32/36/Add.3 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association - Addendum - Observations on communications transmitted to Governments and replies received
Document Type: Final Report
Date: 2016 Jun
Session: 32nd Regular Session (2016 Jun)
Agenda Item: Item3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development
GE.16-10146(E)
Human Rights Council Thirty-second session
Agenda item 3
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights,
including the right to development
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association
Addendum
Observations on communications transmitted to Governments and
replies received*
* Reproduced as received.
United Nations A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
General Assembly Distr.: General 17 June 2016
English/French/Spanish only
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
2
Contents
Page
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5
II. Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 5
III. Africa region .................................................................................................................................... 6
Angola ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Burundi ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Cameroon ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Congo (the Republic of) ................................................................................................................... 10
Democratic Republic of Congo ........................................................................................................ 11
Djibouti ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Ethiopia ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Guinea ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Kenya ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Mauritania ........................................................................................................................................ 18
Rwanda ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Sierra Leone ..................................................................................................................................... 20
South Sudan ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Sudan ......................................................................................................................................... 21
Swaziland ......................................................................................................................................... 22
Uganda ......................................................................................................................................... 23
Zambia ......................................................................................................................................... 24
Zimbabwe ......................................................................................................................................... 25
IV. Americas region ............................................................................................................................... 26
Brazil ......................................................................................................................................... 26
Canada ......................................................................................................................................... 27
Chile ......................................................................................................................................... 28
Columbia ......................................................................................................................................... 29
Ecuador ......................................................................................................................................... 30
El Salvador ....................................................................................................................................... 31
Honduras ......................................................................................................................................... 31
Mexico ......................................................................................................................................... 33
Nicaragua ......................................................................................................................................... 34
Peru ......................................................................................................................................... 36
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) ................................................................................................. 37
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
3
V. Asia Pacific region ........................................................................................................................... 39
Afghanistan ...................................................................................................................................... 39
Australia ......................................................................................................................................... 40
Bangladesh ....................................................................................................................................... 41
Cambodia ......................................................................................................................................... 42
China (People’s Republic of) ........................................................................................................... 44
India ......................................................................................................................................... 45
Indonesia ......................................................................................................................................... 47
Iran (Islamic Republic of) ................................................................................................................ 48
Japan ......................................................................................................................................... 49
Lao People’s Democratic Republic .................................................................................................. 49
Malaysia ......................................................................................................................................... 50
Myanmar ......................................................................................................................................... 51
Nepal ......................................................................................................................................... 52
Pakistan ......................................................................................................................................... 53
Philippines (the) ............................................................................................................................... 54
Republic of Korea ............................................................................................................................ 55
Singapore ......................................................................................................................................... 55
Thailand ......................................................................................................................................... 56
Viet Nam ......................................................................................................................................... 57
VI. Middle East and North Africa region ............................................................................................... 58
Algeria ......................................................................................................................................... 59
Bahrain ......................................................................................................................................... 60
Egypt ......................................................................................................................................... 61
Israel ......................................................................................................................................... 64
Kuwait ......................................................................................................................................... 65
Morocco ......................................................................................................................................... 66
Oman ......................................................................................................................................... 67
Saudi Arabia ..................................................................................................................................... 68
Tunisia ......................................................................................................................................... 69
VII. Europe and Central Asia Region ...................................................................................................... 69
Armenia ......................................................................................................................................... 70
Azerbaijan ........................................................................................................................................ 70
France ......................................................................................................................................... 71
Italy ......................................................................................................................................... 72
Kazakhstan ....................................................................................................................................... 73
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
4
Kyrgyz Republic .............................................................................................................................. 74
Moldova (Republic of) ................................................................................................................... 77
Montenegro ...................................................................................................................................... 77
Norway ......................................................................................................................................... 78
Russia Federation ............................................................................................................................. 78
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ................................................................................ 80
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland .................................................................. 81
Uzbekistan ........................................................................................................................................ 82
VIII. Other ......................................................................................................................................... 83
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
5
I. Introduction
1. The present document is submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, pursuant to Human Rights Council
resolution 24/5. The document provides observations on the communications addressed by
the Special Rapporteur to States, and on the replies received.
2. In the present addendum, the Special Rapporteur provides observations, on
communications sent to States between 1 March 2015 and 29 February 2016. This report
further contains observations on responses to the aforementioned communications received
from States until 30 May 2016. The addendum also includes press releases issued between
1 May 2015 and 30 April 2016. Communications sent, responses received and press
releases during the reporting period are accessible electronically through hyperlinks to the
relevant reports below. The Special Rapporteur is aware of responses received after the
reporting deadline that could not be reflected in the present report. He takes this opportunity
to highlight the importance of timely replies.
3. For ease of reference, cases have been grouped by region, with countries within each
region listed alphabetically according to their names in English. Each communication is
referenced as an urgent appeal (UA), joint urgent appeal (JUA), allegation letter (AL), joint
allegation letter (JAL), or other letter (OL), followed by the date the communication was
issued, the case number and the date of the State reply. Press releases (PR) published during
the reporting period are referenced below the communications in chronological order.
4. The communications and the relevant replies can also be accessed via the
incorporated links or in the communications reports of Special Procedures: 1 A/HRC/30/27
(communications sent from 1 March 2015 to 31 May 2015 and replies received from 1 May
2015 to 31 July 2015), A/HRC/31/79 (communications sent from 1 June 2014 to 30
November 2015 and replies received from 1 August 2015 to 31 January 2016), and
A/HRC/32/53 (communications sent from 1 December 2015 and 28 February 2016 and
replies received between 1 February 2016 and 30 April 2016).
5. The Special Rapporteur is grateful to all States that have transmitted responses to
communications sent. He considers response to his communications an important part of
cooperation by States with his mandate. In this context, the Special Rapporteur recalls
paragraph 6 of the Human Rights Council resolution 24/5 that calls upon States “to
continue to cooperate fully with and assist him in the performance of his mandate [and] to
respond promptly to his urgent appeals and other communications…” Therefore, he urges
all States which have not yet replied to his communications to do so without further delay.
II. Summary
6. Between 1 March 2015 and 29 February 2016, the Special Rapporteur sent 158
communications to 70 States. Of these communications, 65 were urgent appeals, 93 were
allegation and other letters. A total of 57 cases consisted of follow-ups of cases that were
previously the subject of communications.
7. Examined by region, the figures show that 32 communications were addressed to
countries in the Africa region (20 per cent), 29 to countries in the Americas region (19 per
cent), 47 in the Asia-Pacific region (30 per cent), 23 in the Middle East and North Africa
region (15 per cent), and 25 in the Europe and Central Asia region (16 per cent).
1 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/CommunicationsreportsSP.aspx.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
6
8. During the reporting period, there was an average response-rate of 58 per cent to the
Special Rapporteur’s communications. While certain replies were merely
acknowledgements or receipt, the Special Rapporteur wishes to thank countries who have
fully engaged and cooperated with the Special Procedures mechanisms and provided
detailed information in response to the allegations addressed therein.
III. Africa region
9. During the present reporting period, the Special Rapporteur sent 31 communications
to 18 countries in the Africa region.
10. The Special Rapporteur is concerned about the alarming shrinking of the space
occupied by the civil society and human rights defenders, having an increasing difficulty to
exercise their rights to peaceful assembly and associations, as well as their right to freedom
of expression. He is worried that the context of the numerous elections to be held on the
continent in the coming months may lead to an escalation of violence, including in the
context of peaceful protests, and to put civil society at a major risk.
11. The Special Rapporteur expresses his concern regarding security considerations
having the effect of curtailing the rights of peaceful assembly and association. He notes that
many States in the African region have used excessive violence to curb peaceful protests,
notably in the context of elections. The Special Rapporteur considers as a best practice the
presumption in favour of holding peaceful assemblies and that the enjoyment of the right to
hold and participate in peaceful assemblies entails the fulfilment by the State of its positive
obligation to facilitate the exercise of this right (A/HRC/20/27). He recalls that the ability to
assemble and act collectively is vital to democratic, economic, social and personal
development, to the expression of ideas and to fostering engaged citizenry (A/HRC/31/66).
