View previous stories
	Rights experts appeal for greater civil society protections, amid rising repression by CIVICUS, ISHR, Martin Ennals Award, agencies   Rights experts appeal for greater civil society protections, amid rising repression. (UN News)   Greater protection is needed for civil society representatives who are increasingly being targeted in repressive and life-threatening environments, UN and regional human rights experts said in a joint declaration.   They urged governments to uphold their international obligations and ease access to protection measures for civil society actors fleeing violence, including recognition of refugee status and expedited emergency visas.   “Around the world, courageous individuals, and their organizations at the frontlines of the struggle for human rights are in desperate need of safe refuge and urgent life-saving humanitarian assistance yet face vast barriers to protection,” said Clément N. Voule, UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. The independent expert issued the declaration alongside counterparts from Africa, the Americas and Europe.   In it, they deplored attacks against civil society actors, including killings and extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearance, persecution, hostage takings, arbitrary arrests, and sexual and other gender-based violence.   Their declaration also includes recommendations to enhance international efforts to both advocate for open civic space and support those under threat.   “As many States join this week’s Summit for Democracy to address the deepening trends in democratic regression and rising authoritarianism, there is an opportunity to move from rhetoric into action,” said Mr. Voule referring to the two-day meeting hosted by United States President Joseph Biden. The Summit for Democracy ended on Friday, Human Rights Day. http://bit.ly/30iOMzX   Dec. 2021   The fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association continue to deteriorate year after year worldwide, according to a global report released today by the CIVICUS Monitor, an online research platform that tracks fundamental freedoms in 197 countries and territories.   The new report, People Power Under Attack 2021, shows that the number of people living in countries with significant restrictions on civic rights, including the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly, amount to almost 89% of the population this year.   The CIVICUS Monitor data shows that year after year, there is significantly less space for people to exercise fundamental freedoms: only 3.1% of the world’s population lives in countries rated as ‘open’.   Nearly two billion people live in countries with the worst rating, ‘closed’, where the authorities are routinely allowed to imprison, injure and kill people for attempting to exercise their fundamental freedoms.   It is nearly two years since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and the virus is having a dire impact on civic freedoms globally, one that will have lasting impact if remedial action is not taken. Our research shows the detention of protesters and the use of restrictive laws to muzzle dissent are becoming more prevalent, as governments use the pandemic to introduce or implement additional restrictions on civic freedoms.   “Governments across the world are setting a very dangerous precedent by using the health emergency as a smokescreen to crack down on protests and enact or amend legislation that will further limit peoples’ rights.   Specifically, disinformation legislation is being enacted and used to criminalise speech, a concerning practice that could become the new norm to crush dissent,” said Marianna Belalba Barreto, Civic Space Cluster Lead.   “What we are seeing is not a proportional reaction to a health emergency, where restrictions are meant to be extraordinary measures to deal with a crisis that is temporary. On the contrary, governments are using the pandemic as a pretext to further accelerate the crackdown on human rights that we have been documenting over the past years.”   http://www.civicus.org/index.php/media-resources/media-releases/5501-civicus-monitor-2021-report http://findings2021.monitor.civicus.org/ http://lens.civicus.org/ http://lens.civicus.org/interviews/ http://actionaid.org/publications/2021/democratising-global-governance-and-multilateralism   Nov. 2021   Ending reprisals against Human Rights Defenders (ISHR, Martin Ennals Award)   Reprisals against human rights defenders were at the core of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) 48th session, held from September 13 to October 11, 2021.   Following a report from civil society organizations, the UNHRC based in Geneva adopted a strong resolution by consensus, the first over the last decade, on the topic of reprisals.   Member States meeting at the UN General Assembly 76th session in New York were then called upon to support a cross-regional joint statement on reprisals, which 80 countries signed committing themselves to ensuring the engagement of all civil society organisations and human rights defenders at the UN without fear of intimidation and punishment.   So, does this mean the end of reprisals for HRDs? Not yet, but these milestones should pave the way for renewed attention and commitment to the topic.   Protecting essential voices   Human rights defenders (HRDs) work to make a fairer, more sustainable and just world by promoting and protecting human rights. In considering human rights situations around the world, the UN system is profoundly dependent on the information and testimonies provided by human rights defenders who document situations, abuses and violations. They are essential voices from our communities that need to be part of the conversations at the United Nations.   This pivotal role is a one of the reasons why some States seek to prevent defenders from engaging with UN bodies and mechanisms.   While everyone in theory has the right to access and safely communicate with the UN, States often engage in tactics to repress and discourage contact between civil society and the UN architecture.   Reprisals symbolize an attack on the perspectives and efforts of HRDs and those collaborating closely with them, as sargued in the report submitted by civil society organizations to the UNHRC early October 2021.   Tallying up past cases with newly reported cases, the report reveals that, 31 countries have taken part in reprisals against HRDs operating in their territories. These reprisals committed by State or non-state actors range from imprisonment and killings of defenders to physical attacks and assault, arbitrary arrests, torture, sexual violence, smear campaigns in the media, surveillance and stalking, denial of basic medical amenities, travel bans, financial embargoes, administrative and legal hurdles. As a deterrent, States use reprisals against family members and close colleagues and friends of HRDs as well.   Furthermore, the report reiterates proposals made over the past ten years, such as the mechanisms of protection to victims of reprisals, “good practices” for States, the effect of reprisals on women and children and contributes a new discussion about digitized avenues to safely access the UN and digital security in the light of COVID-19.   “Every reprisal diminishes our ability to deliver to the people we serve.” - Joint Statement, Third Committee, October 19, 2020.   The report highlights approximately 159 organizations and HRDs who faced some form of reprisal, including five former Martin Ennals winners.   Venerable Luon Sovath, a Buddhist monk from Siem Reap, Cambodia has creatively advocated for rights against forced evictions since 2009. Delegates of Cambodia, Vietnam and other countries interrupted his oral statement in a coordinated fashion at the Interactive Dialogue on Cambodia during the 45th UNHRC session on October 1st, 2020, challenging his presence there on grounds of the legitimacy of his accreditation. Not intimidated, Venerable Sovath was able to deliver his statement after all, in large part thanks to the leadership of the session.   Loujain Al-Hathloul, a leading figure advocating for gender equality and women’s rights in Saudi Arabia, was arrested by the Saudi Arabian government because of her engagement with the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).   In February 2021, after several dedicated efforts by her relatives and human rights groups, she was released from prison. But she remains under probation which heavily restricts her freedom of speech and movement.   “Loujain’s years-long imprisonment has ended, but she is not free… Banned from travel and coerced into silence by a suspended sentence hanging over her, Loujain’s ordeal remains a flagrant miscarriage of justice.”, said Adam Coogle, the deputy director for the Middle East at Human Rights Watch.   Ahmed Mansoor promoted democratic reforms to guarantee freedom of expression, civil and political rights in his home country, the United Arab Emirates. He remains imprisoned, since January 2019, serving a ten-year sentence under dreadful conditions at Al-Sadr prison and subjected to routine torture. Since 2014, Ahmed had also received death threats, was constantly surveilled and had travel bans imposed on him in part because of his collaboration with the Human Rights Council. The Government remains silent on the status of his health and conditions of detention.   Reprisals against Adilur Rahman Khan, a leading human rights lawyer in Bangladesh, have also extended to his organization, Odhikar. Adilur and his team have been subjected to state repression and punishments since 2009, when they engaged with the Universal Periodic Review of Bangladesh, experiencing routine threats, harassment, surveillance. One member of the Odhikar staff was even killed.   The report highlights the ordeals faced by Xu Yan, the wife of MEA Laureate Yu Wensheng, who has been unlawfully detained since January 2018. Xu accessed UN human rights mechanisms as part of her campaign for the release of her husband. She was not informed where he was imprisoned for eight months during June 2020 and February 2021. She was able to visit her husband on March 15, 2021, for the first time since his detention. Xu remains under constant surveillance by authorities, preventing her participation during key public events.   