansoor and academic Dr. Nasser bin Ghaith. Although the defendants in the case were pardoned by presidential decree at the time, both Mansoor and bin Ghaith were given 10-year prison sentences in subsequent cases, which involved grossly unjust trials on spurious charges.

Ahmed Mansoor serves on the advisory boards of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) and Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division and won the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders in 2015. Since his second arrest in March 2017, he has been held in solitary confinement in a 4 x 4 meter cell with no bed or mattress in Al-Sadr prison, Abu Dhabi. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison in May 2018. In protest, he went on two hunger strikes in March and September 2019, which have severely impacted his health. His condition has been further exacerbated by the denial of adequate medical care.

Economist Dr. Nasser bin Ghaith has faced similar mistreatment in prison, where he had to resort to three separate hunger strikes to attempt to bring attention to his unjust conviction and inhumane detention conditions. Dr. Bin Ghaith, a lecturer at the Abu Dhabi branch of Paris-Sorbonne University, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his online criticism of the Emirati and Egyptian authorities. Despite his hunger strikes, prison authorities have consistently denied Dr. Bin Ghaith appropriate medical care, including his prescribed blood pressure medication.

In September 2021, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for “the immediate and unconditional release of Ahmed Mansoor, Mohammed al-Roken and Nasser bin Ghaith as well as all other human rights defenders, political activists and peaceful dissidents." The resolution insists that the Emirati government “guarantee that human rights defenders in the UAE are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities in all circumstances, both inside and outside the country, without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions, including judicial harassment.” This is far from being the case: the UAE authorities have squashed dissenting voices to such a degree in recent years that it can now be said that there are no human rights defenders left in the country, and freedom of expression and civic space are virtually non-existent.

In light of the upcoming Dubai Expo, and the UAE’s candidacy for a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2022, we urge the Emirati government to consider using this opportunity to prove to the international community a true commitment to human rights by unconditionally releasing all jailed human rights defenders. In particular, we urge the authorities to free all prisoners who have been denied release after the completion of their sentence. Their ongoing detention constitutes an outrageous violation of both domestic and international law.

Pending their release, we appeal to Your Highness to ensure that prisoners are granted access to basic amenities in their cells such as a bed, blankets in winter and air conditioning in summer, to have regular family visits, and to be allowed outside their cells to have contact with other prisoners in the canteen or the yard, as provided for by the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. With the spotlight on the UAE from October 2021 to March 2022, the Emirati government has a unique opportunity to show good-will and a commitment to international law by addressing the aforementioned human rights abuses, including by releasing from prison our jailed friends and colleagues.

Sincerely,


Signatories:


1. ACAT Cameroon
2. ACAT Canada
3. ACAT Central African Republic
4. ACAT Germany
5. ACAT Italia
6. ACAT UK
7. Access Center for Human Rights (Wousoul)/Centre d'accès pour les droits de l'homme (ACHR)
8. Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (ACAT) Belgium/Belgique/Belgie
9. ActiveWatch
10. Africa Freedom Information Centre (AFIC)
11. Albanian Media Institute (AMI)
12. ALQST for Human Rights
13. Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
14. Amman Center for Human Rights Studies (ACHRS)
15. Amnesty International
16. Arab Human Rights Centre in Golan Heights
17. Arab Organisation for human Rights in the UK
18. Article 19
19. Association Marocaine des droits de l’Homme
20. Bahrain Press Association BPA
21. Bangladesh Institute of Human Rights
22. Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM)
23. Bytes for All, Pakistan
24. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
25. Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility
26. CIVICUS
27. Detained International
28. Emirates Detainees Advocacy Centre (EDAC)
29. European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)
30. Federal Association of Vietnamese Refugees in the Federal Republic of Germany
31. FIDH, within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
32. Forum Tunisien pour les Droits Économiques et Sociaux (FTDES)
33. Freedom Expression Institute (FXI)
34. Front Line Defenders
35. Global Voices Advox
36. Globe International Center
37. Greek Helsinki Monitor
38. Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
39. Human Rights Association for the Assistance of Prisoners
40. Human Rights Sentinels
41. Human Rights Watch
42. IFoX Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
43. Independent Journalism Center
44. Innovation for Change Middle East and North Africa (I4C MENA)
45. International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL)
46. International Campaign for Freedom in the UAE (ICFUAE)
47. International Press Centre (IPC)
48. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
49. Iraqi Civil Society Solidarity Initiative (ICSSI)
50. JusticeMakers Bangladesh
51. Landless Workers Movement (MST)
52. Lawyers for Lawyers
53. Lebanese Center for Human Rights
54. Ligue Algérienne de défense des droits de l’Homme
55. Media for West Africa (MFWA)
56. Media Institute for Southern Africa, Zimbabwe (MISA)
57. Medical Action Group, Inc.
58. MENA Rights Group
59. Metro Center For Journalists Rights & Advocacy
60. Mwatana for human rights
61. Odhikar
62. PEN America
63. PEN Canada
64. PEN International
65. Programme Against Custodial Torture and Impunity (PACTI)
66. Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED)
67. Promo LEX Association, Republic of Moldova
68. Social Media Exchange (SMEX)
69. SOHRAM-CASRA Centre Action Sociale Réhabilitation et Réadaptation pour les Victimes de la Torture, de la guerre et de la violence
70. Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression
71. The South East European Network for Professionalization of Media (SEEMO)
72. Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD)
73. UIA-IROL (Institute for the Rule of Law of the International Association of Lawyers)
74. Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
75. World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)
76. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

Civic space in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is rated as 'closed' by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Indonesia: Government should immediately withdraw arbitrary charges against Fatia Maulidiyanti & Haris Azhar

The Indonesian government should put an end to the judicial harassment against human rights defenders Fatia Maulidiyanti and Haris Azhar, and uphold the right to freedom of expression, a group of human rights organisations said.

‘The Government of Indonesia must uphold its international human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as its own national constitution which protects the right to freedom of expression,’ said the groups.

The groups urged the Indonesian government to ensure that all persons can express their opinions without fear of reprisals and to ensure its actions are compliant with Indonesia’s Constitutional protections for human rights and the ICCPR, of which Indonesia is a State Party. The National Human Rights Institution, Komnas HAM, must also work towards ensuring the protection of defenders facing judicial harassment, the groups said.

On 22 September, Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan, the Indonesian Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investment filed a police report against human rights defenders Fatia Maulidiyanti, Coordinator of the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Kontras), and Haris Azhar, Founder of Lokataru Foundation. The police report alleges that the two individuals violated criminal defamation provisions (Article 310 (1) of the Penal Code), and the controversial Electronic Information and Transaction law (EIT Law). Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan has reportedly demanded IDR 300 billion, approximately USD 21 million, in compensation.

The report was filed after subpoenas were earlier sent to the two human rights defenders, following a talk show on Haris Azhar’s YouTube channel, titled ‘Ada Lord Luhut di balik Relasi Ekonomi-Ops Militer Intan Jaya!! Jenderal BIN Juga Ada!!’, (There is Lord Luhut behind the relation of Economy-Military Operation Intan Jaya!! General of State Intelligence Agency is also there!!) in which Haris Azhar and Fatia Maulidiyanti discussed the findings of a multi-stakeholder report revealing the alleged involvement of active and retired Indonesian army officials in the business operations of the gold mining sector.

In the report, Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan was identified as being affiliated with mining company PT Madinah Qurrata'ain, which holds the Derewo River Gold Project permit in Papua Province's Intan Jaya Regency, located along the Derewo fault zone, northwest of Grasberg and Wabu.

Through shareholding, Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan is affiliated with PT Toba Sejahtera, whose subsidiary PT Tobacom Del Mandiri or PT Tambang Raya Sejahtra is said to have acquired a 30 percent stake in PT Madinah Qurrata'ain. 

The report also recorded the escalation of violent and armed conflict triggered by military operations, one of which occurred in the Intan Jaya Regency. The conflict resulted in the loss of civilian lives and the displacement of thousands of people, including children and women.

‘The legal actions by the Coordinating Minister constitute judicial harassment and abuse of power. It criminalises the rights of these two human rights defenders to express their opinions on public affairs and creates a chilling environment for individuals who criticise the government,’ the groups said. 

‘We call on the Indonesian government to amend all repressive laws and legal provisions that hinder the protection of freedom of expression, and ensure the laws align with international human rights standards. The criminalisation of defamation is an inherently disproportionate and unnecessary restriction to the right to freedom of opinion and expression, under international human rights law. Indonesia must immediately drop the charges against Fatia and Haris and take steps towards preventing the misuse of litigation against human rights defenders and civil society that erode the exercise of their rights,’ they concluded.

Endorsed by the following organisations:

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
ASEAN Regional Coalition to #StopDigitalDictatorship 

  • Manushya Foundation
  • SAFEnet
  • Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)
  • Access Now
  • ELSAM
  • ALTSEAN-Burma

Asia Democracy Network (ADN)
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
FIDH, within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
Front Line Defenders (FLD)
Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) 
Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association (PBHI) 
Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) 
OMCT (World Organisation Against Torture), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

Civic space in Indonesia is rated 'obstructed' by the CIVICUS Monitor.


CONTACT INFO:

For further information or to request interviews with CIVICUS staff, please contact:

Thailand: Concerns regarding the right to peaceful assembly

 

1 September 2021

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-O-Cha
Royal Thai Government
1 Pitsanulok road
Dusit, Bangkok 
Thailand

Re: Concerns regarding the right to peaceful assembly in Thailand

Dear Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha,

We, the 13 undersigned organizations, write to express our concern regarding violence and the excessive use of force by police at recent protests in Bangkok. We are troubled by the disproportionate response of riot police to provocations by protesters. We are also concerned by the arbitrary detention of protest leaders who have recently faced new criminal charges and have been denied bail and detained. Thailand needs to do more to protect protesters from violence and ensure that the public can safely exercise the right to peaceful assembly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In recent weeks, both riot police and protesters have contributed to a significant escalation in violence at political protests in Bangkok. In August alone, police have forcibly dispersed at least ten demonstrations using rubber bullets, water cannons, and tear gas. At several protests, demonstrators threw rocks and Molotov cocktails, launched fireworks, and used slingshots to shoot nuts and bolts at riot police. Many of the clashes have occurred near Din Daeng intersection, which is close to the headquarters of the 1st Infantry Division of the Royal Guard. Youth participation in these protests has been high, with a large proportion of protesters under the age of 18.

Crowd control measures and other actions taken by law enforcement officers have frequently violated the human rights of protesters and international standards on the policing of protests. Police officers have repeatedly fired rubber bullets at protesters in an indiscriminate fashion. Footage from a recent protest shows riot police firing rubber bullets from a highway overpass at a distance too great to ensure the targeting of violent individuals in a manner consistent with international standards. In other videos, police officers appear to shoot rubber bullets at individuals passing on motorcycles, including at point blank range. Journalists, including those who visibly identified themselves as press, have also reported being hit with rubber bullets at protests.

Police have reportedly fired tear gas canisters directly at protesters. On 13 August 2021, a protester, Thanat Thanakitamnuay, was hit in the face by an object believed to be a tear gas canister fired by police at Din Daeng intersection and has reportedly lost sight in his right eye.

The recent use of firearms by unknown assailants at a protest raises further grave concerns. On 18 August 2021, three teenage protesters were shot with live ammunition in front of the Din Daeng Police Station. One of the victims—a 15-year-old boy—was hit by a bullet in the neck and remains in intensive care. According to a hospital report he is suffering from paralysis of both arms and legs and is not responding to stimulus. The other two injured protesters were reportedly 14 and 16 years old. The police have denied using live ammunition during the protest and said they are investigating the shooting.

In addition to cracking down on street protests, Thai authorities have continued their harassment of protest leaders and participants through legal processes. Since July 2020, more than 700 individuals, including at least 130 children, have been investigated in connection to their protest activities.[1] Between 7 and 9 August 2021, at least 32 protest leaders and participants were arrested and charged with a variety of offences. Ten were arbitrarily denied bail and subjected to pre-trial detention.

Two of the protesters who were arrested, Arnon Nampa and Jatupat Boonpattararaksa, are Gwangju Prize for Human Rights laureates. Arnon was charged, inter alia, with lèse-majesté (defaming the monarchy) in relation to a speech he gave on monarchy reform at a protest in Bangkok on 3 August 2021. Jatupat was charged with, inter alia, violating a COVID-19 emergency regulation after he organized a protest in front of Thung Song Hong Police Station on the same day. Seven other protest leaders—Parit Chiwarak, Nutchanon Pairoj, Sirichai Natueng, Phromsorn Weerathamjaree, Panupong Chadnok, Thatchapong Kaedam, and Panadda Sirimatkul—were all charged, inter alia, with violating a COVID-19 emergency regulation as a result of their participation in a peaceful protest in front of the Border Patrol Police Region 1 Headquarters on 2 August 2021. Sam Samart, a 19-year-old, was arrested on 7 August and charged, inter alia, with violating a COVID-19 emergency regulation in relation to the protest in front of the Border Patrol Police Region 1 Headquarters on 2 August 2021.

Many of these activists have previously been detained, prosecuted, and imprisoned for their protest activities. In 2016, Jatupat was sentenced to two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment after he was convicted of lèse-majesté. Earlier this year, Parit was detained for 91 days on similar charges. Arnon, Panupong, and Phromsorn were also arrested earlier this year and were released from pre-trial detention in June.

The court determined that the activities of key protest leaders including Arnon, Parit, and Jatupat violated the bail conditions connected to their previous lèse-majesté cases, which prohibited them from participating in political protests or further defaming the monarchy. They could face years of pretrial detention.

At least eight of the detained protesters have reportedly tested positive for COVID-19 while jailed. On 26 August 2021, the Court of Appeal granted bail to Sirichai Natueng, Panadda Sirimasakul, and Sam Samart, and they were released from custody. Even though prisons are overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases, the other seven protest leaders remain in pre-trial detention, each having been denied bail at least twice.

Thailand’s obligations under international law and relevant standards

Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Thailand ratified in 1996, guarantees the right to peaceful assembly. While some restrictions on assembly are permissible under international law, any restriction on this right must be ‘imposed in conformity with the law and . . . necessary in a democratic society.’[2] ICCPR Article 21 enumerates a list of the permissible justifications for a restriction on assembly: to protect national security, public safety, public order, public health, public morals, or the rights and freedoms of others.[3] No other governmental interest can justify a restriction on peaceful assembly.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Thailand ratified in 1992, protects children’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly.[4]

In its General Comment No. 37, the UN Human Rights Committee elaborated on the importance of the right to peaceful assembly:

Together with other related rights, [the right to freedom of peaceful assembly] constitutes the very foundation of a system of participatory governance based on democracy, human rights, the rule of law and pluralism. Peaceful assemblies can play a critical role in allowing participants to advance ideas and aspirational goals in the public domain and to establish the extent of support for or opposition to those ideas and goals. Where they are used to air grievances, peaceful assemblies may create opportunities for the inclusive, participatory and peaceful resolution of differences.[5]

The right to peaceful assembly is foundational to many other rights and, in particular, helps to ensure economic, social, and cultural rights are upheld. Moreover, protest is often one of the most effective tools available for marginalized individuals and groups to successfully advocate for change.[6]

For these reasons, international law is especially protective of protests with a political nature. According to the Human Rights Committee, ‘assemblies with a political message should enjoy a heightened level of accommodation and protection.’[7] As such, the creation of perimeters around government buildings or official locations that demarcate where assemblies may not take place ‘should generally be avoided, inter alia, because these are public spaces. Any restrictions on assemblies in and around such places must be specifically justified and narrowly circumscribed.’[8]

The threat to public health posed by the COVID-19 pandemic may justify narrow restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, but such restrictions must meet the requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality under international human rights law.[9] In assessing whether a measure is necessary and proportionate to a legitimate aim, consideration should be given to whether the measure in question is the least intrusive means of achieving that aim. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has issued guidance on issues affecting civic space in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that:

States should ensure that the right to hold assemblies and protests can be realized, and only limit the exercise of that right as strictly required to protect public health. Accordingly, States are encouraged to consider how protests may be held consistent with public health needs, for example by incorporating physical distancing.[10]

In April 2020, UN Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups warned against the excessive use of force to enforce COVID-19-related restrictions on protesters, stating, ‘emergency measures can be a more direct threat to their life, livelihood, and dignity than even the virus itself.’[11] Moreover, aggressive police action against protesters may defeat the purpose of emergency measures. Arrest, detention, the use of force, and dispersal of protests can increase the risk of virus transmission for protesters and law enforcement officials alike.[12]

States have an obligation to protect journalists, monitors, and members of the public - as well as public and private property - from harm.[13] As such, state actors must take steps to ensure that protesters can exercise their rights safely, while exerting the ‘minimum force necessary’ to reduce the likelihood of injuries and property damage.[14]

In a joint statement, the UN Special Rapporteurs on the freedoms of association and expression declared that there is ‘no such thing in law as a violent protest’.[15] Rather, there are only violent protesters who should be dealt with individually. According to the Special Rapporteurs and Human Rights Committee, the right to peaceful assembly is an individual right, not a collective right, and must be treated as such.[16] Any isolated act of violence by some participants must not be attributed to other participants in the assembly. In addition, so long as organizers take reasonable efforts to encourage peaceful conduct during an assembly, they may not be held responsible for the violent actions of others.[17] 

State authorities may only disperse assemblies when ‘strictly unavoidable,’ such as when there is clear evidence of an imminent threat of serious violence that cannot be dealt with by targeted arrests or other less drastic actions.[18] Before dispersing a crowd, law enforcement officers must take all reasonable measures to enable the assembly by providing a safe environment. Even if some protesters act violently, all those involved retain all their rights under the ICCPR, including, of course, the right to life and protection against arbitrary detention.[19]

Law enforcement officers should only resort to force in ‘exceptional’ circumstances.[20] Any use of force must only be the minimum amount necessary, targeted at specific individuals, and proportionate to the threat posed.[21] The restrictions on the use of force at assemblies are even more important when police use lethal force, including the use of firearms. When policing an assembly, firearms may only be used when strictly necessary to counter an imminent threat of death or serious injury.[22]

Rubber bullets can also be deadly. The OHCHR Guidance on Less Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement states that ‘kinetic impact projectiles should generally be used only with the aim of striking the lower abdomen or legs of a violent individual and only with a view to addressing an imminent threat of injury to either a law enforcement official or a member of the public.’[23] Rubber bullets should not be used as a general tool to disperse protesters, nor should they be fired indiscriminately into a crowd.[24]

Tear gas and other ‘area weapons’ also pose risks to protesters and should only be used in response to widespread violence with the sole purpose of dispersal and as a measure of last resort after giving an audible warning and providing reasonable time for protesters and bystanders to vacate the area.[25] Tear gas cartridges and canisters may not be aimed at individuals or used in confined spaces.[26] Their use on a person who is already restrained amounts to a violation of the prohibition against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under international law.

