View previous stories
	Climate change is already severely damaging human rights by OHCHR, UNHCR, Reuters, agencies   Jan. 2020   World needs to prepare for 'millions' of climate-displaced, UNHCR chief warns. (Reuters)   The world needs to prepare for millions of people being driven from their homes by the impact of climate change, says the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.   Speaking to Reuters at the World Economic Forum, Filippo Grandi said a U.N. ruling this week meant those fleeing as a result of climate change deserved international protection, and that it had broad implications for governments.   The U.N. Human Rights Committee made the landmark ruling on Monday in relation to Ioane Teitiota, from the Pacific nation of Kiribati, who brought a case against New Zealand after authorities denied his claim of asylum.   'The ruling says if you have an immediate threat to your life due to climate change, due to the climate emergency, and if you cross the border and go to another country, you should not be sent back, because you would be at risk of your life, just like in a war or in a situation of persecution', Grandi said.   'We must be prepared for a large surge of people moving against their will', he said. I wouldn't venture to talk about specific numbers, it's too speculative, but certainly we're talking about millions here.   Potential drivers include wildfires like those seen in Australia, rising sea levels affecting low-lying islands, the destruction of crops and livestock in sub-Saharan Africa and floods worldwide, not least in parts of the developed world.   Whereas for most of its 70 years UNHCR, the U.N.'s refugee agency, has worked to assist those fleeing poorer countries as a result of conflict, climate change is more indiscriminate.   'It is further proof that refugee movements and the broader issue of migration of populations, is a global challenge that cannot be confined to a few countries, said Grandi.   UNHCR, whose budget has risen from $1 billion a year in the early 1990s to $8.6 billion in 2019 as conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria have forced civilians to flee, now assists more than 70 million forcibly displaced people.   http://www.unhcr.org/emergencies.html   Jan. 2020   Historic UN Human Rights case opens door to climate change asylum claims. (OHCHR)   In its first ruling on a complaint by an individual seeking asylum from the effects of climate change, the UN Human Rights Committee* has stated that countries may not deport individuals who face climate change-induced conditions that violate the right to life.   In 2015, Ioane Teitiota's asylum application in New Zealand was denied, and he was deported with his wife and children to his home country of Kiribati. He filed a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee, arguing that by deporting him, New Zealand had violated his right to life. Mr. Teitiota argued that the rise in sea level and other effects of climate change had rendered Kiribati uninhabitable for all its residents. Violent land disputes occurred because habitable land was becoming increasingly scarce. Environmental degradation made subsistence farming difficult, and the freshwater supply was contaminated by salt water.   The Committee determined that in Mr. Teitiota's specific case, New Zealand's courts did not violate his right to life at the time of the facts, because the thorough and careful evaluation of his testimony and other available information led to the determination that, despite the serious situation in Kiribati, sufficient protection measures were put in place.   "Nevertheless," said Committee expert Yuval Shany, "this ruling sets forth new standards that could facilitate the success of future climate change-related asylum claims."   The Committee also clarified that individuals seeking asylum status are not required to prove that they would face imminent harm if returned to their countries. The Committee reasoned that climate change-induced harm can occur both through sudden-onset events (such as intense storms and flooding), and slow-onset processes (such as sea level rise, salinization and land degradation).   Both sudden-onset events and slow-onset processes can prompt individuals to cross borders to seek protection from climate change-related harm.   The Committee also highlighted the role that the international community must play in assisting countries adversely affected by climate change. The Committee stated that without robust national and international efforts, the effects of climate change in sending states may trigger the non-refoulement obligations of receiving states and that given that the risk of an entire country becoming submerged under water is such an extreme risk, the conditions of life in such a country may become incompatible with the right to life with dignity before the risk is realized.   The ruling marks the first decision by a UN human rights treaty body on a complaint by an individual seeking asylum protection from the effects of climate change.   http://reliefweb.int/report/world/historic-un-human-rights-case-opens-door-climate-change-asylum-claims http://www.gi-escr.org/latest-news/human-rights-committee-rejects-climate-refugee-claim-of-kiribati-man-but-leaves-the-door-open-for-future-climate-related-deportation-cases http://bit.ly/38vabUY http://bit.ly/2unWGaY   20 Dec. 2019   Climate change is already severely damaging human rights   UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet on Friday applauded a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands which requires the State to take more ambitious climate action in order to protect human rights from the adverse effects of climate change.   The Netherlands highest court upheld an earlier decision by the appellate court in Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands that insufficient action to address climate change posed a 'risk of irreversible changes to the worldwide ecosystems and liveability of our planet' and a 'serious risk that the current generation of citizens will be confronted with loss of life and/or a disruption of family life that the State has a duty to protect against'.   The decision confirms that the Government of the Netherlands and, by implication, other governments have binding legal obligations, based on international human rights law, to undertake strong reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases.   The High Commissioner welcomed the Court's acceptance that human rights obligations are central to the response to the climate change.   "Climate change is already severely damaging human rights and that impact is growing fast," she said. "The recognition by the highest Dutch court that the Netherlands human rights obligations provide a legal basis to compel stronger and more rapid action by the Government is vitally important.   This landmark ruling provides a clear path forward for concerned individuals in Europe and around the world to undertake climate litigation in order to protect human rights, and I pay tribute to the civil society groups which initiated this action.   Recalling the slowing progress in the climate negotiations and the entrenched and dangerous phenomenon of climate denial, the High Commissioner underlined that today's decision affirmed her long-standing contention that more ambitious climate action, in all parts of the world, is a human rights obligation rather than simply a policy choice.   'This is not only about low-lying countries like the Netherlands, which are on the front line of climate change', Bachelet said. 'Every State and every community will be affected. The potentially devastating effects of unchecked sea rise, heat waves, uncontrollable forest fires, hurricanes and other growing emergencies must spur us all to demand courage and decisiveness by Governments everywhere in responding to these threats'.   'Low-lying countries like the Netherlands are in the front line of climate change, and the potentially devastating effects of an unchecked rise in sea levels in particular should spur us on to demand courageous and decisive actions by Governments everywhere in responding to these threats', Bachelet said. I cannot underline too much the importance of today's decision, and the even greater importance of it being swiftly replicated in other countries.   http://bit.ly/2tdaPrm http://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/living-in-a-clean-environment-a-neglected-human-rights-concern-for-all-of-us   * Human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment: http://undocs.org/en/A/74/161   http://www.ibanet.org/Podcasts/7337143.aspx http://www.ciel.org/news/new-report-confirms-human-rights-are-integral-to-climate-action/ http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Environment/SREnvironment/Pages/Annualreports.aspx Visit the related web page
	The Fight Against Torture by Andrew Gilmour Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights   I would like to thank the Convention Against Torture Initiative (CTI), all participants for their leadership on this issue.   As we all know, international law is unambiguous on the matter. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and so many subsequent iterations - both international and regional - reflect the clear stigma that the international community has attached to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment from which no derogation is permitted. Legally and morally, it is seen as an abomination. And indeed a source of shame for those who do it.   Whereas countries that carry out the death penalty often justify their executions, countries that practice torture systematically deny it. And while some populist leaders may gloatingly say 'I like torture, it works', they are mercifully few in number.   Despite the international consensus, despite the fact that torture as a method of investigation has proved to be not only ineffective but counterproductive (by producing unreliable information) it remains widespread.   The risk of torture is highest in the first hours and days after arrest, when detainees often have no access to legal assistance, independent medical examination or, more broadly, anyone from the 'outside' who could ring the alarm bell. On a daily basis, we receive reports of cases of torture, including demonically imaginative new forms.   We know that torture strips away the essence of a human being's humanity, dignity, and self-worth. And the fight against torture has always been at the forefront of the work of our Office.   Last year, in an effort to prevent torture and ill-treatment, UN human rights officers around the world conducted over 2,000 visits to places of detention. And we support and work closely with the UN human rights mechanisms devoted to the fight against torture, which together form the global anti-torture architecture.   Today, I wish to highlight the work of two of the lesser known of those mechanisms: The UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture.   This year, the Torture Fund made 160 awards to assist victims of torture through medical, psychological, social and legal services which, last year, reached nearly 50,000 victims of torture in 80 countries. Its work is vital in restoring dignity and self-respect of victims and enabling them to rebuild their lives and sense of purpose.   We warmly welcome the establishment, this March, of a Group of Friends of the Torture Fund, in order to raise the Fund's visibility and to champion the importance of assistance for victims of torture.   The mandate of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture is a novelty for the UN. In an innovative approach, it carries out preventive visits based on principles of confidentiality and cooperation with the State Parties. Since its establishment in 2007, the Subcommittee has carried out more than 70 country visits and helped establish 68 National Preventive Mechanisms.   Today, however, these two UN mechanisms I've mentioned face a number of challenges. The organizations supported by the Voluntary Fund work in a worldwide context of shrinking civic space. And they are increasingly facing deliberate obstruction to their work of providing assistance to survivors of torture.   Our data suggests that about 30% of grantees reported having been subjected to retaliation for doing their work, or for cooperating with the UN. Obstructions include measures to prevent organizations from registering as NGOs, prohibitions of 'foreign funding', and freezing of bank accounts. Those working in the grantee organizations have also been the target of acts of intimidation such as killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, death threats, surveillance, defamation and travel bans.   I have been assigned a particular responsibility for reprisals and intimidation for cooperating with the UN, and regrettably this is an increasingly widespread phenomenon that goes way beyond torture mechanisms.   The Sub-committee also faces a number of challenges: several States parties to the Optional Protocol to Convention against Torture have tried to impede its access to places of detention, or undermined the independence of the National Preventive Mechanisms, or reduced their budget.   