States continue to engage in reprisals against HRDs and often deny or silence its occurrence. UN Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights, Andrew Gilmore, expressed that little has changed in the past decade about States’ responses to address issues of reprisals — “we have sadly seen the form reprisals take on an annual basis since the report was first published in 2010, and we have heard governments named in those reports gaslight the Human Rights Council every year since in their responses to the report.”   Furthermore, the results of the Human Rights Council election held in Geneva on October 14 echo a potentially grimmer reality. The results revealed that out of the eighteen states who competed for membership to the Council for the 2021-2024 term, “more than half (10 countries) have been cited by the Secretary-General in the last 11 years for engaging in acts of intimidation or reprisals in retaliation for, or to discourage cooperation with, the UN.”   The election results, therefore, are not in line with the renewal of commitments to ending reprisals against HRDs, amongst other aspirations emerging from the 48th session.   The HRC elections point towards a more hopeful future as well. Although states like Cameroon, India and the UAE now possess membership to the HRC, their election symbolizes a potential step forward in the process of ending reprisals. The HRC elections also hold the promise of providing a platform wherein elected members could be scrutinized more thoroughly and demand answers to questions that have previously been silenced or avoided.   As for future elections, one of the ways to promote an end to reprisals against defenders would be to make a Member State’s record on the topic one of the key criteria for consideration when running for election to the Human Rights Council. This would contribute visibility not only to acts of reprisals that States might quietly engage in, but also to the work of human rights defenders and the everyday challenges that they face.   October 14th also saw 80 states sign a joint statement committing themselves to ending reprisals against HRDs in New York – no small feat in the current climate for multilateralism. It symbolizes that particularly on the question of reprisals, countries have been able to compromise on their narrow political groupings, which often defined the atmosphere at the UN headquarters of New York.   So, whether these were developments that emerged in Geneva or in New York, these events are key in the process to ending reprisals. It remains to be seen whether these renewed debates will have an important effect on the dynamics of the UN system.   http://www.martinennalsaward.org/un-organizations-discuss-reprisals-this-october/ http://www.martinennalsaward.org/human-rights-news-martin-ennals-foundation/ http://ishr.ch/latest-updates/civil-society-participation-at-the-un-human-rights-council-cannot-be-an-afterthought/ http://ishr.ch/latest-updates/ http://srdefenders.org/ http://www.icj.org/egypt-quash-amal-fathys-conviction-and-stop-targeting-human-rights-defenders/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/01/egypt-hopes-for-justice-crushed-as-court-confirms-prison-term-for-womens-rights-defender/ Visit the related web page
	Institutions providing development financing need to embrace a human rights-based approach by Global Voices, Rights in Development, agencies   Where did international financial institution's COVID-19 funding go, by Siddharth Akali, Jocelyn Medallo, Nadeen Madkour and Siddharth Akali. (Global Voices)   We are beginning 2022 with the world reeling under rising Omicron cases. It has been two years since the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus a public health emergency of international concern. And we still have pressing questions around how we shepherd ourselves out of the pandemic, and through the recovery: Who will provide the funds? What will they be spent on? How will we make sure they reach those who need it the most?   International financial institutions (IFIs), like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and various regional development banks, have positioned themselves as key players for the global recovery from the economic and social impacts of the pandemic.   In 2020, when the first wave of the coronavirus started sweeping the globe, economic experts urged countries to spend and borrow, and they did. IFIs shortened their disbursement timelines to address this urgent demand, and formally or informally did away with many of their environmental and social safeguard requirements.   These institutions have already provided billions of dollars of public money for the pandemic response, promoting a positive image of their funding going to the public sector and to groups that face marginalisation. However, a different narrative emerges from grassroots communities.   Since the early stages of the pandemic, civil society groups from around the world have been calling for a human rights-based approach from the IFIs. Frontline medical workers, journalists, and others directly affected by IFIs’ COVID-19 response have been raising concerns about the risks of exacerbating human rights violations, shrinking space for democratic participation, environmental damages, dilution of environmental and social standards, corruption and mounting debt. Now, there is growing evidence that many of these risks have actualised.   There is a concerning lack of transparency on how IFIs money was spent and what impacts it had on the ground for grassroots communities. However, a series of national-level case studies by members and partners of the Coalition for Human Rights in Development, have been trying to dig in, find the receipts and evaluate impacts and outcomes.   “Missing Receipts” — a new collaborative overview of these national and global reports — documents several shortcomings in IFI-funded pandemic responses, and raises serious concerns about whether, and under what conditions, IFI financing is an appropriate solution for the ongoing crisis and future global emergencies.   The research unearthed implementation problems including corruption, crony capitalism, and exclusion of those who needed support the most. Concerningly, women, Indigenous peoples, low-income populations, people with disabilities, and frontline medical workers were often excluded both from the shaping of IFI supported programs, and benefiting from them, as well.   Many developing, lower- and middle-income and post-colonial countries went into the pandemic already in a state of vulnerability born out of neoliberal prescriptions. For decades IFIs have been pushing forward debt-based financing, extractivism-based economies, privatization of basic services, and flexibilizing labor markets. This led to the hollowing out of the public sector, elimination of social protection programs, and enabled corporate capture. IFIs did not take responsibility for these actions and the resulting poverty and inequality.   Nor did they change course in their pandemic response. Instead, IFIs vigorously promoted the “private-sector-first” paradigm, focusing on leveraging private investment over supporting countries in rebuilding state capacity for resilience in the long run.   IFIs have pumped out a significant amount of money as part of their pandemic response: civil society’s Early Warning System (EWS) COVID-19 tracker has identified at least 1,500 known projects totaling over 160 billion USD from 15 development banks’ disclosed financing. But the EWS shows that the amount spent on direct benefits to people is significantly lower than what went to the private sector. And while most IFI support was delivered to countries rather than to companies, that is not the full story, since the money that went to the public sector was largely passed on to large corporations.   High-level policy conversations about crisis response, development and financial architecture should incorporate such information from the grassroots and their allies about the actual impact of IFIs’ financing during the pandemic.   Back in 2020, author and activist Arundhati Roy reminded us that, “historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew.” She suggested that the coronavirus pandemic is a portal, and we can choose both how we walk through it, and also what kind of world we want to walk into.   Today, as countries begin to grapple with the long-term effects of the pandemic, with millions more individuals living in poverty, even more entrenched inequality, a mounting economic and debt crisis, and new waves of COVID-19 continuing to make the news, many are asking: Where did the money from IFIs go? How will our governments pay for these debt obligations? What social programs will be cut in exchange? Is there a better way to weather crises? Is this sustainable development?   To answer these questions, IFIs have to show the receipts. We, the people, need to see where the money went and what impact it had. We also need IFIs to remedy the projects that excluded marginalised groups, where funds were pilfered, or where living beings and the planet were harmed.   There has to be meaningful accountability. Governments, academics and high-level policy forums must demand IFIs show the receipts before giving them a bigger role in the pandemic and the recovery.   And as news of the Omicron variant floods our news feeds, we, as civil society, have to remember the pandemic’s portal is still open. We could choose to walk through it, with stale ideas of international financial institutions which replicate economic injustice, misogyny, and ecological crisis. Or we can walk bravely, with love and generosity, ready to imagine and fight for another world where the institutions providing development and crisis financing are community-led, democratic, equitable, and embrace a human rights-based approach.   http://globalvoices.org/2022/01/31/covid-19-you-cant-have-a-recovery-using-the-same-bad-medicine/ http://accountability.medium.com/financial-intermediary-subproject-data-exposed-for-the-first-time-7fbd62d47cd0 http://rightsindevelopment.org/news/development-banks-have-no-business-financing-agribusiness/
	View more stories