According to the Human Rights Committee, states should ‘consistently promote a culture of accountability for law enforcement officials during assemblies.’[27] As such, it is essential that police receive adequate training to facilitate assemblies. Law enforcement officers must understand the legal framework governing assemblies, their obligation to enable peaceful assemblies, and the importance of political assemblies in a rights-respecting society. They should receive training on proper techniques to manage crowds and how to avoid escalation while responding to violence by protesters.[28] Any use of force must be investigated to determine whether the force was necessary and proportionate.[29] States have ‘an obligation to investigate effectively, impartially and in a timely manner any allegation or reasonable suspicion of unlawful use of force or other violations by law enforcement officials … in the context of assemblies’.[30]

In March 2020, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights urged all states to release ‘every person detained without sufficient legal basis, including political prisoners, and those detained for critical, dissenting views’ in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.[31] By continuing to detain protest leaders despite high infection rates and overcrowding in prisons, the Thai government is unnecessarily putting their lives at grave risk.

Conclusion

In order to fulfill its human rights obligations, the Thai government should not only refrain from suppressing protests but also needs to create a safe and enabling environment for members of the public to exercise their rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We call on the Thai government to ensure that law enforcement officials only resort to the use of force against protesters in full compliance with international human rights law and standards. In particular, authorities must not use greater force than necessary to achieve a legitimate objective and must not cause greater harm than the harm they seek to prevent. Any use of force must be proportionate to a legitimate law enforcement objective, such as meeting any threat of violence. We further call on your government to ensure that all law enforcement personnel present at protests have been properly trained in strategies and tactics that comply with international human rights law and standards. Authorities should promptly, effectively, impartially, and independently investigate any violations of domestic law and international standards and ensure that perpetrators are held accountable.

We further call on the Thai government to immediately end its harassment of protest leaders and participants. Individuals detained solely because of their exercise of the right to peaceful assembly, including protest leaders recently denied bail, should be immediately and unconditionally released. No one should be detained merely for exercising a human right, such as the rights to peaceful assembly or freedom of expression.

We urge you to initiate a review of all laws and policies impacting the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in Thailand. Laws and policies that unjustifiably restrict the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression should be amended in line with international law and standards.

Thank you for your attention to the issues and recommendations raised in this letter. We would welcome the opportunity to assist and support the Thai government in meeting its human rights obligations.

Sincerely,
Amnesty International
ARTICLE 19
ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights
Asia Democracy Network
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL)
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
Civil Rights Defenders
FIDH – International Federation for Human Rights
Fortify Rights
Human Rights Watch
International Commission of Jurists
Manushya Foundation


CC:
Police General Suwat Jangyodsuk,
Commissioner-General of the Royal Thai Police
Rama I Rd, Pathum Wan
Bangkok 10330 


Civic space in Thailand is rated Repressed by the CIVICUS Monitor


[1] Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, ‘สถิติคดี 1 ปี หลังเยาวชนเริ่มปลดแอก: ยุติการใช้ “กฎหมาย เป็นเครื่องมือปราบปรามทางการเมือง’, 18 July 2021, available at: https://tlhr2014.com/archives/32258.  

[2] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 21.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 15.

[5] Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 37, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/37, para. 1, (23 July 2020) [hereinafter General Comment No. 37]. Unofficial Thai language translation is available at: https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1.-ไทย_GC-37.pdf

[6] Id. at para. 2.

[7] Id. at para. 32.

[8] Id. at para. 56.

[9] See Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 37, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/37, para. 45, (23 July 2020) [hereinafter General Comment No. 37].

[10] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Civic Space and COVID-19: Guidance’, 4 May 2020, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/CivicSpace/CivicSpaceandCovid.pdf.

[11] UN OHCHR, ‘COVID-19 security measures no excuse for excessive use of force, say UN Special Rapporteurs’, 17 April 2020, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25802&LangID=E.

[12] Amnesty International, ‘COVID-19 Crackdowns: Police abuse and the global pandemic’, 2020, p. 25, available at: https://policehumanrightsresources.org/content/uploads/2020/12/ACT3034432020ENGLISH.pdf?x96812

[13] Id. at paras. 74, 76.

[14] Id. at paras. 76, 79.

[15] UN OHCHR, ‘UN rights experts urge lawmakers to stop “alarming” trend to curb freedom of assembly in the US’, 30 March 2017, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21464&LangID=E.

[16] Id. See also: General Comment No. 37 at para. 4.

[17] Joint report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on the proper management of assemblies, U.N. Doc A/HRC/31/66, 4 February 2016, at para. 26 [hereinafter HRC 31/66].

[18] HRC 31/66 at para 61; General Comment No. 37 at para. 85.

[19] General Comment No. 37 at para. 9.

[20] HRC 31/66 at para. 57.

[21] Id. at paras. 57–58.

[22] General Comment No. 37 at para 88; HRC 31/66 at para. 59. See also: Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, principles 9 and 14; Amnesty International, Dutch Section, ‘Use of Force: Guidelines for the implementation of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials’, August 2015, section 2, available at: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/use_of_force.pdf, [hereinafter Amnesty International, ‘Use of Force’].

[23] United Nations Human Rights Guidance on Less Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement, para. 7.5.8, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/LLW_Guidance.pdf [hereinafter Guidance on Less Lethal Weapons].

[24] Amnesty International, ‘Use of Force’, section 7.4.2.

[25] Id. at para. 87.

[26] Guidance on Less Lethal Weapons, paras. 7.3.6-8.

[27] General Comment No. 37 at para. 89.

[28] HRC 31/66 at para. 42.

[29] General Comment No. 37 at para. 91.

[30] Id. at para. 90.

[31] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, ‘Urgent action needed to prevent COVID-19 “rampaging through places of detention”’, 25 March 2020, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25745&LangID=E.

Uganda: End Repression of civil society

Joint statement on Uganda’s NGO Bureau suspension of 54 NGOs in the country

Uganda’s NGO Bureau, the country’s regulatory authority for non-governmental organizations (NGOs), should immediately rescind the decision to suspend 54 organizations that they have classified as NGOs, which comes in the context of intensifying intimidation and harassment of civil society organizations. The suspension is intended to restrict the rights to freedom of expression and association and stop the activities of independent civil society organizations that are perceived as critical of the authorities.

On 20 August 2021, the National Bureau for NGOs (NGO Bureau) ordered the immediate suspension of these organizations claiming that they had failed to comply with NGO legislation, including by operating with expired permits, failing to file accounts, or failing to register with the Bureau.

According to the Uganda National NGO Forum, most of the organizations were not informed of the Uganda NGO Bureau’s decision or given an opportunity to respond in advance.

Uganda’s 2016 NGO Act imposes burdensome requirements for application for permits for NGOs with multiple layers of registration with periodic renewal applications, and organisations are required to have memorandums of understanding with the district they operate in. There is also lack of clarity over which organizations fall under this regulatory regime.

The suspension of the organizations is arbitrary, as it goes against Section 33 (2) of the NGO Act, which requires the Bureau to give 30 days’ notice in writing to permit holders to enable them to show cause why the permit should not be revoked. Suspension of independent civil society organizations simply for carrying out their work is an attack on human rights, including the rights to freedom of expression and association. Suspending civil society organizations also exposes those organizations to additional legal risks if they are unable to pay staff or suppliers.

Many of the organizations affected work in critical areas such as legal practices to help poor or marginalized people. Others work on accountability and transparency in the oil sector, and some monitored human rights in the context of the elections. To shut down organizations working so closely with Ugandans abruptly will hurt people who rely on their services or advocacy.

The rights to freedom of expression and association are guaranteed under Articles 9 and 10 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights to which Uganda is a state party. Accordingly, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights issued guidelines on freedom of association and assembly as provided for in the African Charter, that among other things prohibits states from compelling associations to register to be allowed to exist and to operate freely. Further, informal organisations shall not be punished or criminalized under the law or in practice based on their lack of formal status. This decision by the NGO Bureau is a clear demonstration of the repressive nature in which Ugandan authorities have continued to clamp down on civic space and human rights.

The NGO Bureau is mandated to play a regulatory and facilitative role in creating an enabling environment for non-profit organizations in Uganda, but this has not been the case in the recent past.

We acknowledge the positive discussions held between the Minister of Internal Affairs and Civil Society Leaders on 24 August and implore the minister to expeditiously follow through the commitments made to redress the anomalies in the suspension of some of the affected NGOs and establish an Adjudication Committee as required by the law. We further call on authorities in Uganda to ensure that civil society actors involved in promoting fundamental rights can freely exercise their rights consistent with Ugandan Constitution and the country’s international human rights obligations including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Signed off by the following civil society organizations:

1. ActionAid International Africa
2. Advocacy Network for Africa (AdNA)
3. AfricanDefenders (the Pan-African Human Rights Defenders Network)
4. Amnesty International
5. Asylum Seeker, Refugee & Migrant Coalition (ASRM Coalition)
6. Campaign for Good Governance (CGG – Sierra Leone)
7. Campaign for Human Rights and Development International (CHRDI)
8. Center for Advancement of Rights and Democracy (CARD – Ethiopia)
9. Center for Constitutional Governance
10. Center for International Governance, Peace and Justice (CIGPJ – South Sudan)
11. Center for Youth Advocacy and Development (CEYAD)
12. Centre for Democracy and Development (CCD)
13. Change Tanzania
14. Chapter One Foundation Zambia
15. CIVICUS
16. Civil Society Human Rights Advocacy Platform of Liberia
17. Civil Society Reference Group - Kenya
18. Consortium of Ethiopian Human Rights Organizations (CEHRO)
19. Crown The Woman – South Sudan
20. Digital Society of Africa
21. DITSHWANELO - The Botswana Centre for Human Rights
22. Echoes of Women in Africa Initiative (ECOWA – Nigeria)
23. Ethiopian Human Rights Defenders Center (EHRDC)
24. FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights)
25. Foundation for Democratic and Accountable Governance (FODAG – South Sudan)
26. Haki Africa
27. Haki Kenya Organisation
28. Human Rights Defenders Network (HRDN – Sierra Leone)
29. Human Rights Institute of South Africa (HURISA)
30. Independent Human Rights Investigators (IHRI – Liberia)
31. Initiative for Equality and Non-discrimination (INEND)
32. Inuka Kenya Ni Sisi!
33. Institute for Democracy and Leadership – Swaziland
34. Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC)
35. Khulumani Support Group
36. Kongamano La Mapinduzi Movement
37. Mozambique Human Rights Defenders Network
38. Network of the Independent Commission for Human Rights in North Africa
39. Nigerian Human Rights Defenders Network
40. Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA)
41. Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU)
42. Panos Institute Southern Africa (PSAf)
43. Partnership for Justice (PJ)
44. Protection International Kenya
45. Resource Rights Africa (RRA)
46. South Sudan Human Rights Defenders Network (SSHRDN)
47. Southern African Human Rights Defenders Network (SAHRDN)
48. Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC)
49. World March of Women - Kenya
50. Yiaga Africa
51. Youth and Society (YAS - Malawi)
52. Youth Forum for Social Justice
53. Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum
54. Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR)

Civic space in Uganda is rated as repressed by the CIVICUS Monitor.

*Photo credit: Chaper Four Uganda

Hungary: concerns over the erosion of the rights of LGBTQIA+ persons

Victor Madrigal-Borloz, UN Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity 

Irene Khan, UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression  

Tlaleng Mofokeng, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Physical and Mental Health 

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

Palais Wilson, 52 Rue des Pâquis

1201 Geneva, Switzerland 

Hungary: concerns over the erosion of the rights of LGBTQIA+ persons

We are writing to you with regards to serious concerns about the rights of LGBTQIA+ persons in Hungary. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the Hungarian government, under Prime Minister Viktor Orban and the Fidesz party, has passed several pieces of legislation, including amendments to the Constitution, which undermine the rights of LGBTQIA+ persons in the country. In addition the government and non-state actors continue to publicly smear and vilify LGBTQIA+ persons. These developments are in violation of the right to freedom of expression and non-discrimination and will lead to further violence and discrimination against LGBTQIA+ persons on the basis of their gender identity and sexual orientation.

Anti-LGBTQIA law 

Despite mass protests staged in Budapest, on 15th June 2021 the Hungarian Parliament passed an anti-LGBTI law which bans any content, including media, advertising and educational materials, that is deemed to “popularise” or even depict, consensual same-sex conduct or the affirming of one’s gender to children. As a reaction to the Russian-style anti-LGBTI+ law, the European Union launched legal proceedings against Hungary's government. On 6 August 2021 a government decree implementing the law was adopted, banning the sale of products popularising or depicting homosexuality and transgender identities within 200m of schools, children or youth institutions and churches, and prescribing that such products targetting children be sold in special packaging separate from other products in any other shops.

The law, which conflates homosexuality with paedophilia, is part of an intense anti-LGBTQIA+ government campaign ahead of the upcoming parliamentary election in 2022. In addition, on 30th July 2021, Hungary’s National Election Committee approved the government's request for a referendum, which is meant to protect the new anti-LGBTQIA legislation from “the attacks of Brussels”. The referendum is set to take place in early 2022 before the parliamentary election. Hungarians will be asked whether they support the holding of sexual orientation workshops in schools without parental consent and whether they believe that gender re-assignment should be promoted amongst children and made available to them. 

The law comes on the back of several cases where media or books promoting LGBTQIA+ content has been banned. For example, a children’s book which retells fairy tales with LGBTQIA characters was banned in kindergartens by the local Fidesz-party mayor in one of the districts of Budapest, smeared and labelled as “homosexual propaganda”. In another case, the government ordered the Labrisz Lesbian Association,to print disclaimers in their book stating “behaviour inconsistent with traditional gender roles”. A fine of 250, 000 HUF(840 USD) was imposed on a bookshop for selling a children’s book featuring rainbow families together with other children’s books. Independent broadcaster RTL media group is facing legal proceedings initiated by Hungary’s media regulator for broadcasting an advertisement which raised awareness about LGBTI families. The Council, which is made up of members appointed by the ruling Fidesz party, stated that it had received complaints that the advert was not suitable for young children and should have been aired after 9pm for this reason. 

The European Commission has launched infringement procedures against Hungary in relation to these developments. 

Constitutional Amendments

The government has made several amendments to the Constitution, reinforcing institutionalised homophobia and transphobia. On 15th December 2020, the parliament amended the Hungarian Constitution to include the following sentence to Article L which relates to family and marriage: “The mother is a woman, the father is a man”The second change, Article XVI (1) states that “Hungary protects the right of children to self-identify according to their sex at birth and provides an upbringing in accordance with the values based on Hungary’s constitutional identity and Christian culture”. With direct reference to the latter constitutional provision, amendments were also made to the Civil Code and the Child Protection Act which state that single parents will be able to adopt only under special circumstances and their adoption must be approved by the minister of family. As same sex marriage is not legalised in Hungary, this amendment effectively denies adoption rights to same-sex couples. 

In addition, on 10th November 2020, the Justice Committee of the Hungarian Parliament presented legislation that would abolish the Equal Treatment Authority (ETA), with the Hungarian Commissioner for Fundamental Rights absorbing its activities, which according to the government will  provide a more efficient institutional structure. Throughout the years, the ETA has been the most successful body addressing discrimination against the LGBTQIA+ community. Although the mandate of the institution will not change, it will be subordinate to the Commissioner, who, in contrast to the ETA, has not shown interest in defending LGBTQIA+ rights in recent years.

Legal gender recognition 

On 19th May 2020 the Hungarian parliament passed an omnibus bill changing the Registry Act to only recognise “sex at birth”. The new law makes the legal recognition of transgender and intersex persons impossible and will lead to further discrimination of these persons. While the law is being legally challenged, transgender activists have described this development as “traumatic” and having serious mental health consequences for an already excluded group. The National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information foundthat the law violates the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In March 2021, Hungary’s Constitutional Court ruled that a legal ban on changing gender does not apply retroactively. It stated that people who began changing their gender before the law came into effect must be allowed to complete the process. However, the Budapest Government County Office which was responsible for handling legal gender recognition applications prior to the amendment still fails to process these applications appropriately. The law itself still remains in force pending legal challenge.

Requested Actions:

We respectfully urge you to condemn these regressive and anti-LGBTQIA legislative developments in Hungary through a communication, in your individual capacities or jointly with other special procedures, notably by:

  • Calling on the Hungarian government to refrain from attacking and smearing LGBTQIA persons in general and especially in the context of the upcoming election in 2022
  • Calling on the Hungarian government to reverse regressive legislation which directly  attacks and discriminates against LGBTQIA+ persons
  • Calling on the EU and its leaders to launch an infringement procedure against Hungary regarding the outlawing of legal gender recognition, and continue infringement on the anti-LGBTQIA law and its application

Signatories

  1. CIVICUS
  2. Hatter Society
  3. Civil Liberties Union for Europe
  4. European Civic Forum
  5. Hungarian Helsinki Committee 
  6. Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU)
  7. New Europeans International
  8. International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPFEN)
  9. CNVOS Slovenia 
  10. Peace Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia
  11. Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol)
  12. Nyt Europa 
  13. European Movement, Italy 
  14. Human Rights House Zagreb 
  15. ACCEPT Romania
  16. Euroregional Center for Public Initiatives (ECPI)
  17. Identity.Education
  18. PRIDE Romania
  19. Rise Out
  20. Estonian LGBT Association
  21. Osservatorio Repressione 
  22. Statewatch
  23. Netherlands Helsinki Committee 

Civic space in Hungary is rated as "Obstructed" by the CIVICUS Monitor

Rights Groups Urge Bahrain to Release Dr Abduljalil AlSingace, Jailed Academic on Hunger Strike

Dr Abduljalil AlSingace, an imprisoned opposition activist and human rights defender, has been on hunger strike since 8 July 2021. He is protesting against persistent ill-treatment at the hands of Jau Prison authorities, the main prison in Bahrain, restrictions imposed during COVID19 limiting prisoners contact to only five numbers, and to demand that a book he wrote in prison that was confiscated be immediately handed to his family, a coalition of 16 rights groups stated today.

A respected academic and blogger, Dr AlSingace has spent the last decade in prison serving a life imprisonment sentence. He was amongst 13 opposition activists arrested between 17 March and 9 April 2011, including high-profile political opposition leaders, activists and human rights defenders, who were then convicted by a military tribunal for their roles in the 2011 pro-democracy protest movement.

According to the 2011 Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, Bahraini authorities placed Dr AlSingace in solitary confinement for two months and subjected him to torture following his arrest, including being repeatedly beaten and “sexually molested”.

Dr AlSingace launched a hunger strike on 8 July 2021 in response to degrading treatment he was subjected to by a prison officer, to protest the restriction of being permitted to call only five numbers during the ongoing COVID19 pandemic, and to demand the return of his book, confiscated by prison guards on 9 April 2021, and on which he worked for at least four years. We understand the book to be a study of linguistic diversity among Bahraini Arabic dialects, without any political content, yet the book has not been returned despite repeated promises by prison authorities.

On 19 July, the Office of the Public Prosecution referred AlSingace’s case to the Ombudsman of the Ministry of Interior (the Ombudsman). The statement from the Public Prosecution incorrectly provided that AlSingace’s hunger strike was also related to “the refusal of the [Jau’s Reformation and Rehabilitation] centre’s administration to allow him to contact his relatives”.

According to the Ombudsman, who cleared the prison officials from any wrongdoing and accused Dr AlSingace for alleged “smuggling” of his own work, Dr Al Singace “was not subjected to mistreatment”. This conclusion was reached without Dr AlSingace’s testimony as he refused to be interviewed. Human Rights Watch has found that the Ombudsman has repeatedly failed to investigate credible allegations of prison abuse or to hold officials accountable. The UN Committee against Torture has also raised concerns that these bodies were neither independent nor effective.

Although the Ombudsman states that prison authorities “did not intend to confiscate the papers”, it confirms “that the reason for [Dr AlSingace’s] hunger strike was the confiscation of the papers he wrote” and that his work cannot be returned until a “legal decision” is taken.

Many imprisoned political leaders in Bahrain are older and suffer from pre-existing health conditions and consequences of their torture in 2011, which today make them particularly vulnerable to diseases like COVID-19. Dr AlSingace has several chronic illnesses, suffering from post-polio syndrome, vertigo, causing him to lose his balance and fall, a slipped disk in his back and neck, causing chronic pain, and paresthesia in his muscles and limbs. Consequently, AlSingace requires the use of crutches or a wheelchair and is among those most at risk. Dr AlSingace has faced sustained medical negligence by prison authorities throughout his 10-year imprisonment, namely the prison’s regular refusal to take him to appointments with medical specialists over the past four years.

We are thus deeply disturbed receive reports from family members that on 18 July 2021 Dr AlSingace was transferred to the Ministry of Interior medical facility in al-Qalaa for monitoring and to be given intravenous fluids; by 29 July AlSingace had reportedly already lost 10kg. Recent outbreaks of COVID-19 reported at Jau Prison create an additional threat to Dr AlSingace’s health.

Since his imprisonment, the international community has made consistent calls for his immediate and unconditional release, including the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights Defenders, leading international human rights organisations, and American, British and European legislators.

The confiscation of Dr AlSingace’s book is an unjust punishment and the authorities must ensure the protection of his rights, including the return of his intellectual property. We call for Dr AlSingace’s immediate and unconditional release and for his work to be immediately given to his family.

Signatories

1. Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
2. Amnesty International
3. Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR)
4. Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
5. CIVICUS
6. Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
7. English PEN
8. European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)
9. Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
10. Human Rights First
11. IFEX
12. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
13. PEN International
14. Scholars at Risk
15. REDRESS
16. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)

Civic space in Bahrain is rated as Closed by the CIVICUS Monitor

Sri Lanka: Release Hejaaz Hizbullah and others denied due process under abusive law

We, the undersigned organisations express deep concern for the ongoing detention of lawyer and minority and civic rights activist Hejaaz Hizbullah, who has been held under Sri Lanka’s notorious Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) for 15 months. In the absence of any credible evidence presented before a court of law, Hejaaz Hizbullah should be released immediately and unconditionally. 

Stand with Hejaz

Hejaaz Hizbullah was arrested on April 14, 2020 under the PTA. He was accused by the police of aiding and abetting Inshaf Ahamed (who was involved in the April 21, 2019 bombings), an accusation that has since been withdrawn. Since Hejaaz Hizbullah has been in detention the allegations against him have changed several times and his detention has been extended for over 15 months. 

The latest allegation on which an indictment was filed against Hejaaz Hizbullah in the High Court on February 18, 2021, is a speech-related offence of “causing communal disharmony,” one of a number of overly broad offences provided under the PTA. The indictment is based on a statement to the Criminal Investigation Department of the police made by a child regarding a speech allegedly made by Hizbullah in Puttalam. Other children who were questioned at the same time by the same officers filed fundamental rights cases claiming they were coerced by police officers to falsely implicate Hejaaz Hizbullah. Combined with the repeated changes in the allegations, this leads us to believe the allegations against him are unsupported by any credible evidence.

The PTA allows for the prolonged incarceration, based on mere suspicion, of any person who “causes or intends to cause commission of acts of violence or religious, racial or communal disharmony or feelings of ill-will or hostility between different communities or racial or religious groups.” The same provision has been used in the past to prevent and effectively punish the exercise of freedom of expression particularly critics of the government, including journalists.  

Hejaaz Hizbullah is a vocal critic of the government. He is a minority rights advocate in a climate increasingly hostile to Sri Lanka’s religious and ethnic minorities. He is also one of the lawyers who challenged the dissolution of the parliament in 2018 in the Sri Lankan Supreme Court. Since the Sri Lankan authorities have so far been unable to show any evidence of wrongdoing, it appears he is being targeted solely for exercising his right to freedom of expression. We call for Hejaaz Hizbullah’s immediate release and for the charges against him to be dropped.  

Since the time of his arrest Hejaaz Hizbullah has been repeatedly denied the right to due process safeguards recognized by international law. He was not informed of the reason for his arrest and has been held in prolonged administrative detention without judicial oversight to monitor his wellbeing, without access to bail. While in police custody he was prevented from accessing his legal counsel in private until an order was made by the Court of Appeal. In February, he was charged and moved to judicial remand custody, where he was able to speak with his family for the first time in 10 months. Thereafter visitation rights were restricted, and he has not been allowed any access to his family or counsel since April 2021. Under international human rights law, particularly under article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Sri Lanka is a state party, all detainees have a right of reasonable access to their family and lawyers. 

Hejaaz Hizbullah is one of many people detained for inordinate lengths of time without due process under Sri Lanka’s draconian counter-terrorism laws. In a study published in December 2020, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka found that many PTA prisoners were in remand for up to 15 to 20 years. This is abuse of detainees held under the PTA and is a flagrant violation of the right to liberty and the right to a fair trial, as protected under articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR. Many PTA detainees have also been allegedly tortured or ill-treated in custody.

We are deeply concerned by Sri Lanka’s continuing use of the PTA to enable arbitrary detention, despite commitments made to repeal the Act. The government of Sri Lanka should: 

  • Guarantee the protection of the human rights of all PTA detainees including guarantees of due process and a fair trial, and protection from arbitrary arrest, detention, torture or other ill-treatment, including; 
    • Immediately review the detention of those held under the PTA, ensuring adequate access to fair bail hearings, and immediate release for all those not facing internationally recognisable charges;
    • Ensure that all PTA detainees have regular access to legal counsel on a confidential basis and to family members and friends at regular intervals;
    • Ensure the right to a fair trial, including pre-trial rights, of those accused under the PTA;
  • Repeal the PTA and issue an immediate moratorium on its use; and
  • Facilitate access to effective remedies and reparations to those whose human rights have been violated due to the use of the PTA.

Signed by:

  1. Amnesty International
  2. Article 19
  3. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  4. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
  5. Front Line Defenders
  6. Human Rights Watch
  7. International Bar Association’s Human Rights Initiative
  8. International Commission of Jurists
  9. International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
  10. International Working Group on Sri Lanka 
  11. Sri Lanka Campaign for Truth and Justice

Nearly 70 human rights groups condemn state violence in Eswatini

To the Government of Eswatini and the international community:

Malaysia: Drop investigation and halt intimidation of activists

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hamzah Zainudin
Minister of Home Affairs of Malaysia
Block D1, D2 & D9, Complex D, 
Federal Government Administrative Centre 
62546 Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur

We are writing on behalf of five civil society organisations including CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Asia Democracy Network (ADN), Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), Front Line and WITNESS with regards to our concerns around police investigations into at least six activists and human rights defenders around an animated film about torture in police custody. 

The four-minute animated film, titled “Chilli Powder & Thinner”, is based on the testimony of a 16-year-old boy who was allegedly arrested and beaten up by police along with two other individuals. One method illustrated in the film - the application of chili powder and paint thinner to the skin - is the source of the film’s name.

On 2 July 2021, Freedom Film Network co-founder Anna Har and cartoonist Amin Landak were called in by the police for questioning around the film. An hour later, police also raided the office of the Freedom Film Network as well as the home of Amin Landak. The police confiscated computers, modems, routers, pen drives, microphones and related equipment.

The two activists are being investigated under Section 500 of the Penal Code for defamation, Section 505 (b) of the Penal Code for statements that could cause public alarm and distress, and Section 233 (1) (a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act for improper use of network facilities. 

On 6 July 2021, three members of human rights groups SUARAM including Sevan Doraisamy, Mohammad Alshatri, Kua Kia Soong and a guest panel speaker at the forum from Misi Solidariti, Sharon Wah, were also called in for questioning by the police in relation to the film. 

We are extremely concerned about the probe into the six activists by the police for their work in creating awareness around police abuse. The right to freedom of opinion and expression includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” This right is guaranteed in the Malaysian Constitution as well as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Instead of targeting them, the authorities should rather focus on investigating the allegations of police abuse highlighted in the film.

Our organisations are also concerned about the raids on their office and home which we believe are aimed to intimidate them and to create a chilling effect for those who would like to speak up and expose abuses by the authorities.

Further, the laws being used against them are extremely broad and vague and inconsistent with international law and standards. These “catch-all” provisions have been systematically used to arrest and investigate human rights defenders for the activism as well government critics. 

These actions highlight a broader pattern of human rights violations by the Perikatan Nasional government which has initiated baseless criminal proceedings against government critics, human rights defenders, journalists, and individuals expressing critical opinions, since coming to power in March 2020. It has also attempted to silence peaceful protesters and impede the formation of political parties.

It is also disappointing that such actions are being taken at a time when Malaysia is seeking for candidacy of the UN Human Right Council and has made pledges to respect and protect human right including freedom of expression. 

As such, we urge Malaysia authorities to take the following steps as a matter of priority: 

  • Immediately and unconditionally drop all investigations and stop all acts of intimidation against all the civil society activists associated with the animated short film and lift all restrictions on the exercise of their human rights;
  • Create a safe and enabling environment for activists, human rights defenders and other members of Malaysia civil society to peacefully exercise their rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly without intimidation, harassment, arrest or prosecution;
  • Review all provisions that criminalises freedom of expression in the Penal Code, the Communications and Multimedia Act and other laws and bring them in line with international law and standards.

We express our sincere hope that you will take these steps to address the human rights violations highlighted above. 

Signatories:

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation is a global alliance of civil society organisations (CSOs) and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society around the world. Founded in 1993, CIVICUS has more than 10,000 members in more than 175 countries throughout the world.

The Asia Democracy Network (ADN) is a civil society-led multi-stakeholder platform dedicated to defending and promoting democracy in Asia. ADN aims to strengthen solidarity and a collective voice among Asian civil society engaged in democracy, human rights and development at the global, regional, national and local levels.

The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) is a regional network of 81 member organisations across 21 Asian countries, with consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, and consultative relationship with the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. Founded in 1991, FORUM-ASIA works to strengthen movements for human rights and sustainable development through research, advocacy, capacity-development and solidarity actions in Asia and beyond. Its regional secretariat is in Bangkok, and it has sub-regional offices in Geneva, Jakarta, and Kathmandu. 

Front Line Defenders is the Ireland-based international human rights organization that works for the security and protection of human rights defenders at risk (HRDs) around the world.

WITNESS help people use video and technology to protect and defend human rights.

Cc:

Dr. Ahmad Faisal Muhamad
Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the United Nations Office in Geneva
Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani
Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Malaysia 

Civil society calls on UN member states to address Israeli attacks against Palestinians

Regional and international civil society organisations from around the world call on United Nations Member States to address the escalating and institutionalised Israeli attacks against Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line during the 30th HRC Special Session

Your Excellency, 

Israel’s repression against Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line escalated in May 2021 in response to widespread Palestinian demonstrations against Israel’s imminent threat of eviction and displacement of eight Palestinian families from their homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Jerusalem. Notably, this is only the latest example of Israel’s institutionalized regime of racial domination and oppression, which the Palestinian people have endured for decades. While the international community has ensured Israel’s impunity since 1948, enabling Israel to continue to commit widespread and systematic human rights violations, Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line and refugees and exiles abroad continue to oppose and stand steadfast against 73 years of Israeli settler colonialism and apartheid. 

As Israel intensifies its crackdown on Jerusalem and other parts of the West Bank, conducts military strikes against civilians in the Gaza Strip, which have been living under a comprehensive land, air, and sea closure for 14 years, and targets Palestinians inside the Green Line, the undersigned civil society organizations, from around the world, urge your delegation to  engage in the 30th Special Session by the UN Human Rights Council and  address all violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law, including the root causes of Israeli violations against Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line.

Since 13 April 2021, the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, the Israeli occupying forces (IOF) have systematically targeted and attacked Palestinians in Jerusalem. The attacks escalated when the occupation police targeted worshippers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, with tear gas, sound bombs, and rubber-coated metal bullets, resulting in hundreds of injured Palestinians. The occupation police prevented paramedics from accessing the compound to treat the injured and even directly targeted emergency responders by firing tear gas and wastewater containers on volunteers, paramedics, and ambulances. In other parts of the West Bank, Israel has violently suppressed demonstrations calling for an end to Israeli oppression, including by shooting live ammunition at demonstrators, killing 14 Palestinians between 14 and 18 May 2021. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, between 7 and 19 May, 5164 Palestinians were injured, 578 with live ammunition. 

These attacks come in the context of increasing Palestinian mobilization against Israel’s policies and practices of racial domination and oppression, in response to the imminent eviction of eight Palestinian families, totaling 19 households of around 87 individuals, from the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Jerusalem. The forcible transfer of Palestinians from Jerusalem is a war crime and likely amounts to a crime against humanity as it is being perpetrated in a widespread and systematic manner. Principle 6 of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, prohibits arbitrary displacement, including “when it is based on policies of apartheid, ‘ethnic cleansing’ or similar practices aimed at/or resulting in altering the ethnic, religious or racial composition of the affected population.” All of these criteria are applicable to Israeli practices, policies and laws implemented with the intention of maintaining Jewish Israeli domination over the Palestinian people. 

The Israeli police have also violently repressed Palestinian demonstrations inside the Green Line. Since 10 May 2021, thousands of Palestinian citizens of Israel came out to protest the evictions of Palestinian refugee families in Sheikh Jarrah, the use of extreme violence and attacks on worshippers and protestors by the police in Al-Aqsa Mosque and elsewhere, and the Israeli military attacks in Gaza. The Palestinian protestors were subjected to police violence and human rights violations, including denial of emergency medical care. High Commissioner Bachelet highlighted “reports of excessive and discriminatory use of force by police against Palestinian citizens of Israel”. Since 10 May, the  police have arrested 1097 Palestinians. 

Moreover, Israeli settlers have intensified attacks against Palestinians living in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, with the support of the IOF. Inside the Green Line, far-right Jewish Israelis organized and coordinated the arrival of armed Israelis to attack Palestinians in al-Lydd, Ramle, Akka, Haifa, and Yafa, among other cities and areas. Moreover, the IOF has allowed Israeli settlers coming from the West Bank entry into Israel to target Palestinian neighborhoods and villages and provided support and protection as they attacked Palestinian residents and destroyed Palestinian property. In response, the Israeli police has not taken any action against and in some cases cooperated and supported the mob violence. High Commission Bachelet raised concern at “reports that Israeli police failed to intervene where Palestinian citizens of Israel were being violently attacked, and that social media is being used by ultraright-wing groups to rally people to bring ‘weapons, knives, clubs, knuckledusters to use against Palestinian citizens of Israel.” 

In the Gaza Strip, the IOF continues to target civilian structures, in particular homes, wiping out whole families, and inflicting widespread destruction and collective punishment on the entire, trapped population. Since 10 May 2021, human rights organizations documented Israel’s use of disproportionate, indiscriminate, and unnecessary military force in violation of international law. Residential blocks are “being targeted pursuant to an apparent policy agreed by Israel's military and political leadership”. The number of residential buildings targeted now stands at 94, including six towers—three of which were completely destroyed—ultimately destroying 371 residential units. In addition, hundreds of private properties, as well as tens of governmental sites, schools, banks, and mosques have sustained significant damages. Israel’s airstrikes have also led to the large-scale destruction of power and water networks, as well as thousands of square meters of vital paved roads. 

Israel’s extensive and systematic attacks on buildings, and the shelling of residential areas, especially those near the separation fence, force civilians—men, women, and children—to flee their homes in search of safety. Around 41,900 people have moved to 53 UNRWA schools, and the numbers are still increasing. Displaced people are experiencing appalling humanitarian conditions, especially when UNRWA schools have not officially been opened as shelters. 

As of 2 pm on 17 May, 231 Palestinians, including 65 children and 39 women were killed; 1212 others have been injured in the attacks, including 277children and 204women. According to Israeli media, ten Israelis have been killed following rocket fire from Gaza. 

It is again clear that civilians are paying the price of Israel’s pervasive impunity. Any firing of rockets or attacks must meet assessments of proportionality and the requirement for a concrete and direct military advantage. Indiscriminate attacks or targeting of civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities constitute a grave violation of international law. In order to protect all civilians, the Human Rights Council should address the root causes of Israel’s settler colonialism and apartheid to achieve lasting justice. 

We call on your missions to:

 

  • Engage in the 30th UN Human Rights Council Special Session and address the escalating Israeli attacks against the Palestinian people, including the root causes of Israeli violations against Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line.
  • Establish a commission of inquiry to:
  • Monitor, document and report on all violations of human rights and humanitarian law, including the escalating attacks against Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line since April 2021;
  • Include and address the root causes of Israel’s institutionalized regime of racial domination and oppression over the Palestinian people in line with the 2019 Concluding Observations on Israel by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) which highlighted Israeli policies and practices against Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line are in violation of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) pertaining to racial segregation and apartheid;
  • Identify individuals responsible for serious crimes; 
  • Collect and preserve evidence related to violations to be used for accountability in relevant judicial bodies and transfer evidence to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

Endorsing organisations 

  1. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies 
  2. International Service for Human Rights 
  3. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) 
  4. International Women's Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific (IWRAW AP)
  5. DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
  6. Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS) 
  7. Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights 
  8. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
  9. Southern Africa Human Rights Defenders Network (SAHRDN)
  10. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) 
  11. Women League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
  12. Sexual Rights Initiative
  13. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
  14. 11.11.11 
  15. The Center for Reproductive Rights 
  16. Baytna 
  17. Bytes For All, Pakistan 
  18. Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign 
  19. Human Rights solidarity 
  20. Association des Universitaires pour le Respect du Droit International en Palestine (AURDIP) 
  21. European Legal Support Center 
  22. Just Peace Advocates/Mouvement Pour Une Paix Juste
  23. Collectif Judéo Arabe et Citoyen pour la Palestine
  24. The Niagara Movement for Justice in Palestine-Israel (NMJPI) 
  25. ICAHD Finland
  26. Association belgo-Palestinienne WB
  27. Viva Salud
  28.  Intal
  29. CNCD-11.11.11
  30. EuroMed Rights
  31. The Palestinian Human Rights Organization (PHRO) - Lebanon 
  32. Scottish Palestinian Forum
  33. Trócaire
  34. European Trade Union Network for Justice in Palestine (ETUN)
  35. Istituto Internazionale Maria Ausiliatrice (IIMA)
  36. UPJB (Union des Progressistes Juifs de Belgique)
  37. Akahatá
  38. Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS)
  39. Habitat International Coalition – Housing and Land Rights Network
  40. Canadian BDS Coalition
  41. ASGI - Association for juridical studies on immigration
  42. Network for Immigration, Development and Democracy (IDD)
  43. Aegis for Human Rights
  44. Geneva Bridge Association
  45. Association of Maghreb Workers in France
  46. Association for the Promotion of the Right to Difference
  47. El Na aura Association, Belgium
  48. Coordination for Maghreb Human rights Organizations (CMODH)
  49. SAM organization for Rights and Liberties
  50. Yemeni Observatory for Human Rights
  51. Dameer Foundation for Rights and Freedom
  52. INSAF Center for Defending Freedoms and Minorities
  53. Abductees’ Mothers Association
  54. Together We Raise (Social Association) 
  55. Watch for Human Rights 
  56. Mwatana for Human Rights 
  57. Hadramout Foundation For Legal Support and Training
  58. Yemeni Observatory of Mines
  59. Mwatana for Human Rights
  60. Social Peace Promotion and Legal Protection
  61. Al-Haq Foundation for Human Rights 
  62. Al-Rakeezeh Foundation for Relief and Development 
  63. Growth foundation for development & improvement
  64. Namaa Foundation for Development and Improvement 
  65. Lebanese Center for Human Rights
  66. Freedom of Thought and Expression
  67. Committee for Justice
  68. Belady Center for Rights and Freedoms
  69. Egyptian Front for Human Rights
  70. Egyptian Human Rights Forum
  71. The Freedom Initiative
  72. Arabic Network for Human Rights Information
  73. Centre for Egyptian Women Legal Assistance
  74. Libyan Center for Freedom of the Press
  75. February 17 Organization for Environment and Human Rights
  76. Shiraa Association to fight AIDS and drugs
  77. Thought Pioneers Organization Mattress
  78. Mattress Youth Organization
  79. Al-Tebyan Association for Human Rights Dirj
  80. Al-Massar Organization for Youth and Culture Dirj Branch
  81. Mediterranean Organization for Development and Humanitarian Relief
  82. International Arabic Organization for Women’s Rights
  83. Nass for Nass organization to support youth Misurata
  84. Defender Center for Human Rights
  85. Libyan Crimes Watch
  86. Libyan Organization for Legal Aid
  87. Human rights solidarity
  88. The Tunisian General Labor Union 
  89. The Committee for the Respect of Liberties and Human Rights in Tunisia
  90. The Tunisian Organization Against Torture
  91. The Tunisian Association for the Defense of Individual Liberties
  92. The Tunisian Association 23-10 for the Support of the Democratic Transition Process
  93. The National Observatory for the Defense of the Civic Character of the State
  94. The Tunisian Association for the Defense of Minorities
  95. Hassan Saadaoui Association for Democracy and Equality
  96. The National Union for Tunisian Journalists
  97. Vigilance for Democracy and Civic State       
  98. The Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights
  99. Democratic Association of Tunisians in France
  100. Association Aswat Nissa
  101. Tunisian Federation for Citizenship on both shores
  102. Tunisian Union for Citizenship Action
  103. Tunisian Center for Press Freedom
  104. EuroMaghreb Network: citizenship and culture
  105. Vigilance for Democracy in Tunisia (Belgium)
  106. Ga3 Kifkif Network
  107. Algerian Feminist Journal Foundation
  108. Tharwa N'Fadhma N'Soumeur organisation
  109. Action for Change and Democracy in Algeria (ACDA)
  110. Algerian League for the Defense of Human Rights (LADDH)
  111. Autonomous Union of Public Administration Personnel (SNAPAP)
  112. General Autonomous Confederation of Workers in Algeria (CGATA)
  113. Riposte Internationale
  114. Collective of the Families of the Disappeared in Algeria (CFDA)
  115. National Committee for the Release of Detainees (CNLD)
  116. SHOAA for Human Rights
  117. Association for the Defense of Human Rights in Morocco (ASDHOM)
  118. Organization for freedoms of Media and Expression
  119. Libyan Organization for Independent Media 
  120. Youth for Tawergha 

Urgent call to release Abdul-Hadi al-Khawaja on his 60th Birthday &10th anniversary of his detention

To: United Nations Secretary General and diplomatic Missions

United Nations Special Rapporteurs/Targeted Governments (to be amended based on recipient)

Re: Urgent call to release Abdul-Hadi al-Khawaja on his sixtieth Birthday and Tenth anniversary of his detention

Your Excellencies,

We the undersigned, representing civil society organisations from around the world, write to bring to your urgent attention the continued detention of human rights defender Abdul-Hadi Abdulla Hubail al-Khawaja. As you may be aware, al-Khawaja, who is a dual Bahraini-Danish citizen, is currently serving a life sentence for his peaceful human rights activities.  As he marks his 10th year in prison and commemorates his 60th birthday on 5 April 2021, we urge the United Nations through its Secretary General, governments around the world and representatives of the diplomatic community to urgently call on  Bahraini authorities to release him immediately and unconditionally. 

Al-Khawaja’s active campaigning for human rights began when he was 16 years old. Spanning decades of activism, he is the co-founder of both the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) and the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) for which he was also President. Until early 2011, al-Khawaja worked as MENA Protection Coordinator for human rights group Frontline Defenders. He also previously took part in a fact-finding mission to Iraq in 2003 with Amnesty International and is a member of the International Advisory Network of the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. He is a peaceful advocate of human rights and the recipient of several human rights awards, including the “World without Torture” Award which he received in October 2013 in recognition of his struggle for human rights.  

He was arrested on 9 April 2011 for his role in organising peaceful protests to defend the realisation of human rights of Bahrainis and for political reform during the popular ‘Arab Spring’ movements which began in Bahrain in February 2011.  He was violently detained by security forces as detailed in a report by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) published in November 2011 at the request of the King of Bahrain.  He is serving a life prison sentence in Jau prison following unfair trials in courts that did not comply with Bahraini criminal law or international fair trial standards.

At its 63rd session in April/May 2012, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considered that al-Khawaja’s arrest was arbitrary as it resulted from his exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.

On 17 March 2021, GCHR in co-operation with its human rights partners Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (AHRDB), BCHR, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), released a report detailing some of the ill-treatment and torture al-Khawaja has faced during his arrest and subsequent arbitrary detention. This has included severe physical, psychological and sexual torture.

During his early detention, al-Khawaja suffered multiple fractures to his jaw and has undergone multiple surgeries but still suffers from chronic pain and requires additional intervention as he has not healed properly. His facial bone structure is permanently damaged. In January 2021, over 100 NGOs appealed to the Danish government to help free al-Khawaja so he could travel to Denmark for treatment.

In a January 2021 phone call, al-Khawaja listed four concerns including that prison authorities placed restrictions on his phone calls with the family (that have replaced their in-person visits) and confiscated hundreds of his books and other materials.  He also stated that prison authorities arbitrarily deny him adequate healthcare and refuse to refer him to specialists for the urgent surgeries he requires.  Denying a prisoner needed medical care violates the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, known as the Nelson Mandela Rules. 

Al-Khawaja continues to protest the arbitrary detention to which he is subjected.  Since his arrest, he has undertaken six-hunger strikes, one lasting 110 days in 2012 to protest conditions in Jau Prison and his unjust imprisonment. 

In March 2020, at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, Bahrain released 1,486 prisoners, 901 of whom received royal pardons on “humanitarian grounds.” However, al-Khawaja and other prominent human rights defenders - many of whom are older or suffer from underlying medical conditions - were not among those released. 

On 11 March 2021, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in a plenary session to adopt an urgent resolution condemning human rights abuses in Bahrain, including the persecution of human rights defenders, lawyers and other civil society figures, while calling on Bahrain’s government to enact reforms. The resolution calls for the release of al-Khawaja and others “who have been detained and sentenced for merely exercising their right to freedom of expression.”

On al-Khawaja’s 60th birthday and the 10th anniversary of his arrest we appeal to you to personally hold talks with the government of Bahrain to immediately and unconditionally release him.

The undersigned,

  1. Activista Moviment
  2. African National Congress Youth League
  3. Amnesty International
  4. Association El Ghad pour les droits de l’homme
  5. Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR)
  6. Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
  7. Brothers Keeper NPO
  8. Bytes For All, Pakistan
  9. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
  10. Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)
  11. CIVICUS
  12. Community Transformation Foundation Network (COTFONE)
  13. Danish PEN
  14. FIDH, within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
  15. Front Line Defenders
  16. Globe International Center, Mongolia
  17. Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
  18. Human Rights Sentinel
  19. IFEX
  20. International Media Support
  21. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)              
  22. Intersection Association for Rights and Freedoms
  23. Iraqi Journalism Rights Defence Association
  24. Kuza Livelihood Improvement Projects
  25. Maharat Foundation
  26. Media Institute of Southern Africa
  27. OMCT (World Organisation Against Torture), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
  28. Pacific Islands News Association (PINA)
  29. Protection Adolescent Organization
  30. South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
  31. Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
  32. The Community Human Rights Defenders Network - ACPDH
  33. Universidade do Minho
  34. Vigilance for Démocracy and Civic state
  35. Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
  36. منظمة الفيصل لمناهضة الاعتقال والتعذيب والإخفاء القسري (Al-Faisal Organization Against Detention, Torture and Enforced Disappearance)

31 human rights groups call for urgent response to the Algerian government’s intensifying crackdown on civil society and journalists amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

عربى

We, the undersigned regional and international non-governmental organisations, write to draw your attention to the alarming and the intensified crackdown on Algerian civil society, targeting peaceful activists and journalists, including with arbitrary detention. We urge you to address these worrying developments, and to:

  • Strongly condemn the arbitrary and unlawful arrest, detention and judicial harassment of journalists, human rights defenders, civil society and other peaceful activists solely for expressing their views, for protesting peacefully and/or calling for democratic change; 
  • Call on the Algerian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release these individuals, arbitrarily detained;
  • Call on authorities to cease all judicial harassment and intimidation against them; and
  • Call on Algeria to ensure and guarantee the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly as included in the Algerian Constitution, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) ratified by Algeria.

Illustrative of this crackdown, in August, two journalists - Abdelkrim Zeghileche and Khaled Drareni – were sentenced respectively to two and three years in prison. Drareni’s appeal is set for 8 September. Human rights defender and activist Abdullah Benaoum has remained in pre-trial detention since December 2019, despite a very critical health condition. Opposition figure Amira Bouraoui was sentenced to a year in prison on 21 June and is awaiting her appeal on 24 September. On19 June 2020, about 500 peaceful protesters were subjected to mass arbitrary detentions.

The Algerian authorities’ relentless prosecution and harassment of civil society and journalists undermines human rights as the country undertakes its democratic transition process, ahead of a constitutional referendum to be held on November 1st, endangers the health of individuals detained given the heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 in the midst of an outbreak of the virus in Algerian prisons. This risk is illustrated by the recent death of two detainees and the infection of at least eight others.

In the 44th HRC session, civil society organisations urged the Council to increase its scrutiny of the situation in Algeria, knowing that within less than a month - between 30 March and 16 April 2020 - three communications were sent to the Algerian government by multiple special procedures in relation to arbitrary and violent arrests, unfair trials and reprisals against human rights defenders and peaceful activists. Despite these communications, and while President Tebboune announced his support for an open dialogue with the Hirak and his desire to break with previous repressive practices following controversial elections in December 2019, the reality on the ground shows that the level of repression has increased drastically.

We therefore call on you to raise these pressing and worrying developments in order to protect Algerian civil society as it strives to protect its democratic transition, and its freedom of assembly and expression.

We thank you for your consideration and look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

  • Adil Soz
  • Afghanistan Journalists Center (AFJC)
  • Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC)
  • Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
  • Amnesty International 
  • Article 19
  • Bytes for All (B4A)
  • Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
  • Cambodian Center for Independent Media (CCIM)
  • Cartoonist’s Rights Network International (CRNI)
  • Civicus 
  • Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)
  • Committee for the Respect of Liberties and Human Rights in Tunisia
  • Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
  • Globe International Center
  • Initiative for Freedom of Expression (IFoX) - Turkey
  • International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
  • International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
  • International Press Centre (IPC)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
  • Maharat Foundation
  • Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA)
  • Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
  • Media, Entertainment &Artis Alliance (MEAA)
  • Metamorphosis
  • Pacific Islands News Association (PINA)
  • Reporters without Borders (RSF)
  • South East Europe Media Organization (SEEMO)
  • World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC)

Context

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, and the suspension of the peaceful protest movement called the Hirak, Algerian authorities have accelerated arbitrary prosecutions and harassment of journalists, peaceful activists, rights defenders, and citizens expressing dissenting opinions. Between March and June 2020, local rights groups estimate that at least 200 people were subjected to arbitrary arrests for expressing their opinion or for their alleged support to the Hirak, while more than 1,400 were prosecuted in relation to the protests since the start of the Hirak movement in February 2019. As of 25 August, and according to the National Committee for the Release of Detainees (CNLD), at least 44 people are behind bars after being arbitrarily detained for expressing their opinion, and a number of them are in pre-trial detention. On 19 June 2020, about 500 peaceful protesters were subjected to mass arbitrary detentions. 

Among those recently sentenced or prosecuted: 

  • Political activist Samir Ben Larbi and national coordinator of the families of the disappeared Slimane Hamitouche (subject of a joint communication from UN Special Procedures), were sentenced on 10 August to two years in prison over online publications and their participation in peaceful protests. 
  • On 21 June, Amira Bouraoui, activist and opposition figure, was sentenced to a year in prison after criticizing President Tebboune online. She is awaiting her appeal, scheduled to take place on 24 September 2020. 
  • The pre-trial detention of Walid Kechida, creator of a satirical Facebook page, arrested in April for "contempt and offense to the President" and "attack on the divine entity", was renewed on 27 August 2020 for another 4 months.  
  • Activist Abdullah Benaoum’s health is in critical condition. He has remained in pre-trial detention since his participation in a peaceful demonstration in December 2019, although he suffers from a heart condition requiring an urgent surgical intervention. His petition for a pretrial release was rejected again on 2 September. 

Peaceful activists and journalists are sentenced on vague charges such as “weakening the morale of the army”, “undermining national unity” or “offending the President”, all stemming from exercising their right to free speech or peaceful assembly. The National Union of Magistrates (SNM) has recently denounced the abusive recourse to pre-trial detention

In addition, authorities have continued to clamp down on freedom of information by blocking news websites and multiplying the prosecution of journalists. In April 2020, the Parliament hurriedly passed vaguely worded amendments to the Penal Code allowing for people exercising free speech to be charged with “spreading false news”, harming “national unity” and “public order”, punishable by one to three years in prison. At least six online news websites covering the COVID-19 pandemic and the Hirak protests were made unavailable on Algerian networks in April and May. Two of them were blocked four days after the editor-in-chief of both websites published an op-ed criticizing President Abdelmadjid Tebboune’s first 100 days in office. Minister of Communication Amar Belhimer admitted that the authorities, without prior notification, had blocked them pending "further legal proceedings" against the director for "defamation and insult" against President Tebboune.   