The adoption of the Convention against Torture came at a time, in the 1980s, when the international community was confronting torture primarily by military dictatorships. Since then, the Committee against Torture (CAT) as well as other components of the UN have strived in various ways to provide protection against more contemporary forms of torture and ill-treatment.   These include torture by non-State actors, with the CAT clarifying that State parties are responsible for acts of torture and ill-treatment committed by non-State or private actors, and that States indifference to such acts provides a form of encouragement and/or de facto permission.   The Committee has applied this principle to States parties failure to prevent and protect victims from gender-based violence and harmful traditional practices, such as female genital mutilation, child and forced marriage, lynching, ritual and honour killings.   Despite the absolute and universal prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, such abuse is still practiced in all regions of the world, even in countries that have formally criminalized the practice but not made real efforts to stamp it out.   Contemporary challenges such as terrorism, organized crime, and irregular migration have given rise to trends aiming to trivialize torture, or to even justify such abuse as a 'necessary evil' in exceptional circumstances.   In that context, the Committee against Torture has consistently rejected the justification of torture as a means to avert 'terrorist threats', reminding that the Convention prohibits confessions extorted by torture of any person, without discrimination.   Also that the mere act of transferring persons under rendition and secret detention programmes is in itself a violation of the Convention. It is a matter of serious concern that influential States have declined to ensure judicial accountability for acts of torture and ill-treatment committed by their officials, as well as for the cooperation of their officials with States operating rendition and secret detention programmes. These decisions undermine decades of efforts to ban the practice.   As a result of the widespread criminalization and deterrence of irregular migration, migrants have increasingly become victims of widespread human rights violation by State officials and organized criminals, such as smugglers and traffickers.   A recent study found that the prevalence of torture victims among irregular migrants averages 27% and in some contexts 76%. Earlier this year, I met several African migrants, survivors of Libyan detention centres, every one of whom - man, woman, boy, girl - had been tortured and raped. Tortured with mobile phones next to the victim, who was forced to call relatives (whether or not they had them) and beg them to transfer funds if they did not wish to hear the screams of their loved ones over the phone.   And among the most savage examples of industrialized torture in our lifetime has been the horrific acts committed inside Syrian detention centres, where the zest for dehumanizing perceived opponents has been taken to the extreme of systematically disfiguring faces almost beyond recognition before the moment of death. There are literally thousands of photographs testifying to this sickening practice.   To put an end to torture clearly requires us to work together towards new approaches and tools, which is why I so much welcome the agenda of this Seminar: To cooperate and innovate. The need for practical guidance to police officers and other officials on the implementation of safeguards has led us - the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR)- to support and work with an expert and practitioner-led initiative to elaborate a set of universal standards for non-coercive interviewing methods and procedural safeguards.   Law enforcement officials, criminal investigators, psychologists and other professionals have worked together to develop such standards since 2016, when the then Special Rapporteur on torture, Juan Mendez, introduced this idea. It is widely recognized that using torture to extract information is both immoral and illegal.   Less understood, despite the mass of evidence is that such methods are also deeply ineffective and indeed positively counter-productive for the simple reason that people undergoing torture are liable to say anything to stop the pain and humiliation, thereby frequently giving interrogators information that is wholly untrue and sending investigators up blind and irrelevant alleys, diverting their time from the real threats.   This not only leads to the wrong people being targeted or convicted but also discredits a country's entire judicial, police and intelligence processes. We believe these universal standards will provide practical guidance to States on moving away from a confession-based criminal justice system, thereby reducing the risk of torture and ill-treatment.   When people are deprived of their liberty and cannot defend themselves, their treatment at the hands of public officials speaks volumes for the values of their government.   Torture breaks down not only the will and dignity of the victim, but erodes the humanity of the torturer, and degrades society and its institutions. It destroys the public trust upon which the State's legitimacy is founded.   At a time of global backlash against progress achieved in many areas of human rights, the human rights movement needs to forge stronger alliances. The work done by all those working to prevent torture, abuse and ill treatment is an example of how human rights is not an impediment but can positively contribute, as a vital tool to law enforcement, stability and the rule of law. We should underline that message to as many people as possible. http://bit.ly/2tfQ7GL   http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Torture/SRTorture/Pages/SRTortureIndex.aspx http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Torture/UNVFT/Pages/Index.aspx http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CAT/pages/catindex.aspx http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/Pages/OPCATIndex.aspx http://apt.ch/en/news_on_prevention/catalina-devandas-shedding-light-on-the-detention-of-persons-with-disabilities/ http://apt.ch/en/news_on_prevention/torture-prevention-is-an-essential-part-of-the-sustainable-development-agenda/ http://cti2024.org/en/cti-tools/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories