View previous stories
	Criminalization of human rights defenders: an alarming phenomenon in Latin America by OHCHR, FIDH, World Organisation Against Torture   June 2016   Funding shortfall for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights)   We are disturbed by the severe financial crisis that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is facing. Should the Commission not receive the necessary funds in the coming weeks, the capacity of the regional human rights system to respond to victims of rights violations across the Americas may be seriously diminished.   The pioneering work of the Inter-American Commission, as an agent of constitutional, legislative and policy reform, has had a strong impact on human rights in the region and beyond. It has provided a vital recourse for victims of human rights violations in the region and has played an important role in advocating for the rights of vulnerable groups.   The Commission is also a strategic partner for the UN Human Rights Offices in the region and a point of reference for the development of human rights standards worldwide.   Unfortunately, in recent years, the Commission has faced undue pressure from a number of States.   We urge States to reaffirm their commitment to human rights by providing the Commission with the required resources to fulfil its crucial mandate and indeed to strengthen this key institution. The Commission’s robust defence of human rights in the region should be encouraged – not punished.   March 3, 2016   Berta Cáceres, Honduran Indigenous Rights Leader, is Murdered. (NPR)   Berta Cáceres, a hugely influential Honduran indigenous rights activist, was killed in her hometown of La Esperenza, Intibucá, on Thursday. She would have turned 46 tomorrow.   Cáceres was awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize after she led a peaceful campaign to stop one of the world''s largest dam builders from pursuing the Agua Zarca Dam, which would have cut off the ethnic Lenca people from water, food and medicine.   La Prensa of Honduras reports that Cáceres was currently working to stop a company from building a hydroelectric dam on the Gualcarque river, which the Rio Blanco community said would fundamentally change their way of life. Authorities, the paper reports, said she was killed during a robbery, but her mother said that Cáceres was killed "because of her struggle."   Cáceres had faced threats for her environmental activism. So much so that the the InterAmerican Commission for Human Rights had called on the government of Honduras to provide her with protection.   Cáceres family is calling her death an assassination.   "They were waiting for the chance to get to her," Silvio Carrillo, her nephew, said in a phone interview. "They were just waiting and she knew it was gonna happen. We all knew but we didn''t dissuade her because we believe in this too."   In a statement, COPINH, the indigenous rights group that Cáceres worked for, said:   "In the last few weeks, violence and repression towards Berta, COPINH, and the communities they support, had escalated. In Rio Blanco on February 20th, Berta, COPINH, and the community of Rio Blanco faced threats and repression as they carried out a peaceful action to protect the River Gualcarque against the construction of a hydroelectric dam by the internationally-financed Honduran company DESA.   As a result of COPINH''s work supporting the Rio Blanco struggle, Berta had received countless threats against her life and was granted precautionary measures by the InterAmerican Commission for Human Rights. On February 25th, another Lenca community supported by COPINH in Guise, Intibuca was violently evicted and destroyed."   In a message, the Goldman Prize said it was "devastated to hear of Berta Cáceres assassination."   Annie Bird, who supported Caceres actions for more than a decade, says her murder will have a chilling effect on other activists.   "It sends a very strong message," she said. "And it makes everybody feel very vulnerable."   Carrillo said he doesn''t expect justice. Honduras, he said, is too far gone for that.   "But what I do see is people being inspired to speak up and to push forth and to stand up and say we can''t do this anymore," he said. "We can''t have this happen anymore."   Cáceres is survived by her four children — ages 26, 24, 23 and 21 — and her mother.   http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/03/469045372/berta-c-ceres-honduran-indigenous-rights-leader-is-murdered http://reliefweb.int/report/honduras/honduras-one-most-dangerous-countries-human-rights-defenders-experts-warn http://bit.ly/2bBgFFW http://bit.ly/2c1btdJ http://bit.ly/2bKCh1w http://bit.ly/2bsQzX0   * Global Witness report: Honduras: the deadliest country in the world for environmental activism, where more than 120 people have died since 2010, see link below.   25 February 2016   The criminalization of human rights defenders in the context of the extraction of natural resources and megaprojects is becoming a very worrisome phenomenon in Latin America, reports the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders in a report published today in Mexico.   Entitled “The criminalization of human rights defenders in the context of industrial projects: a regional phenomenon in Latin America”, the report also points to the role of businesses, civil servants, public prosecutors, judges, and the State, among others, in this phenomenon.   The report describes the specific cases of human rights defenders criminalized in eight Latin American countries (Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Peru).   “Criminalizing and harassing those who defend human rights and land rights is becoming a recurring pattern in Latin America. It is not an isolated phenomenon” points out the Observatory.   “Judges and attorneys often have their share of responsibility with regard to this criminalization. This must end immediately. They can no longer be complicit”.   The report especially stresses two core issues common to all the countries studied:   Firstly, it is in the contexts of extraction of natural resources and of megaprojects that criminalization of human rights defenders is most virulent. They are targeted because they promote landrights and defend vulnerable groups, such as indigenous, afro and rural communities.   But also because they have a key role in drawing attention to human rights violations related to property, exploitation of land and resources, the environment, water rights and respect for labor rights, among others.   All of the cases documented in the report demonstrate how the inappropriate use of criminal law to criminalize community leaders contributed to the collapse of their capacity to act.   Moreover, the report emphasizes the key role of businesses and the judiciary in criminalizing defenders, despite their human rights obligation and the legitimacy of peaceful social protest.   Nearly all criminal cases against defenders have been initiated by businesses, who request the application of emergency laws such as, for example, anti-terrorism legislation.   Furthermore, the report denounces the lack of independence and impartiality of justice and its determining impact on the criminalization of defenders.   In most of the cases presented, additionally to charging abusively the defenders, the Public Ministry leads criminal action and calls regularly for preventive prison. In many cases defenders are prosecuted once, twice or more.   This is extremely serious in that it violates the minimum guarantees of due process and the right to personal liberty.   Likewise, although judges do not always convict defenders, they almost systematically assent to requests for cautionary measures such as preventive arrest.   The Observatory urges the judiciary of the above-mentioned countries not to be accomplices to the undue criminalization of human rights defenders and to initiate a period of reflection within the judicial system on the need for practicing justice in a way that respects the equality of all parties without favoring political and economic interests.   (The Observatory, is dedicated to the protection of human rights defenders and aims to offer them concrete support in their time of need. Organizations who contributed to the elaboration of this report: - FIDH, within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders - World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders - Justiça Global – Brazil - CAJAR – Colombia - INREDH – Ecuador - CEDHU - Ecuador - UDEFEGUA – Guatemala - COFADEH – Honduras - COPINH – Honduras - CMDPDH – Mexico - CENIDH - Nicaragua - APRODEH – Peru)   http://reliefweb.int/report/world/criminalization-human-rights-defenders-alarming-phenomenon-latin-america http://bit.ly/1Xzm9B9 http://bit.ly/2bPHBT9 Visit the related web page
	Protecting and Promoting Civil Society Space by Human Rights Watch, FIDH, HRDN, agencies   May 2016   Protect civil society to promote peace, security and development: A recipe for States and the UN Human Rights Council. (ISHR)   A major new report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spells out the essential ingredients to respect and protect civil society and ‘optimise its transformative potential’ when it comes to peace, security and development. The UN Human Rights Council and States must now respond.   The global crackdown on human rights defenders and independent civil society is a threat to international peace and security and undermines sustainable development, International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) said this week.   By contrast, as demonstrated by a major new report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, respect for civil society contributes to social cohesion, reduced inequality, accountable government, responsive public policy, a conducive environment for business and investment, and the empowerment of marginalised and disadvantaged groups.   ‘Countries where civil society space is protected reap significant dividends,’ says the High Commissioner in the report to be tabled at the forthcoming 32nd session of the UN Human Rights Council in June.   ‘Conversely, the closing of civil society space, and threats and reprisals against civil society activists, are early warning signs of instability. Over time, policies that delegitimise, isolate and repress people calling for different approaches or legitimately claiming their rights can exacerbate frustrations and lead to instability or even conflict.’   The High Commissioner’s report, to which ISHR contributed through a major joint submission with eleven national-level NGOs, identifies five ‘essential ingredients’ to ‘optimise civil society’s transformative potential’:   ‘A robust legal framework compliant with international standards that safeguards public freedoms and effective access to justice’; ‘A political environment conducive to civil society work’, including accountability for attacks against human rights defenders and protection against reprisals; ‘Access to information’ from both public and private actors; Avenues for civil society participation in decision-making processes at the national and international levels; and ‘long-term support and resources for civil society’.   * Access the report via the link below:   http://www.ishr.ch/news/protect-civil-society-promote-peace-security-and-development-recipe-states-and-un-hrc http://www.ishr.ch/sites/default/files/article/files/g1607352.pdf   February 2016   Report, Protecting and Promoting Civil Society Space. (Human Rights & Democracy Network)   This report aims to capture the discussions, analysis and recommendations from the 2015 Human Rights Forum on ‘Promoting and Protecting Civil Society Space’. How can we counter the closing space for civil society and what role should the EU play? These were key questions discussed in Brussels from 3-4 December 2015 with human rights defenders from across the globe. The 17th EU-NGO Human Rights Forum:   http://www.hrdn.eu/2016/03/15/report-protecting-promoting-civil-society-space-15-march-2016/ http://www.fidh.org/en/international-advocacy/european-union/human-rights-should-underpin-the-new-eu-global-strategy http://concordeurope.org/2016/04/26/eu-global-strategy-position/   Civil Society Under Threat: Old and new challenges for human and children''s rights advocates in Eurasia. (Child Rights International Network)   In recent years, the space afforded to civil society to operate freely has been shrinking dramatically across the world, presenting a serious threat to democracy and human rights. Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) have been especially badly affected by this shrinking political space. The wave of restrictive laws curtailing civil society activity has affected the way NGOs operate by pushing rights advocacy to the background. Attacks on freedom of association have often been coupled with clampdowns on freedom of expression and assembly, including through internet restrictions, laws undermining the right to protest, the closing down of independent media and persecution of human rights activists.   The governmental crackdown on NGOs is widely discussed by media outlets all over the world, however the focus rests primarily on the latest legal restrictions, with no attention paid to the causes or other internal and external factors that may have contributed to the situation. They also ignore the “bigger picture” which involves not only governments and NGOs, but also foreign donors, UN agencies, regional human rights mechanisms and other actors. Furthermore, there is still a gap when it comes to examining the issue of crackdowns on civil society in the context of children''s rights.   With ‘donor fatigue’ in developed nations, the danger of government repression when NGOs accept foreign funds, as well as the lack of tradition of private support, the sustainability of independent civil society in EECA is in question. Domestic funding for NGOs remains inadequate, and in most countries the allocation of state funds is not transparent and state grants are primarily distributed among government­organised NGOs (GONGOs).   Very concerning are also the efforts of governments and state­run or pro­government media to create a negative image of NGOs, accusing them of being ‘foreign agents’ or ‘Western spies’. One thing is clear: the government''s attitude toward NGOs will not be favourable in the coming years, therefore civil society leaders must adjust to the new reality.   Furthermore, very few donors in the region concentrate on promoting the full spectrum of children''s rights ­ including civil and political rights ­ established by international law. Currently, child welfare programmes attract more donations from donors or governments, however they are covering the immediate needs of children.   In the long run the idea of children as people who are in need of protection undermines the concept enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child of children as independent human beings with their own rights.   Overall, restrictive measures introduced by governments have long­term effects on civil society groups working on sensitive issues such as human rights advocacy. Stronger national, regional and international standards protecting national human rights defenders and children’s rights advocates are essential in order for them to continue their work.   * Access the report via the external link below: www.crin.org/en/library/publications/civil-society-under-threat-old-and-new-challenges-human-and-childrens-rights   A law beyond improvement, by Tanya Lokshina. (Human Rights Watch)   Defining “political activity” may seem like an academic exercise, but in Russia, it is an existential one.   In May 2013, as Russia was craving positive international publicity before the Sochi Olympic Games, the secretary general of the Council of Europe, Thorbjorn Jagland, criticized Russia’s “foreign agents” law for the “chilling effect” it could have on the country’s civil society. After meeting with President Vladimir Putin, Jagland told the media: “I have expressed concerns about this [law], and I think it is very important.. how political activity is being defined.”   Vladimir Putin, who had been back in the Kremlin for a year and had already unleashed a vicious campaign against critics of the government, did not disagree that the definition in question could benefit from some improvement. Almost three years later, the saga seems to be drawing to a close, and not in a good way.   Defining “political activity” may seem like an academic exercise, but in Russia, it is an existential one. The definition is crucial to the law, which has become the centre piece of the government’s sweeping crackdown on free expression. Non-governmental groups are branded as “foreign agents”, which in Russia is the equivalent of “spy” or “traitor”, if they engage in “political activity” while receiving foreign funding.   The 2012 law’s definition of “political activity”, actions aimed at influencing the government or public opinion, was very broad and vague. The wording could cover all aspects of advocacy and human rights work. Putin’s international interlocutors hoped the solution would be to get the Russian authorities to narrow the definition so that it would exclude human rights and other advocacy work.   The Kremlin proved generous with promises. Every the time issue came up, Putin and other high level officials kept reassuring their foreign partners that the definition would eventually be fine-tuned. Meanwhile, the Justice Ministry kept designating more of the country’s vibrant independent groups as “foreign agents”, treating any type of government advocacy or public outreach as “political activity.”   At the start of 2016, the Russian Justice Ministry’s “register of foreign agents” includes more than 100 non-governmental groups, including leading human rights organisations. Some of the groups on the list did not even have foreign funding, but the authorities argued that their members at some point in the past received foreign funds or were somehow associated with something foreign.   Dozens have paid hefty fines for failing to mark all their publications and online materials as “produced by a foreign agent organisation,” as the law requires. Close to 20 civil society groups across the country have stopped working, including St Petersburg''s Anti-Discrimination Center Memorial and the Committee Against Torture. These groups have refused to identify themselves as something they clearly were not.   Russia’s international partners have remained hopeful that Russia would develop a new definition of political activities. Just two months ago, I was at a diplomatic dinner in Moscow and heard officials around the table refer to Putin’s repeated promises to clarify the term. “My sources are telling me it’s going to happen first thing next year,” one of them said.   And so it did. At the end of January, the Justice Ministry issued a proposed, new definition of “political activity” to include in the “foreign agent” law. This definition is very specific indeed. It says loud and clear that no matter whether you carry out legal or policy analysis, monitor the work of government institutions, do public opinion surveys, engage in research, petition government officials, etc. — as long as those efforts are aimed at somehow influencing the government or public opinion, they constitute political activity.   Instead of narrowing the definition, the ministry details the many ways in which it has been enforcing the profoundly flawed law for the past three years. This proposed definition is what Russia’s international interlocutors are getting in return for their long, patient wait. It is as if the government is saying: “You wanted a new, clear definition — we took a long time but finally elaborated one that we find particularly convenient for our purposes.” And there is little doubt by now, that those purposes are first and foremost about paralysing independent civic activity in the country.   International organisations and leading democratic governments should realise that it makes no sense to wait for good amendments to be written into this intrinsically bad law. They should not be asking Putin to tinker with it. They should say clearly, in one voice, that the law on “foreign agents” runs contrary to the government’s international human rights obligations and that Russia should do away with it.   http://www.hrw.org/news/2016/02/08/law-beyond-improvement http://www.hrw.org/news/2016/03/17/russia-rights-defender-attacked-chechnya Visit the related web page
	View more stories