Among the journalists targeted:

  • Reporter Abdelkrim Zeghileche was sentenced to two years in prison on 24 August 2020 after he called for the creation of a new political party and criticized President Tebboune. He was accused of “endangering national unity” and “insulting the head of state”; 
  • Journalist Khaled Drareni, correspondent for TV5Monde and Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Director of the Casbah Tribune, was sentenced to three years in prison over his reporting on the Hirak protest movement on 10 August 2020; 
  • On 28 July 2020, Algerian authorities detained Moncef Aït Kaci, a former France 24 correspondent, Ramdane Rahmouni, a freelance producer and camera operator, and Mustapha Bendjama, a local journalist and advocate for the freedom of the press. They were released temporarily pending investigation, and Bendjama continues to face inappropriate criminal charges.
  • After a one-day trial, in April 2020, Algerian authorities also charged three journalists with “attack on national unity” over their reporting on the coronavirus pandemic.

Furthermore, members of the judiciary who demand respect for judicial independence have been sanctioned professionally. On February 10, the Justice Ministry ordered the arbitrary transfer of prosecutor Mohamed Belhadi 600 kilometers south of Algiers, after Belhadi requested the acquittal of 16 protesters. The spokesperson for the Algerian Magistrates Association, Saad Eddine Merzouk and other judges who called for the protection of judiciary independence, were summoned in an extraordinary session before the Superior Judicial Council on 1 June 2020. Back in November 2019, police had forcefully dislodged a peaceful gathering of magistrates on strike, in a courthouse in Oran, over the reshuffling of judicial positions. 

Global call for international human rights monitoring mechanisms on China

An open letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, UN Member States.

China

Over 30 rights organisations call on international powers to pressure Cambodia over human rights abuses

Joint Letter

We call on Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Sweden, the Netherlands the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, to join the EU in its call to the Cambodian government to take concrete action to address the human rights situation in the country. Repressive laws that restrict human rights and civic freedoms in Cambodia have worsened during COVID-19.


Your excellency,

We, the undersigned 32 civil society organizations, urge the Governments of Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, India, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America to echo the European Union (EU) in its call for the respect of human rights in Cambodia. On August 12, 2020, the EU will partially suspend Cambodia’s “Everything But Arms” (EBA) tariff preferences in response to the Cambodian government’s “serious and systematic violations” of four human and labor rights conventions: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize No. 87 (1948), the ILO Convention concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organize and to Bargain Collectively, No. 98 (1949), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).

The Cambodian government continues to crack down on civil society, independent media, and the political opposition and human rights defenders to silence critical voices in the country. In the past three years it has adopted a series of repressive laws that unduly restrict human rights. In November 2019, the Cambodian authorities had arbitrarily detained nearly 90 people solely on the basis of the peaceful expression of their opinions or political views as well as their political affiliations. While 74 opposition members, detained on spurious charges, were released from detention in December 2019, the charges against them remain, and they risk re-arrest. Opposition leader Kem Sokha’s criminal trial for unsubstantiated treason charges has been marred by irregularities since it began in January. Sokha remains banned from politics and faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted. The Prime Minister announced that the trial could drag on into 2021.

In April, the Cambodian government used the Covid-19 crisis to adopt an unnecessary and draconian state of emergency law that provides the authorities with broad and unfettered powers to restrict freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association – rights that have already been severely restricted during his 35 years in power. Currently, another 30 political prisoners are behind bars due to the Cambodian government’s continued onslaught on free speech in the guise of combating Covid-19.

Cambodia committed to protecting and promoting fundamental human rights, providing equal protection of the law, and holding genuine periodic elections when it ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Cambodian government ratified all of the fundamental ILO Conventions that protect the rights of workers and trade unions. Respect for human rights and the rule of law are essential for a stable and flourishing business environment over the long term.

Cambodia agreed that access to the EU’s Everything But Arms preferential trade scheme is conditional on adherence to the principles in 15 core human rights and labor rights conventions. The European Commission’s decision on February 12, 2020 to partially suspend Cambodia’s EBA preferences followed a yearlong process of ‘enhanced engagement’ between the EU and Cambodia during which the Cambodian government was given every opportunity to cooperate and make significant progress in improving its protection of human rights and labor rights. The European Commission concluded that Cambodia had failed to take necessary measures to retain full EBA benefits.

We agree. For example, on January 22, 2020, 23 companies and nongovernmental organizations, including major international garment brands sourcing from Cambodia, raised concerns about the labor rights situation and urged the government to amend or repeal two deeply problematic laws, the Trade Union Law and the Law on Associations and NGOs (LANGO), and drop all outstanding criminal charges against union leaders. The government’s tokenistic amendments to the repressive Trade Union Law fell considerably short of what was required to address that issue. More broadly, the government has demonstrated an unwillingness to take concrete and meaningful steps to improve the rights situation; to the contrary, Cambodia adopted further repressive laws and arrested more peaceful critics during the intensive monitoring and evaluation process.

We therefore call on Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, India, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, acting collectively and bilaterally, to echo the EU in its call to the Cambodian government to take concrete action without delay, including but not limited to the following, to address the human rights situation in the country:

  1. Immediately and unconditionally release all political prisoners, including activists, human rights defenders, journalists, and members of the political opposition.
  2. Cease harassment, arbitrary arrests, and physical attacks against union leaders, land activists, human rights defenders, opposition members, and journalists.
  3. Immediately drop the baseless treason charges against opposition leader Kem Sokha.
  4. Conduct independent, impartial, prompt and thorough investigations into attacks, including killings, against critics of the government and hold those responsible to account. For example, the Cambodian government should establish an independent Commission of Inquiry to conduct an effective investigation into the extrajudicial killing of political commentator and human rights defender Dr. Kem Ley in July 2016.
  5. Repeal the Law on the Management of the Nation in State of Emergency.
  6. Reverse the three rounds of amendments to the Law on Political Parties that permit the arbitrary dissolution of political parties and ban party leaders from political activity without due process.
  7. Significantly amend the Trade Union Law in consultation with workers, labor advocates and other stakeholders to bring it into full compliance with ILO Conventions No. 87 (Freedom of Association) and No. 98 (Right to Organize and Collectively Bargain), both ratified by Cambodia.
  8. Repeal or significantly amend the Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations (LANGO), which violates Cambodia’s obligations under international human rights law.
  9. Cease the government’s arbitrary interference and surveillance of the online and offline media and end the use of repressive laws to censor and control independent media.
  10. Restore the work of the Arbitration Council by enabling it to hear all labour disputes, including termination of union leaders, and guaranteeing unrestricted access to all workers, irrespective of union status.
  11. Ensure prompt, fair and transparent resolution of all land conflicts by providing fair compensation to victims of land grabbing and introduce an effective and fair system of land titling, while ending the harassment of land rights activists and affected communities.
  12. Cooperate with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and UN Special Procedures in order to allow them to fulfil their mandates without interference.

The Cambodian government should take meaningful measures that reverse the deterioration of Cambodia’s human rights situation in order to restore trade preferences or lift suspensions of bilateral aid.

We urge your government to call on the Cambodian government to comply with its obligations under international human rights law and to support the EU in its efforts to bring respect for human rights, rule of law, and democracy to the Cambodian people.

Yours sincerely,

Arab Network for Food Sovereignty - Regional
Article 19
ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
Asian Democracy Network (ADN)
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL)
Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP)
Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC)
Civil Rights Defenders
CIVICUS
Clean Clothes Campaign East Asia
EarthRights International
Fair Labor Association (FLA)
FIAN Germany
Forest Peoples’ Programme
Front Line Defenders
Global Witness
Human Rights Now (HRN)
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX)
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Pakistan Kissan Mazdoor Tehreek
People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS) - Europe
People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS) - Global
Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific - Regional
Roots for Equity, Pakistan
Struggle to Economize Future Environment (SEFE), Cameroon
The B Team
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
Zambia Social Forum


Civic space in Cambodia is rated as Repressed by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Egypt: End Reprisals, Harassment and Threats Against Civil Society Leader Mostafa Fouad

Arabic

The undersigned civil society organisations call on Egyptian authorities to immediately end their harassment of Egyptian activist and Deputy Director of HuMENA for Human Rights and Civic Engagement, Mostafa Fouad.


Release human rights defenders at risk in the context of COVID-19

Safoora asked for equal rights for all

Mr Amit Shah
Union Home Minister of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India

Re: Release human rights defenders at risk in the context of COVID-19

Dear Home Minister

We, the undersigned organizations, write with great concern regarding the situation of student activists Safoora Zargar, who is four months pregnant, Meeran Haider, Shifa-Ur-Rehman and Sharjeel Imam, all detained under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). We believe their detention is unfounded and designed to punish them for defending human rights and engaging in peaceful protest against a discriminatory law. In addition, their being jailed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is unnecessarily putting their lives and health at serious risk. We urge you to immediately and unconditionally release all four activists, as well as other persons who have been detained, charged, or convicted simply for defending human rights and exercising their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider and Shifa-Ur-Rahman are student activists who were involved in protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and arrested in April 2020. Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider and Shifa-Ur-Rahman, were arrested by the Delhi Police on 10 April, 1 April and 24 April on charges of rioting and unlawful assembly, reportedly in connection with their alleged role in the demonstrations.The CAA legitimises discrimination on the basis of religion and contravenes the Constitution of India and international human rights law. Student activist Sharjeel Imam was arrested in January 2020 under charges of sedition for his speech during anti-CAA protests. The additional charges under UAPA were brought in April 2020. All of them are currently in pre-trial detention. 

Their situation is not unique. For example, on 14 April 2020, the authorities also detained human rights activists Anand Teltumbde and Gautam Navlakha under the UAPA for allegedly inciting caste-based violence during a 2018 demonstration in Bhima Koregaon, Maharashtra state. Nine other activists have been detained since 2018 in relation to the same case. They are known for their work defending the rights of Adivasi and Dalit communities and should all be released immediately.

We are seriously concerned that the Indian authorities have routinely misused draconian, anti-terrorism laws such as the UAPA, to undermine human rights, stifle dissent and press freedom. This is even more concerning during the COVID-19 pandemic. The slow investigative processes and extremely stringent bail provisions under these laws mean that human rights defenders and others who speak out may face many years behind bars unjustly.  In their communication to the Government of India on 6 May 2020, eight UN Special Rapporteurs and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention raised serious concerns about the 2019 amendment to the UAPA regarding 'the designation of individuals as "terrorists" in the context of ongoing discrimination directed at religious and other minorities, human rights defenders and political dissidents, against whom the law has been used.' They also noted that non-violent criticism of state policies or institutions should not be made a criminal offence under counter-terrorism measures in a society governed by the rule of law and abiding by human rights principles and obligations. Arrests of peaceful protesters violate India’s obligations under international law, specifically the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to respect and protect the rights to liberty, to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, set out in Articles 9, 19 and 21 of that treaty.

On 25 March 2020, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights urged all states to release “every person detained without sufficient legal basis, including political prisoners, and those detained for critical, dissenting views” in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. With at least 200 prison inmates and jail staff testing positive for the COVID-19 across India, including in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka, when the authorities misuse draconian laws to detain activists and human rights defenders, including peaceful protesters, they are not only persecuting them, they are unnecessarily putting their lives at grave risk.

In addition, Safoora Zargar’s pregnancy makes her release even more urgent, particularly amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders, also known as the Bangkok Rules, recommend that while deciding on pre-trial measures, non-custodial alternatives should be preferred for pregnant women where possible and appropriate.

The Indian authorities need to ensure that, as they apply the Supreme Court of India’s directive to decongest prisons to contain the spread of COVID-19, they immediately and unconditionally release student activists Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider, Shifa-Ur-Rehman and Sharjeel Imam who remain in jail simply for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression by opposing the discriminatory law. They should also immediately release the 11 rights activists and journalists jailed in the Bhima Koregaon case. 

The fight against the pandemic must be inclusive and not selectively used to dissuade and prevent human rights defenders from exercising their human rights. 

Respectfully,

(in alphabetical order)

African Center for Democracy and Human Rights Studies
Amnesty International
ARTICLE 19 - Bangladesh and South Asia 
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) 
Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia (AHRE), Ethiopia
Center for Civil Liberties, Ukraine
Centre d'études et d'initiatives de solidarité internationale (CEDETIM), France
Citizens for Justice and Peace (cjp.org.in), Mumbai, India
CIVICUS
Front Line Defenders
Groupe d’Action pour le Progrès et la Paix (G.A.P.P.-Afrique)
Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Concern (HRCE), Eritrea
International Commission of Jurists
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
MARUAH, Singapore
Muslim Womens Forum, India
National Campaign for Diversity and Harmony (NCDH), India
Odhikar, Bangladesh
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Réseau syndical international de solidarité et de luttes (International Labour Network of Solidarity and Struggles), France
Rutgers International
Union syndicale Solidaires, France
WHRD-MENA Coalition
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

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. 

UAE: Freedom of expression must be upheld at all times

Freedom of expression must be upheld at all times, not only tolerated during Hay Festival Abu Dhabi

Arabic

As the Hay Festival Abu Dhabi opens on 25-28 February 2020 in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), we the undersigned call on the Emirati authorities to demonstrate their respect for the right to freedom of expression by freeing all human rights defenders imprisoned for expressing themselves peacefully online, including academics, writers, a poet and lawyers. In the context of the Hay Festival, the UAE’s Ministry of Tolerance is promoting a platform for freedom of expression, while keeping behind bars Emirati citizens and residents who shared their own views and opinions. We support the efforts of festival participants to speak up in favour of all those whose voices have been silenced in the UAE. We further support calls for the UAE authorities to comply with international standards for prisoners, including by allowing prisoners of conscience to receive books and reading materials.

The country’s most prominent human rights defender, Ahmed Mansoor, is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence after being convicted on the spurious charge of “insulting the status and prestige of the UAE and its symbols including its leaders” in reprisal for his peaceful human rights activism, including posts on social media.

Mansoor is being held in solitary confinement in an isolation ward in Al-Sadr prison, Abu Dhabi, in dire conditions with no bed or books. In the nearly three years since his arrest in March 2017, he has only been permitted to leave his small cell for a handful of family visits, and only once has he been allowed outside to the prison sports yard for fresh air. In protest, he went on two separate hunger strikes which have harmed his health - harm which has been exacerbated by the lack of adequate medical care. By holding Mansoor in such appalling conditions, the UAE authorities are violating the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment under international law. We urge the Emirati authorities to comply with international law and we appeal to the humanity of members of the government to provide Mansoor with acceptable conditions until he is released.

Mansoor, who has four young sons, is also an engineer and a poet. He serves on the advisory boards of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) and Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division. In October 2015, Mansoor gained international recognition for his vital work when he received the prestigious Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders.

Mansoor undertook a month-long hunger strike in March 2019 to protest his punitive prison conditions, arbitrary detention, and unfair conviction. In May, seven United Nations independent experts expressed grave concern about Mansoor. Again, in early September 2019, after being tortured through beatings by prison guards, he began a second hunger strike. Due to the lack of independent human rights NGOs in the country, it is very difficult to obtain news about his current situation, including whether or not he remains on the hunger strike since the last report that he was still not eating solid food in January 2020, leaving him unable to walk.

In October 2019, over 140 NGOs worldwide appealed to the UAE authorities to free Ahmed Mansoor, who spent his 50th birthday in isolation and on hunger strike.

UAE Activists

Other prisoners have been tortured in prison in the UAE. A Polish fitness expert, Artur Ligęska, was held in the same isolation ward as Mansoor, in conditions he described as “medieval”. After his charges were dismissed and he was freed in May 2019, Ligęska wrote a book in which he recounted the prison conditions in Al-Sadr’s isolation wing, where prisoners were held without running water for many months in very unhygienic conditions, and some were subjected to torture, abuse and sexual assault. He was instrumental in getting the news about Mansoor’s hunger strike out to the world from prison in March 2019, at great personal risk.

Other human rights defenders have faced similar mistreatment in prison, where they are often held in isolation, resorting to hunger strikes to try to bring attention to their unjust imprisonment and ill-treatment in detention.

Human rights lawyer Dr Mohammed Al-Roken, who has been detained since July 2012 solely for peacefully exercising his rights to freedom of expression and association, including through his work as a lawyer, is serving a 10-year prison sentence for signing - along with 132 other people - an online petition calling for political reform. He was convicted and sentenced following a grossly unfair mass trial of 94 people (known as the “UAE 94” trial) including human rights lawyers, judges and student activists. Among them, was another human rights lawyer, Dr Mohammed Al-Mansoori who was also arrested in July 2012 and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Dr Al-Mansoori had not been allowed to contact his family for over a year, and was only permitted to do so recently. Both men are being held in Al-Razeen prison, a maximum-security prison in the desert of Abu Dhabi, which is used to hold activists, government critics, and human rights defenders. They face arbitrary and unlawful disciplinary measures, such as solitary confinement, deprivation of family visits, and intrusive body searches.

Dr Al-Roken was a member of the International Association of Lawyers (UIA) and the International Bar Association, and both Dr Al-Roken and Dr Al-Mansoori served as president of the UAE’s Jurists Association before its arbitrary dissolution by the Emirati authorities in 2011. Dr Al-Roken has authored books on human rights, constitutional law, and counterterrorism. He dedicated his career to providing legal assistance to victims of human rights violations in the UAE, for which he was awarded the Ludovic Trarieux International Human Rights Prize in 2017. Over two dozen NGOs called for his release in November 2019.

Academic and economist Dr. Nasser Bin Ghaith, a lecturer at the Abu Dhabi branch of the Paris-Sorbonne University, was sentenced on 29 March 2017 to 10 years in prison for critical comments he made online about human rights violations in the UAE and Egypt.

In a letter written from prison, Dr. Bin Ghaith stated that “the verdict proves that there is no place for freedom of speech in this country” and announced that he would begin a hunger strike until he was released unconditionally. He has also undertaken subsequent hunger strikes to protest conditions in Al-Razeen prison, including to demand his immediate release following the pardon of British academic Matthew Hedges on 26 November 2018, a week after he was sentenced to life in prison on spying allegations. Hedges was held, mainly incommunicado and in degrading and inhuman conditions for seven months, until he faced an unfair trial on charges of spying for the United Kingdom government.

In October 2018, the European Parliament adopted a resolution, calling on the UAE to, among other demands, stop all forms of harassment and immediately lift the travel ban against human rights defenders, and urging the authorities to “guarantee in all circumstances that human rights defenders in the UAE are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities, both inside and outside the country, without fear of reprisals”.

The Hay Festival Abu Dhabi is supported by the UAE’s Ministry of Tolerance, in a country that does not tolerate dissenting voices. Regrettably, the UAE government devotes more effort to concealing its human rights abuses than to addressing them and invests heavily in the funding and sponsorship of institutions, events and initiatives that are aimed at projecting a favourable image to the outside world.

With the world’s eyes on the Hay Festival Abu Dhabi, we urge the Emirati government to consider using this opportunity to unconditionally release our jailed friends and colleagues, and in the interim, to at least allow prisoners of conscience to receive books and reading materials, to have regular visits with family, to be allowed outside of their isolation cells to visit the canteen or go outside in the sun. In particular, we ask that Ahmed Mansoor be given a bed and a mattress so that he no longer has to sleep on the floor, and that prison officials cease punishing him for public appeals that are made on his behalf. We ask the authorities to improve their prison conditions as a sign of goodwill and respect for people who wish to organise and participate in events in the UAE, such as the Hay Festival Abu Dhabi or the upcoming Expo 2020 Dubai, in the future. By doing so, the UAE would demonstrate that the Hay Festival is an opportunity to back up its promise of tolerance with actions that include the courageous contributors to freedom of expression who live in the country.

Signatories:

Access Now
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain

Amnesty International

Arabic Network for Human Rights Information

Association for Victims of Torture in the UAE 

Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC)

Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)

Campaign to FreeLatifa

CIVICUS

Committee to Protect Liberties and Human Rights in Tunisia

Detained in Dubai

Detained International

Electronic Frontier Foundation

European Center for Democracy and Human Rights 

FIDH, in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

Front Line Defenders

Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)

IFEX

International Campaign for Freedom in the UAE

International Centre for Justice and Human Rights 

International Press Institute (IPI)

International Publishers Association (IPA)

International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)

Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada 

Maharat Foundation

MENA Rights Group

No Peace Without Justice 

Norwegian PEN

PEN America

PEN International

Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED)

Rights Realization Centre

Tunisian Association for the Defense of Individual Liberties

Tunisian League for the Defense of Human Rights

Tunis Center for Press Freedom

Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State, Tunisia

World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

April Alderdice, CEO MicroEnergy Credits

Fadi Al-Qadi, author and MENA human rights expert

Noam Chomsky, Professor

Ronald Deibert, Director of the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto

Brian Dooley, human rights advocate

Drewery Dyke, human rights advocate

Jonathan Emmett, author

Stephen Fry, author and presenter

Ahmed Galai, Ex-Vice President of the Tunisian Human Rights League (member of the National Dialogue Quartet, co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 2015)

Melanie Gingell, human rights lawyer

Chris Haughton, author

Matthew Hedges, PhD candidate and former prisoner in the UAE

Bill Law, journalist

Artur Ligęska, Polish activist and former prisoner in the UAE

Danielle Maisano, novelist, poet and activist

Michael Mansfield QC, Barrister

Albert Pellicer, poet and lecturer

Simone Theiss, human rights advocate

Pakistan: Release activists from Pashtun movement

To: Dr Shireen M Mazari, Federal Minister for Human Rights Ministry of Human Rights
Re: Concerns regarding arrests of Pashtun activists and supporters

Your Excellency,

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation is a global alliance of civil society organisations (CSOs) and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society around the world. Founded in 1993, CIVICUS has 8,000 members in more than 170 countries.

We are writing to you to express our serious concerns over the arbitrary arrests of activists from the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) over the last week. On 27 January 2020, PTM leader and activist Manzoor Pashteen was arbitrarily arrested in Peshawar for criticising government policies based on a speech he gave on 18 January in Bannu. He was charged under Sections 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups), 120-B (punishment of criminal conspiracy), 124 (sedition), and 123-A (condemning the creation of the country and advocating the abolishment of its sovereignty) of the Pakistan Penal Code. A court denied Pashteen bail and sent him to jail on a 14-day judicial remand in Dera Ismail Khan district. 

On 28 January 2020, while holding a peaceful protest outside Islamabad’s National Press Club against the arbitrary arrest of Pashteen, PTM leader and lawmaker Mohsin Dawar was taken into custody with 28 other individuals. Those arrested include PTM activists, Awami Workers Party members and civil society activists, including three women. Six have been released including Mohsin Dawar but 23 have been charged and sent to Adiala jail on judicial remand. They have been reportedly charged under Sections 188 (disobedience against an order duly promulgated by a public servant), 353 (assault on a public servant), 147 (rioting), 149 (being members of an unlawful assembly), 505-A (defaming the army), 505-B (public mischief), 124-A (sedition), 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 186 (obstructing a public servant) of the Pakistan Penal Code.

CIVICUS has also received information that Mohsin Abdali, a young student activist from Lahore, was detained by unidentified men believed to be security officials at 4am on the morning of 30 January and released later in the evening. He had been involved in a demonstration against the arrest of PTM protesters and supporters in Islamabad.

CIVICUS has had longstanding concerns about similar human rights violations against the ethnic Pashtun people and in particular the PTM, which in recent years has mobilised nationwide against abuses targeting the ethnic Pashtun people. We have previously raised these concerns in a letter to your office in May 2019 which highlighted the judicial harassment of PTM activists, arbitrary arrest of protesters and disruption of protests, the unlawful killing of a PTM leader Arman Loni, and restrictions on media coverage.

These arrests are inconsistent with Pakistan’s international obligations, including those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which Pakistan ratified in 2008. These include obligations to respect and protect civil society’s fundamental rights to the freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression. These fundamental freedoms are also guaranteed in Pakistan’s Constitution.

As such, we urge Pakistan authorities to take the following steps as a matter of priority:

  • Release all PTM activists and supporters arrested for exercising their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and drop all charges against them; 
  • Investigate the abduction of activist Mohsin Abdali and take steps to bring the perpetrators to justice; 
  • End the arrest, harassment, and intimidation of PTM activists and their supporters and ensure that they
    can freely express their opinions and dissent without fear of reprisals.
    We express our sincere hope that you will take these steps to address the human rights violations highlighted above, and we are available for further discussion.

We express our sincere hope that you will take these steps to address the human rights violations highlighted above, and we are available for further discussion.

Saudi Arabia: Over 50 human rights groups call for immediate release of women’s rights defenders

Arabic 

The following letter was sent to over 30 Ministers of Foreign Affairs of States calling on UN Member States to adopt a resolution at the 40th session of the UN Human Rights Council calling explicitly for the immediate and unconditional release of the detained Saudi women human rights defenders and establishing a monitoring mechanism over the human rights violations in the country.

Thailand:Civil society groups urge government to dismiss cases brought by company against human rights defenders

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha
Office of the Permanent Secretary,
Prime Minister’s Office
Royal Thai Government
Government House
1 Pitsanulok Road
Dusit, Bangkok 10300
Thailand

RE: New Lawsuits Brought by Thammakaset Company Limited Against Human Rights Defenders

Dear Prime Minister Prayut,

The 89 undersigned organizations write to express our deep concern regarding recent spurious complaints brought by Thammakaset Company Limited against several human rights defenders in Thailand.

We respectfully urge the Thai government to take immediate action to oppose and seek the dismissal of cases filed by Thammakaset that run counter to your government’s proclaimed policy to support business and human rights as well as Thailand’s interests, legal obligations, and international human rights law commitments.

To date, Thammakaset—a Thai-owned poultry company in Lopburi Province— has filed no fewer than 13 criminal and civil complaints against a number of human rights defenders, including former employees. While Thai authorities and courts have dismissed most of the complaints, some are still pending and, in November 2018, a company representative pledged to bring more complaints.

In December 2018, Thai authorities summoned 14 former employees of Thammakaset, all migrant workers, to acknowledge complaints by the company, alleging that the workers “wrongly filed a false case with officials and caused damage to another [person or entity].” Lopburi Province police also called Suthasinee Kaewleklai, the Thailand Coordinator of the Migrant Workers Rights Network (MWRN)—an advocacy group that supports migrant rights in Thailand—to report to the police on January 28, 2019 to discuss a separate complaint by Thammakaset against her. On the same day, the Lopburi Province police requested information from witnesses as part of an investigation into complaints brought by Thammakaset at the end of 2018 against six individuals relating to activity on social media.

Thammakaset’s criminal complaints stem from its former 14 employees’ involvement in reporting labor rights abuses to the Department of Labor Protection and Welfare (DLPW) and the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT) in 2016. In separate investigations, both DLPW and the NHRCT found evidence of labor rights abuses, including that Thammakaset failed to pay minimum and overtime wages and failed to provide adequate leave to workers as required by law. On January 15, 2019, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s order requiring Thammakaset to pay 1.7 million Thai Baht (US$51,470) in compensation to the 14 former employees for violations of Thailand’s Labor Protection Act.

Thammakaset recently brought additional legal complaints against human rights defenders involved in publicly reporting on labor rights abuses and employer reprisals against the workers. As of October 2018, Nan Win, a former Thammakaset employee, faces new criminal defamation charges for speaking out on the alleged labor abuses and reprisals against the 14 former employees in a film produced by the human rights organization Fortify Rights and during a Facebook-live press conference that Fortify Rights organized. Sutharee Wannasiri, a former human rights specialist with Fortify Rights, also faces criminal and civil defamation charges for sharing Fortify Rights’ film on social media. The Bangkok Criminal Court is scheduled to consider the complaints against Nan Win and Sutharee Wannasiri on February 4 and March 11, 2019, respectively, and the Civil Court scheduled hearings in August 2019 to consider the civil complaint against Sutharee Wannasiri.

We are alarmed that Thai authorities are proceeding to investigate and prosecute these complaints by Thammakaset, particularly after the Don Mueang Sub-District Court has already dismissed similar criminal defamation charges in July 2018 brought by the company against the same 14 former employees. These new charges filed by Thammakaset constitute harassment by the company that waste valuable time and resources of police, prosecutors, and judicial officers.

The complaints by Thammakaset appear to be reprisals brought to harass human rights defenders involved in exposing abuses. Such reprisals interfere with the work of human rights defenders and prevent the implementation of labor rights protections. The cases brought by Thammakaset are emblematic of Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (SLAPP) lawsuits. These cases demonstrate the dangers SLAPP suits pose for workers and human rights defenders in Thailand and illustrate the need for your government to adopt clear policies and enact regulations and laws to oppose such cases from proceeding. Thammakaset has a long history of aggressively using the courts to intimidate and silence human rights defenders, who have exposed business related human rights abuses. In August and October 2017, Thammakaset filed criminal suits against two migrant workers and Suthasinee Kaewleklai for the alleged theft of employment timecards. In fact, the timecards were presented to Thai government labor inspectors as evidence of labor violations, assisting officials to perform their duty as required by law. Although Thai courts eventually dismissed Thammakaset’s complaints, the cases should never have proceeded in the first place and resulted in undue stress, unnecessary legal costs, and lost time and wages for those facing charges.

We recognize recent legislative steps by the National Legislative Assembly in December 2018 to amend Section 161/1 of the Thailand Criminal Procedure Code. This amendment allows a court to dismiss and forbid the refiling of a complaint by a private individual if the complaint is filed “in bad faith or with misrepresentation of facts in order to harass or take advantage of a defendant.” Section 161/1 should apply to the recent complaints brought by Thammakaset.

This amendment is insufficient to address SLAPP suits generally in Thailand. In addition to relying on the court’s application of Section 161/1, we urge your government to clearly demonstrate its opposition to SLAPP lawsuits, such as the ones filed by Thammakaset. Seeking the expeditious dismissal of the recent complaints by Thammakaset would be instructive to both foreign and Thai businesses operating in Thailand and demonstrate your government’s commitment to implementing the law and upholding business and human rights principles.

To prevent future SLAPP lawsuits like those filed by Thammakaset, we recommend that Thailand develop comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation that fully protects workers, human rights defenders, and others from judicial harassment. It is also essential that the public prosecutor and the Attorney General’s Office be provided with adequate resources and support to exercise their powers under Section 21 of the 2010 Public Prosecutor Organ and Public Prosecutors Act to screen out unwarranted complaints, including those brought to harass, intimidate, or retaliate against human rights defenders or others. Thailand should also decriminalize defamation and end imprisonment or fines as a penalties for acts of defamation.

We urge the Thai government to follow the recommendation provided by a group of six United Nations human rights experts in May 2018 to “revise its civil and criminal laws as well as prosecution processes to prevent misuse of defamation legislation by companies.” During its official visit to Thailand in April 2018, the U.N. Working Group on Business and Human Rights similarly called on the Thai government to “ensure that defamation cases are not used by businesses as a tool to undermine legitimate rights and freedoms of affected rights holders, civil society organizations and human rights defenders.” The Working Group further recommended “enacting anti-SLAPP legislation to ensure that human rights defenders are not subjected to civil liability for their activities.” We encourage the Thai government to incorporate these recommendations into Thailand’s National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights and also ensure meaningful consultations with Thai civil society on developing and implementing the National Action Plan.

We thank you for your attention to the issues and recommendations raised in this letter. We welcome the opportunity to assist and support the Thai government in meeting its commitments to uphold business and human rights principles as well as to protect the rights of workers, human rights defenders, and basic freedoms in Thailand.

Sincerely,

  1. Aksi! for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice, Indonesia
    2. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
    3. Amnesty International
    4. Anti-Slavery International
    5. Article 19
    6. ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights
    7. Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development
    8. Asia Pacific Mission for Migrants (APMM), Hong Kong
    9. Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network
    10. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
    11. Assembly of the Poor, Thailand
    12. Australian Council of Trade Unions
    13. Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI)
    14. Bune United Sisters, Tombil Community, Minj , Jiwaka Province, PNG
    15. Burma Campaign UK
    16. Business & Human Rights Resource Center
    17. Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights (CENTRAL)
    18. Center for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR), Philippines
    19. Chab Dai
    20. CIVICUS
    21. Civil Rights Defenders
    22. Coalition for the Rights of Refugees and Stateless Persons
    23. Community Resource Centre Foundation
    24. Conservation International
    25. Cross Cultural Foundation
    26. Danish Ethical Trading Initiative
    27. Environmental Justice Foundation
    28. Ethical Trading Initiative
    29. Ethical Trading Initiative Denmark
    30. Ethical Trading Initiative Norway
    31. FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
    32. FishWise
    33. Fortify Rights
    34. Foundation for Education and Development (FED)
    35. Free the Slaves
    36. Freedom Fund
    37. Freedom United
    38. Frontline Defenders
    39. GABRIELA Alliance of Filipino Women, Philippines
    40. Global Coalition on Migration
    41. Global Legal Action Network
    42. Global Migration Policy Associates
    43. Greenpeace
    44. Highlands Women Human Right Defenders Movement, PNG
    45. Human Rights and Development Foundation
    46. Human Rights Lawyers Association
    47. Human Rights Now
    48. Human Rights Watch
    49. Humanity United Action
    50. IJM Foundation (มูลนิธิไอเจเอ็ม)
    51. Indonesian Migrant Workers Union, Indonesia
    52. International Accountability Project
    53. International Labor Rights Forum
    54. Kabar Bumi (Indonesian Migrant Workers Union), Indonesia
    55. Korea Center for United Nations Human Rights Policy (KOCUN), the Republic of Korea
    56. Kugar Farmers Association, Kudjip, BANZ, Jiwaka Province, PNG
    57. LawAid International
    58. Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada
    59. Liberty Shared
    60. Manushya Foundation
    61. MAP Foundation
    62. MARUAH, Singapore
    63. Migrant Workers Rights Network
    64. National Alliance of Women Human Rights Defenders (NAWHRD), Nepal
    65. National Indigenous Women Forum (NIWF), Nepal
    66. NEthing, India
    67. North Whagi Country’s Women Association, Jiwaka Province, PNG
    68. Oxfam
    69. RITES Forum, India
    70. Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
    71. Rural Women Association Alga, Kyrgyzstan
    72. Shan Women’s Action Network
    73. Slave Free Seas
    74. Social accountability international
    75. SRED, India
    76. Stop the Traffik Australian Coalition
    77. Suara Perempuan Desa (Rural Women’s Voices), Indonesia
    78. SwedWatch
    79. Tarangini Foundation, Nepal
    80. Thai Lawyers for Human Rights
    81. Trades Union Congress
    82. Uniting Church of Australia (Synod of Victoria and Tasmania)
    83. Verité
    84. Voice
    85. Voice for Change, Jiwaka Province, PNG
    86. Walk Free Foundation
    87. We Women Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka
    88. Women’s League of Burma
    89. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

China: Open letter from global civil society calls for release of student activists and workers

On 9 and 11 November, only days after China underwent a UN review on its human rights situation, Chinese authorities carried out a massive crackdown, forcibly disappearing student activists in five cities across the country. The missing activists are supporters of workers at Jasic Technologies, in Shenzhen, who have been fighting for their rights. This is the most severe case of repression against workers and students in China in recent years.

Joint letter in support of the UN General Assembly resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran

Joint statement

To: All Permanent Missions to the United Nations in New York

Your Excellencies,

The undersigned national, regional and international civil society organisations urge your government to support resolution A/C.3/73/L.42 on the promotion and protection of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has been presented to the Third Committee in the framework of the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly. This annual resolution provides an opportunity for the General Assembly to take stock of human rights violations in Iran over the last year and the many other human rights concerns that remain unaddressed in the country, as detailed in reports recently issued by the UN Secretary-General and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, and offers key recommendations for how the Government of Iran can better implement its national and international human rights obligations.

We echo the Secretary-General’s observation that this year has been “marked by an intensified crackdown on protesters, journalists and social media users”, in the wake of the wave of protests that erupted across Iran in December 2017 and continued into 2018. The Iranians authorities have stepped up their repression of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, jailing hundreds of people on vague and broadly worded national security charges. Those targeted include peaceful political dissidents, journalists, online media workers, students, filmmakers, musicians and writers, as well as human rights defenders, including women’s rights activists, minority rights activists, environmental activists, trade unionists, anti-death penalty campaigners, lawyers, and those seeking truth, justice and reparation for the mass executions and enforced disappearances of the 1980s. In a worrying development, the Iranian authorities this year arbitrarily arrested and detained, prosecuted and imprisoned on spurious criminal charges lawyers representing civil society activists and others charged for politically motivated reasons. Judicial authorities have denied detainees accused of national security-related charges access to a lawyer of their choice, particularly during the investigation process.

The resolution also acknowledges positive steps taken by the Government, including putting into effect an amendment to the country’s drug law which has resulted in fewer executions for drug-related offences being carried out in the country.

Nonetheless, Iran’s wide use of the death penalty remains of great concern. Iranian law still retains the death penalty for a wide range of drug trafficking offences. Iran also continues to use the death penalty for vaguely worded offences such as “enmity against god” (moharebeh) and “spreading corruption on earth” (efsad-e fel arz), which do not amount to an internationally recognisable criminal offence. The death penalty is also retained for acts that should not even be considered crimes including some consensual same-sex sexual conduct and intimate extra-marital relationships. The penal code also continues to provide for stoning as a method of execution.

Also deeply concerning is Iran’s continued use of sentencing to death and executing those who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crime. Despite repeated condemnations by UN bodies, to date in 2018, the Iranian authorities have executed at least five people who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crime of which they were convicted; according to Amnesty International, at least 85 others remain on death row and the real number could be much higher. This horrific practice is a flagrant violation of Iran’s human rights obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as under customary international law, and requires urgent action by UN member states.

We, as civil society actors, believe that the UN’s ongoing engagement is necessary in order to press Iran to undertake long-overdue reforms and respect the human rights of all in the country. The Secretary-General and the Special Rapporteur have repeatedly stressed that various laws, policies and practices in Iran continue to seriously undermine the fundamental rights of the people of Iran, including their rights to life; freedom from torture and other ill-treatment; fair trial; freedom of religion or belief; peaceful exercise of the freedom of expression (online and offline), association and assembly; and equal enjoyment of all to education, to health and to work.

Violence and discrimination, in law and practice, against individuals on the basis of gender, religion, belief, ethnicity, language, political opinion, sexual orientation and gender identity, among other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, also remain widespread and continue to be sanctioned by laws, policies and government practices.

Women and girls experience pervasive discrimination, in law and practice, and receive little or no protection against cruel, inhuman or degrading practices, including domestic violence, marital rape, early and forced marriage and forced veiling.

In addition, the systematic persecution of Baha’is continues unabated. Other religious minorities including Christian converts, Yaresan (Ahl-e Haq) and Sunni Muslims also face systematic discrimination. This year the authorities have subjected Gonabadi Dervishes to a harsh crackdown, with hundreds arrested and subjected to torture and other ill-treatment, and over 200 sentenced after grossly unfair trials to harsh prison terms, floggings, internal exile, travel bans, and/or a ban on membership of social and political groups. Ethnic minority activists, including Arabs, Baloch, Kurds and Azerbaijani Turks have also been subjected to widespread patterns of abuse and serious violations of their rights.

Further to this, Iran has by and large failed to implement key recommendations by UN human rights bodies. For instance, torture and other ill-treatment at the time of arrest and in detention, including prolonged solitary confinement, continue to be committed on a widespread basis and with complete impunity. Judicial authorities also continue to impose and implement sentences that constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments, including floggings and amputations, which amount to torture.

Cooperation with UN human rights mechanisms is lacking. The Government’s engagement with these entities, including the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, has been cursory. Despite the Government’s issuance of a standing invitation to the UN Special Procedures in 2002 and dozens of UN recommendations urging the Government’s cooperation with them, pending requests for country visits from 10 thematic procedures remain unaddressed. No special procedure has been allowed to visit Iran since 2005. Furthermore, individuals, including human rights defenders, have faced reprisals on the basis of real or perceived contact with UN bodies.

The continued attention of the international community is required to ensure Iran upholds its international human rights obligations. By supporting resolution A/C.3/73/L.42, the UN General Assembly will send a strong signal to the Iranian authorities that the promotion and respect of human rights is a priority, and that genuine and tangible improvements to the situation are expected to ensure the dignity inherent to all persons in Iran.

Signatories:

Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights

All human rights for all in Iran

Amnesty International

Arseh Sevom

Article 18

ARTICLE 19

ASL19

Association for Human Rights in Kurdistan of Iran - Geneva

AHRAZ - Association for the Human Rights of the Azerbaijani people in Iran

Balochistan Human Rights Group

Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies

Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights

Center for Human Rights in Iran

Centre for Supporters of Human Rights

Child Rights International Network (CRIN)

CIVICUS : World Alliance for Citizen Participation

Conectas Direitos Humanos

Ensemble contre la peine de mort (ECPM)

Gulf Centre for Human Rights

Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI)

Human Rights Watch

Impact Iran

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA)

International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism

International Service for Human Rights

Iran Human Rights

Iran Human Rights Documentation Center

Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO)

Justice for Iran

Kurdistan Human Rights Network

Minority Rights Group International

OutRight Action International

Reprieve

Siamak Pourzand Foundation

Small Media

The Advocates for Human Rights

United for Iran

World Coalition Against the Death Penalty

6Rang (Iranian Lesbian & Transgender Network)

Tanzania: Civil society groups all on UN Human Rights Council to address crackdown on human rights

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

Excellency,

Ahead of the 39th regular session of the UN Human Rights Council (“the Council”), which will be held from 10-28 September 2018, we write to call on your delegation to deliver statements, both jointly and individually, to address the ongoing crackdown on civic space and human rights back­sliding in the United Republic of Tanzania.

Considering the rapidly declining environment for human rights defenders (HRDs), civil society, jour­na­lists, bloggers, the media and dissenting voices in Tanzania, we, the undersigned non-governmental organisations (NGOs), make a joint appeal to Member and Observer States of the Council. At the 39th session, States should urge the Tanzanian Government to change course, cease any form of intimidation, harassment and attacks against HRDs, journalists, bloggers, and opposition members and their suppor­ters, and amend restrictive laws and regulations with a view to bringing them in line with international human rights standards.

Since 2015, Tanzania has implemented newly-enacted draconian legislation and applied legal and extra-judicial methods to harass HRDs, silence independent journalism and blogging, and restrict freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, and association. 

We call on your delegation to make use of the following agenda items[1] to raise concern, jointly and individually, and to engage in a constructive dialogue with the Tanzanian authorities:

  • General debate (GD) under item 2, following the High Commissioner’s update;
  • General debate under item 3, in relation to reports of the High Commissioner and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR);
  • General debate under item 4;
  • General debate under item 10; and
  • Interactive dialogues (IDs) with the Working Group on arbitrary detention and the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances.
  • Additionally, bilateral and collective engagement in multilateral fora such as the Council and at the embassy level, in Tanzania, should be used to raise relevant issues with the Government.

Through these opportunities for dialogue, your delegation can help the Council fulfil its responsibility to “address situations of violations of human rights […] and make recommend­ations thereon” and to “contribute, through dialogue and cooperation, towards the prevention of human rights violations and respond promptly to human rights emergencies.”[2]

The 39th session should be leveraged to help prevent a further deterioration of the human rights situation in Tanzania and send the Tanzanian Government a message that the international com­munity expects it to uphold its citizens’ human rights, in line with its obligations and the country’s history of openness, engagement, and respect for human rights.

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

Sincerely,

  1. African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS)
  2. Africans Rising for Justice, Peace & Dignity
  3. ARTICLE 19
  4. Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia (AHRE)
  5. Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
  6. Caucasus Civil Initiatives Center
  7. Сenter for Civil Liberties – Ukraine
  8. CEPO – South Sudan
  9. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
  10. Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) – Uganda
  11. Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
  12. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
  13. Conectas Human Rights – Brazil
  14. DefendDefenders (The East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
  15. FIDH, within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
  16. Freedom House
  17. Global Witness
  18. HAKI Africa – Kenya
  19. Human Rights Concern – Eritrea
  20. HURISA – South Africa
  21. International Civil Society Center
  22. JOINT Liga de ONGs em Mocambique – Mozambique
  23. Ligue Burundaise des droits de l’homme Iteka – Burundi
  24. Observatoire des droits de l’homme au Rwanda – Rwanda
  25. Odhikar – Bangladesh
  26. Réseau Ouest Africain des Défenseurs des Droits Humains/West African Human Rights Defenders Network (ROADDH/WAHRDN)
  27. Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
  28. Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC)
  29. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
  30. Zambia Council for Social Development (ZSCD) – Zambia

[1] See the annex for more detailed proposals for action, as well the report and letter referenced in footnotes 3 and 4.

[2] UN General Assembly resolution 60/251, paras. 3 and 5(f).

 

Tanzania: Civil society groups express concern over rapid decline in human rights

Tanzania: 65 civil society groups call on the Tanzanian Government to address rapidly deteriorating environment for media, human rights defenders and opposition party members

 

To President John Magufuli

Your Excellency,

We, the undersigned civil society organisations (CSOs) from across the world, write to express our deep concern over the worrying decline in respect for human rights, including the rights to freedom of association, expression and peaceful assembly, in Tanzania. We urge your government to take proactive measures to protect these rights which are crucial to civic space and publicly recognise the essential role that a vibrant civil society and an independent media play in creating peaceful and equal societies.

Tanzania’s long-standing commitment to improving the human rights of all people, both nationally and within the region, is notable and should be acknowledged as such.  However, we are deeply alarmed that these human rights issues are being precipitously undermined by the unwarranted closure of media outlets, judicial persecution and harassment of independent journalists, the targeted assassination of opposition party members, blanket restrictions on peaceful protests and the introduction and invocation of a raft of laws to undermine freedom of speech online. These and other forms of harassment and persecution of civil society and media discussed below erode Tanzania’s role as a regional champion of public freedoms, peace and stability and represent a breach of its international, national and regional human rights obligations and commitments.

New legal restrictions criminalizing freedom of expression on social and traditional media

The Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations, which was signed into law in March 2018, criminalises a broad scope of legitimate forms of online freedom of expression. Under the regulation, all bloggers and persons operating online radio and television streaming services must secure a license and pay an annual fee of over $900 before they can publish any material online. Such fees are not only financially prohibitive but place an arbitrary bar to entry to exercise the right to freedom of expression. We are also deeply concerned by provisions which endow the government with the authority to revoke a permit if a site or blogger publishes content that "causes annoyance" or "leads to public disorder."

Of equal concern are vague and overbroad provisions of the 2015 Cybercrimes Act which empower the government to arbitrarily ban and sanction the dissemination of newspaper articles or social media posts which it deems critical, including insulting the President. In particular, Article 16 criminalizes the publication of all information deemed “false, deceptive, misleading or inaccurate.” Persons found to have contravened the Act are subject to draconian prison sentences and harsh fines of not less than five million shillings ($2,190) or a term of not less than three years or both. Since coming into force, the law has been invoked to persecute dozens of individuals and journalists. In one week alone, five private citizens were charged under the Cybercrimes Act for statements made on Facebook, WhatsApp and other social media platforms, including a three-year sentence handed down to a private citizen for insulting President John Magufuli on Facebook.

Moreover, the Media Services Act, which came into force in November 2016, allows the authorities to unilaterally determine which journalists receive licenses, forces all journalists to obtain a license, and makes defamation and sedition a criminal offense. Under the law,  the government-run Accreditation Board is empowered to “suspend or expunge journalists” for committing “gross professional misconduct as prescribed in the code of ethics for professional journalists.” The penalties for violating provisions of law are severe. According to the law, anyone found guilty of acting with a seditious intention who commits an offence is liable to a fine of not less than 5 million Shillings (approximately $2,260) or three years in prison or both.

Suspensions, fines and banning media outlets

Despite strong constitutional, United Nations and African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights safeguards protecting the right to freedom of expression, the government has systematically targeted Tanzanian media outlets through a combination of closures and hefty fines on newspapers. This campaign of harassment, which appears to be an attempt to suppress their work to report on government policy and conduct, has resulted in four prominent newspapers being banned in 2017 and four other papers being heavily fined in early 2018.

On 24 October 2017, the government banned the Swahili-language Tanzania Daima for a period of 90 days on specious claims of publishing false news about anti-retroviral drug use for people with HIV. This was the fourth newspaper banned since June 2017 including Mwanahalisi which was banned for 24 months in September 2017; the weekly Raia Mwema for 90 days in September and Mawio newspaper for 24 months in June 2017.

On 2 January 2018, the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA) fined five television stations a combined 60 million Tanzanian shillings ($27,000) for broadcasting “offensive and unethical” content, in particular for airing a press statement issued on 30 November by the Legal Human Rights Centre (LHRC). The report by LHRC documented violations such as detentions, intimidation and physical abuse in the context of  the 6 November 2017 elections of councillors in 43 wards. The TV stations that featured the LHRC's press statement and were subsequently penalised include: Star TV, Azam Two, East Africa TV, Channel 10 and ITV.

Judicial harassment and persecution of journalists and human rights defenders

In stark contrast to the authorities’ human rights obligations to uphold and protect the safety of journalists, several independent media practitioners have recently been subject to physical attacks and judicial persecution. Recently on 21 November 2017, newspaper journalist Azory Gwanda was abducted by a group of unknown assailants in the Coast Region. Prior to his enforced disappearance, Gwanda who is a journalist with newspapers, Mwananchi and The Citizen, had authored a number of articles documenting the murders of several local officials and police officers. To date Gwanda’s whereabouts remain unknown.

In August 2017, a Tanzania court began hearing a case against Micke William and Maxence Melo Mubyazi, co-owners of the whistleblower website, Jamii Forums. Both journalists were charged under the Cybercrimes Act on spurious accusations of obstructing justice for failing to disclose the identities of persons who posted details of allegedly corrupt officials on Jamiiforums. There have been over 40 adjournments of the case, including most recently on 3 May 2018. If convicted, they face fines up to 3 million shillings ($1,300) or a jail term of at least one year, or both.

Groups and defenders advocating for the rights of LGBTI individuals have also been equally persecuted. Among a wave of recent attempts to suppress organisations and activists working on SOGI issues, in October 2017, 13 human rights lawyers and defender were arbitrarily arrested and detained on allegations of promoting “promoting homosexuality”. Three civil society representatives, including Ugandan and South African lawyers from the Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa and nine members of Tanzanian Community Health and Education Services and Advocacy (Chesa), were arrested during a private meeting.

Killings and criminal cases against political opposition members

Since the start of 2018, scores of political opposition members and parliamentarians have been violently attacked and even killed. On 22 February, Godfrey Luena, a member of parliament with Tanzania’s main opposition party Chama Cha Demokrasia Na Maendeleo (CHADEMA) and a vocal land rights defender, was killed with machetes outside of his home. Mr Luena had been a critic of alleged state sponsored land-grabbing. Days earlier, on 13 February, Daniel John, a CHADEMA official in Dar es Salaam, was abducted and killed by unknown assailants using machetes. Mr John was supporting an opposition political campaign for a contested parliamentary seat in Dar es Salaam.

A number of opposition party members and lawmakers have also been targeted in what appears to be a systematic campaign of judicial harassment. Among other worrying cases, two opposition leaders, CHADEMA MP Joseph Mbilinyi and local party leader Emmanuel Masonga were sentenced to five months on 26 February 2018 for insulting President John Magufuli during a political rally.

Harassment, intimidation arbitrary arrest of peaceful protesters

In response to growing public frustration over human rights backsliding in the country, individuals and groups have increasingly sought to exercise their rights to peaceful assembly to air their legitimate grievances. Worryingly, the authorities, including members of the government and security apparatus, have resorted to arbitrary arrests, excessive use of force and intimidation to silence these protests.

In April 2018, Tanzanian activists called for national demonstrations to bring attention to the decline in respect for human rights in Tanzania. However, in contravention of international standards, the authorities, which require anyone seeking to hold a public assembly to secure a permit, declared the protests illegal.

The government and police forces responded to these calls to stage public protests with severe intolerance, including hostile statements by senior government and police officials, including threats that protesters “will be beaten like stray dogs." Days before the planned 26 April demonstrations seven people were arrested in Arusha for their purported role in organising the protests. The few who dared to take part in the protests were quickly persecuted; nine protesters, who marched in Dar Es Salaam, were almost immediately arrested.

Recommendations to the Government of Tanzania

The undersigned groups urge your government to create an enabling environment for civil society and the media to operate in accordance with the rights enshrined in the Constitution of Tanzania, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, including the guidelines on freedom of association and peaceful assembly. Tanzania has ratified both the ICCPR and the African Charter. At a minimum, the following conditions should be ensured: freedom of association, freedom of expression, the right to operate free from unwarranted state interference, the right to seek and secure funding and the state’s duty to protect. In light of this, the following specific recommendations are made.

1) All disabling and restrictive provisions in the Cybercrimes Act, the Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations and the Media Services Act must be amended and replaced by progressive sections that will guarantee freedom of expression and the media in line with international human rights standards.

2) The cases of newspapers banned, suspended or fined under the Media Service Act 2016 should be reviewed to enable them to continue their operations without undue interference.

3) Independent investigations should be conducted into cases of attacks and assaults on journalists, human rights defenders and opposition party members with a view to bringing suspected perpetrators to justice and these attacks should be publicly and unequivocally condemned.

4) Government officials should desist from publicly threatening human rights defenders including when activists that are working to expose corrupt practices in government or are critical of government policies and actions.

5) Best practices on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly prescribed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association should be adopted by the Government of Tanzania including removing the permission regime and providing recourse in cases of unlawful denial of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

Sincerely,

  1. Access Now
  2. African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS)
  3. Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
  4. Amnesty International
  5. ARTICLE 19 East Africa
  6. The Article 20 Network
  7. Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC)
  8. Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia (AHRE) - Ethiopia
  9. Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
  10. Bahrain Center for Human Rights - Bahrain
  11. Balkan Civil Society Development Network (BCSDN)
  12. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
  13. Caucasus Civil Initiatives Center (CCIC)
  14. Center for Civil Liberties - Ukraine
  15. Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR) - Malawi
  16. Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations
  17. Chapter Four - Uganda
  18. Citizens for Democratic Rights in Eritrea (CDRiE) - Eritrea
  19. CIVICUS
  20. Civil Rights Defenders (CRD)
  21. Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
  22. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)
  23. Community Empowerment for Progress Organization (CEPO) - South Sudan
  24. DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
  25. End Impunity Organisation
  26. Ethiopia Human Rights Project (EHRP) - Ethiopia
  27. Freedom House
  28. Front Line Defenders
  29. Greenpeace Africa
  30. Governance, Elections, Advocacy, Research Services (GEARS) Initiative - Zambia
  31. Groupe d’Action pour le Progrès et la Paix (ONG GAPP-BÉNIN) - Bénin
  32. HAKI Africa - Kenya
  33. Human Rights Defenders Network - Sierra Leone
  34. International Civil Society Center (ICSC)
  35. International Rivers - Africa Program
  36. Iraqi Network of Social Media - Iraq
  37. Jamaa Resource Initiatives - East Africa
  38. JOINT Liga de ONGs em Mocambique - Mozambique
  39. Karapatan Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights - Philippines
  40. Kepa - the Finnish NGO platform - Finland
  41. Latin American and Caribbean Network for Democracy (REDLAD)
  42. Liberia Coalition of Human Rights Defenders (LICHRD) - Liberia
  43. Ligue Djiboutienne des Droits Humains (LDDH) - Djibouti
  44. Ligue Iteka - Burundi
  45. Lumiere Synergie pour le Developpement - Senegal
  46. Malawi Human Rights Defenders Coalition  - Malawi
  47. Minority Rights Group International
  48. National Civic Forum - Sudan
  49. Observatoire des Droits de l'Homme au Rwanda - Rwanda
  50. Odhikar - Bangladesh
  51. OutRight Action International
  52. Pan-African Human Rights Defenders Network (PAHRDN)
  53. Public Interest Law Center (PILC) - Chad
  54. RESOCIDE - Burkina Faso
  55. Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
  56. Robert L. Bernstein Institute for Human Rights | NYU School of Law
  57. Servicios y Asesoría para la Paz (Serapaz) - México
  58. Sinergia - Venezuela
  59. Solidarity Center
  60. Sudanese Development Initiative (SUDIA) - Sudan
  61. Tournons la page (TLP)
  62. West African Human Rights Defenders’ Network (WAHRDN)
  63. World Movement for Democracy
  64. The Zambia Council for Social Development (ZCSD) - Zambia
  65. Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum - Zimbabwe

Bangladesh: Open letter on Digital Media Security Bill

To

The President of Bangladesh, H.E. Md Abdul Hamid

The Chair of the National Human Rights Commission, H.E. Kazi Reazul Hoque

Subject: Open letter on Digital Media Security Bill

Your Excellencies

We write to you as international civil society organisations engaged on human rights and sustainable development issues in Bangladesh. We are concerned that in the current political climate in Bangladesh, which is narrowing avenues for free debate and legitimate democratic dissent in the country, the Bangladesh Digital Security Bill 2018, likely to be introduced in the current session of Parliament, fails to protect the right of the media, civil society and members of the general public to freely express their opinions on policies and actions of decision makers.

Many of our organisations have closely followed debates about this bill over the years. In the past we have raised concerns about the existence of overbroad definitions and harsh punishments in the bill which, if enacted, would severely undermine freedom of expression as well as the freedom of the press. From available information, it appears that our concerns about the bill’s provisions as likely to impinge on constitutional rights and well as Bangladesh’s commitments under international law persist. Both Article 29 of the Constitution of Bangladesh and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allow the imposition of restrictions on the right to freedom of expression only in very limited and clearly defined circumstances.

In the present situation we recommend that the bill’s provisions are carefully considered from a constitutional and international law standpoint. Mr. David Kaye, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, has done extensive work on the subject including on the exercise of the freedom of expression in the digital age. We believe that the government would greatly benefit from engagement with Mr. Kaye, who could advise on the permissible limits on the freedom of expression under international law.

Furthermore, we urge the government to seek assistance from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on measures to strengthen the protection and promotion of human rights in the country in line with constitutional and international standards. We are concerned to hear that an official visit to Bangladesh by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, H.E. Zeid bin Ra’ad Al Hussein has been postponed and request the facilitation of a such a visit at the earliest opportunity.

We believe that Bangladesh’s democracy and commitment to human rights and sustainable development will be strengthened through constructive engagement with UN human rights experts. We urge you to kindly consider the above requests in the interests of the people of Bangladesh.

Sincerely,

List of signatories (in alphabetical order)

Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD)

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)

Asian Human Rights Commission

CIVICUS

FIDH – International Federation for Human Rights

Human Rights Watch

Odhikar

People’s Watch

Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights

World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)

Joint statement from Environmental rights defenders workshop

In response to the rise in the attacks, harassment and killings of human rights defenders and activists defending land, environmental and indigenous rights, CIVICUS and Publish What you Pay released a report on the different restrictions and attacks faced by activists. 

NGOs Raise Concern Over Forcibly Disappeared Sayed Alawi

Sayed Alawi has been detained for over nine months, with no access to a lawyer or to his family since his arrest. During this time, he was allowed only four brief phone calls to his family, who has repeatedly inquired during this time about the reasons for and location of his detention. To date, the authorities have not provided this information.In the letter, the NGOs urge the Bahraini government to immediately disclose the location and charges against Sayed Alawi and to provide him with access to his family, legal representation, and medical treatment. The NGOs call for the release of Sayed Alawi unless the Bahraini government has charged him with a recognizable criminal offence.

Read the Joint Letter

Egypt: Call to postpone the EU-Egypt Association Council

A coalition of civil society organisations have written to Ms. Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission and Mr. Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, and EU Member States’ Ministers of Foreign Affairs urging them to postpone the EU-Egypt Association Council and not to extend a formal invitation to the Egyptian authorities for July 2017.  This event would constitute a public political gesture conveying to them, and to public opinion in Europe and in Egypt, an endorsement of Egypt’s policies of the past few months, by the EU and its Member States. We consider that would encourage President Al-Sisi’s government to proceed with further, broader repressive measures, thus accelerating the destabilisation of Egypt even further. This would serve neither the Egyptian people’s interests, nor those of Europe in its search for stability, resilience and security in the MENA region.

Read the letter 

Bahrain: End Degrading Treatment of Activists

Bahraini authorities’ treatment of wrongfully imprisoned detainees violates international standards on prisoner treatment and in some cases may constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, a coalition of ten rights groups said today. The authorities should ensure that all detainees are treated with humanity and in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, including access to the adequate medical care they require and contact with their relatives.

Family members of 12 opposition activists or human rights defenders held in Building 7 of Jaw Prison have told rights groups that under new regulations the authorities shackle the men, many of them elderly and in poor health, whenever they leave their cells, including for medical visits. The men are serving long prison terms in connection with their prominent and peaceful roles in the pro-democracy uprising in February 2011.

“These new regulations degrade and humiliate prisoners who clearly pose no escape risk,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Authorities can take reasonable measures to prevent escapes, but shackling infirm patients, many of them torture victims, clearly goes beyond any need for security.”

The authorities should immediately and unconditionally release all prisoners held solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, the groups said.

On April 12, 2017, Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, a human rights defender held in Building 7, began a hunger strike to protest the new regulations at Jaw Prison, which the prisoners believe are a disproportionate response to the escape of 10 prisoners from another part of Jaw Prison on January 1.

In addition to the shackling, which has led the detainees to refuse to attend medical appointments in protest at what they perceive as degrading treatment, the authorities have cut visiting hours and the time for phone calls with their relatives.

Since the escape, which resulted in the death of a police officer, family members of the opposition and human rights activists and several other prisoners have told the rights groups that the authorities’ treatment of their relatives has worsened significantly.

Since March 1, authorities have shackled prisoners in Building 7 whenever they leave their cells. This practice is contrary to Rule 47 of the Mandela Rules, which states that restraint instruments should only be used as a precaution against escape or to prevent prisoners from injuring themselves or others. Family members of prisoners in other buildings have also told rights groups that their relatives are shackled whenever they leave their cells and that since the escape, their cells are locked most of the day, meaning that those without toilet in their cell have only limited access to toilets.

International human rights mechanisms have said that the use of restraints on elderly or infirm prisoners who do not pose an escape risk can constitute ill-treatment. The prison authorities appear willing to abide by some of the Nelson Mandela Rules by transferring patients requiring specialized treatment to specialized institutions or civil hospitals. But the disproportionate use of physical restraints is degrading and is preventing detainees from getting the health care they require.

Family members of Al-Khawaja, 56, told rights groups that he had an appointment with an eye specialist at the Bahrain Defense Forces military hospital on March 12 because of headaches and vision problems. But the prison administration insisted that he had to wear the prison uniform, have his legs and ankles shackled, and submit to full body strip search.

The family said he refused because of the humiliation involved. Al-Khawaja wrote to the prison authorities in March requesting a new medical appointment and to be allowed to go without a strip search and shackles, but has received no response. On April 12, he began a hunger strike. His family expressed concern about the impact of his hunger strike on his already deteriorating health and said that on April 15 he refused medical attention to address a low blood sugar level in protest at the regulations.

On April 20, Al-Khawaja began to take necessary liquids to avoid losing consciousness and being transferred to hospital, where he feared he would be force-fed, as in past hunger strikes. He suffers from exhaustion, general weakness, and dizziness. He has lost weight and his blood sugar remains low.

A family member of Dr. Abduljalil al-Singace, 55, who requires crutches or a wheelchair as the result of polio and sickle-cell anemia, told rights groups that he refused to attend medical appointments, including a March 12 appointment with a hematologist and an appointment in early March to deal with a shoulder infection, because of the prison authorities’ insistence on shackling him with chains during the transfer.

Family members say that Mohamed Hassan Jawad, 69, and Hasan Mshaima, 69, have also refused essential medical appointments in protest over the authorities’ insistence that they be shackled and wear the prison uniform. Mshaima has heart problems and is a former cancer patient who requires regular checks-ups. His family said that he needs Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans every six months and that the last one was over eight months ago.

“These leading Bahraini political and human rights activists have suffered deteriorating health during their prolonged arbitrary detention since 2011,” said Husain Abdulla, executive director of Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain. “Shackling these prisoners of conscience is not a legitimate prison security measure but is intended to degrade and humiliate them. The international community must not forget these long-term prisoners of conscience and should work to end their unjust and punitive detention.”

Since March 1, the prison administration has reduced all prosioners’ family visits from one hour to 30 minutes, once every two or three weeks, and that prisoners are now separated from their families by a glass barrier during visits. Since June 2016, phone calls to their families, which they are allowed to make up to three times per week, have been cut from 40 minutes to 30 minutes combined for all calls. On March 20, prison authorities stopped providing the detainees with toilet paper or tissues.

On March 1, the detainees in Building 7 and others in Jaw Prison began boycotting family visits in protest.

“These opposition activists are prisoners of conscience who should not have spent even a single day in prison,” said Lynn Maalouf, research director at Amnesty International’s Regional Office in Beirut. “The authorities must immediately put an end to the collective and arbitrary punishment of the entire Jaw prison population as a result of the escape of a group of prisoners; they must release all prisoners of conscience without delay and ensure all prisoners are treated humanely and receive the adequate medical treatment they require.”

Rule 36 of the Nelson Mandela Rules states that discipline and order shall be maintained with no more restriction than is necessary to ensure safe custody, the secure operation of the prison, and a well-ordered community life. Thus, while authorities can take steps to minimize the risk of further escapes, the measures they introduce must be proportionate, should not impinge on prisoners’ dignity, and should not unnecessarily aggravate the suffering inherent in the deprivation of liberty.

Any deliberate infliction of inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners should be investigated and those responsible held accountable.

Eleven of the 12 detainees in Building 7 were sentenced in trials that did not meet international standards on fair trials and convicted of crimes that included alleged involvement with a group whose purpose was to replace Bahrain’s monarchy with a republican form of government. The evidence produced against them at their trial consisted only of public statements advocating reforms to curtail the power of the ruling Al Khalifa family and “confessions” that were coerced while they were in incommunicado detention. The twelfth detainee, Sheikh Ali Salman, whose nine-year prison sentence was reduced to four years on April 3, was convicted in relation to peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression, following a grossly unfair trial.

The Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry’s report of November 2011 said that authorities subjected the group to a “discernible pattern of mistreatment,” including torture, after their arrests in some cases. Authorities have not provided physical or psychological rehabilitation for detainees who were tortured.

Signatories:
• Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
• Amnesty International
• Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR)
• Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
• CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
• English PEN
• European Centre For Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)
• Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
• Human Rights First
• Human Rights Watch

Open Letter to the President of the Republic of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenka

Dear Mr. President

We, 48 undersigned organizations from 24 countries, strongly condemn the continuing wave of detentions and harassment of peaceful protesters, journalists, human rights defenders, civil society activists, anarchists and opposition party members in Belarus.

25 African CSOs oppose Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Uganda’s draconian Anti-homosexuality Bill is currently awaiting President Yoweri Museveni’s signature. President Museveni has 30 days from 23 January 2014 when the bill was presented to him to either sign it into law or return it back to Parliament for reconsideration. The bill is in gross violation of basic human rights principles enshrined in Uganda’s constitution and international law.  CIVICUS has coordinated a joint letter by 25 civil society groups based in Africa urging President Museveni - for reasons outlined below - to do the right thing by rejecting this regressive Bill.

----------------------------------

4 February 2014

President Yoweri Museveni
Office of the President
Parliament Avenue
P.O. BOX 7168,
Kampala
Uganda

Dear President Museveni, 

We write to you as a group of civil society organisations based in Africa. We are deeply concerned about the passing of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill which is currently under review by your office. We understand that, as the President of Uganda, you have the power to reject this repugnant bill and send it back to Parliament for reconsideration. 

We believe that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is profoundly un-African as it preaches an agenda of intolerance, discrimination and ultimately, divisiveness. It also breaches the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights’ promise of human beings being inviolable and entitled to respect for their life and integrity of their person.

An Open Letter to Egypt's Interim Government

Acting President Adly Mansour,
Magles El Shaab St., Kasr El Aini St.
Cairo
Egypt

Re: Escalation of violence and a call for restoration of sovereignty to the people of Egypt

Dear Acting President Adly Mansour,

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation is appalled at the state-led violence against protestors across Egypt which has caused deaths and debilitating injuries to hundreds of people. We condemn in the strongest terms, the criminal actions of your regime and reject the official justifications being offered for use of indiscriminate and deadly force against protestors, including through the deployment of snipers, armoured vehicles and bulldozers. Nevertheless, we appeal for respect of the fundamental freedoms of all Egyptians, including those who stand in opposition to the current regime.

CIVICUS releases an open letter requesting the Indonesian Parliament to reject the proposed ORMAS Law and create an enabling environment for civil society

The People's Representative Council of Republic Indonesia
Gedung Nusantara III
Jl. Jenderal Gatot Subroto Jakarta 10270
Indonesia

Re: Restrictions on Civil Society under the 'ORMAS Bill'

Dear House Speaker Marzuki Ali,

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, the Indonesian Forum for Environment (WALHI) and the International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID) write to express our deep concern on the Bill on Mass Organisations (ORMAS Bill) due for hearing in Parliament on 12 April 2013.

We believe that the Bill severely undermines freedom of association enshrined in the Constitution of Indonesia and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Indonesia is a state party. We urge the Indonesian Parliament to reject the ORMAS Bill in its current form and adopt alternative legislation to create an enabling environment for civil society free from unwarranted restrictions.

Joint Open Letter on Bahrain

HM. King Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa
Office of the King
The Amiri Court
Rifa’a Palace
The Kingdom of Bahrain

Your Majesty,

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation an international alliance of civil society in over 100 countries and the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) are deeply concerned about the use of military courts to stifle civil society. Of particular concern is the sentencing of 20 medical doctors for 5 to 15 years in prison on 29 September 2011 on unproven charges including occupying the Salmanya Medical Complex, calling for the overthrow of the regime and spreading false information. We are also concerned by the harsh sentences of 14 opposition leaders and human rights defenders on 28 September 2011 as well as the sentencing of two Teachers’ Association leaders on 25 September 2011 to long prison term on unsubstantiated charges of disrupting schooling, broadcasting false news and threatening national security.

Read more

Joint letter to Secretary Clinton regarding Uzbekistan

September 27, 2011


Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
US Department of State
Harry S. Truman Building
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520


Dear Secretary Clinton,


We represent a broad, international coalition of human rights organizations, labor groups, trade unions, investors, and others, including independent civil society groups based in Uzbekistan, brought together by our common concern over recent actions by the US government to move toward “business as usual” with the Uzbek government, which remains one of the most repressive in the world.


Last week, an Appropriations Committee in the Senate approved a bill that will allow the provision of taxpayer-funded military and police assistance to the Uzbek government at a time when Uzbek authorities continue to silence civil society activists, independent journalists, and all political opposition; severely curtail freedom of expression and religion; and organize forced child labor on a massive scale.

Read more

COMMUNIQUEZ AVEC NOUS

Canaux numériques

Siège social
25  Owl Street, 6th Floor
Johannesbourg,
Afrique du Sud,
2092
Tél: +27 (0)11 833 5959
Fax: +27 (0)11 833 7997

Bureau pour l’onu: New-York
CIVICUS, c/o We Work
450 Lexington Ave
New-York
NY 10017
Etats-Unis

Bureau pour l’onu : Geneve
11 Avenue de la Paix
Genève
Suisse
CH-1202
Tél: +41.79.910.34.28