Assemblies can make a positive contribution to the development of democratic systems
and, alongside elections, play a fundamental role in public participation, holding
governments accountable and expressing the will of the people as part of the democratic
processes.
12. Similarly, the Special Rapporteur is dismayed about the adoption of laws that
unduly restrict the rights to peaceful assembly and association. The Special Rapporteur
reminds States of their obligation to ensure a conducive environment for the free exercise
of the rights of peaceful assembly and association, rights enshrined in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He also restates that, according to this same
Covenant, only a very limited number of restrictions to these rights may apply, which must
meet the strict necessity and proportionality test.
13. Furthermore, he is disappointed to note that some Governments fail to see
associations, and in particular human rights associations, as crucial partners for both good
governance and the strengthening of functioning democracies. He emphasizes that while
States do not have to agree with the opinions and criticism expressed by persons espousing
minority or dissenting views or beliefs, they have a positive obligation to ensure the
existence of an enabling environment for civil society, including the enjoyment of the right
of association, so that it may exist, operate and express itself freely and without fear
(A/HRC/20/27, paragraph 63). He urges authorities to implement all necessary measures to
protect people exercising their right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly
against threats, violence, intimidation or reprisals.
14. Finally, the Special Rapporteur recalls that he stands ready to provide technical
assistance to ensure that States’ normative frameworks and practices comply with
international human rights norms and standards governing freedoms of association and
assembly.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
7
Angola
15. JUA 28/09/2015. Case no: AGO 2/2015. State reply: None. Allegations of arbitrary
arrest and detention of a human rights defender as well as charges brought against him, and
the alleged arbitrary arrest and detention of a human rights lawyer and his client
16. JUA 23/10/2015. Case no: AGO 3/2015. State reply: 11/12/2015. Allegations of
arbitrary arrest and detention of fourteen human rights activists and a member of the
National Air Force as well as charges brought against them and two other human rights
activists who remain at liberty.
Observations
Responses to communications
17. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Angola for its response dated 11
December 2015. He trusts he will soon receive a response to the questions raised in the
communication sent on 28 September 2015, in conformity with the requirement of Human
Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010) to fully cooperate
with the mandate.
18. The Special Rapporteur is taking note of the answer provided by the Government
regarding communication AGO 3/2015, stating that the 17 individuals arrested are in
custody for crimes of rebellion and of crimes of preparatory acts to practice rebellion. He
urges the Government to reply to his communication regarding the alleged arbitrary arrest
and detention of Mr. José Marcos Mavungo, and the charges of “sedition” and “rebellion”
brought against him, as well as the alleged arbitrary arrest and detention of Mr. Arão Bula
Tempo and Mr. Manuel Biongo (AGO 2/2015).
19. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his serious concerns regarding both
communications alleging arbitrary arrests and detentions against several individuals,
charges brought against them, and the fact that the judicial proceedings seemed to be aimed
at preventing these individuals from peacefully exercising their legitimate human rights
activities, including their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. He
reiterates his concern at the apparent use of criminal law proceedings to silence non-violent
dissenting voices and criticism of the Government in theses communications. Finally, he
insists on the critical health situation of Mr. Henrique Luaty da Silva Beirão (AGO 3/2015),
as well as of Mr. Mavungo and Mr. Tempo (AGO 2/2015).
20. He reminds the Government of its obligation to ensure that human rights defenders
in Angola can carry out their legitimate work in a safe and enabling environment without
fear of threats or acts of intimidation and harassment of any sort, including excessive use of
force. Moreover, he urges the State to take all necessary steps to secure the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and association as per articles 21 and 22 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights acceded by Angola on10 January 1992.
21. He also takes this opportunity to recall the observations of the Human Rights
Committee that call upon the State to, inter alia, “refrain from prosecuting journalists,
human rights defenders and other civil society actors as a means of deterring or
discouraging them from freely expressing their opinions” and to “ensure that the exercise of
the right to peaceful assembly is not subject to restrictions other than the ones permissible
under the Covenant” (CCPR/C/KHM/CO/2, paragraphs 21b and 22).
Country visit
22. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending request to visit
Angola, as indicated by his letter sent in 2013. He trusts that such a visit would allow him
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
8
to examine first-hand issues related to his mandate, identify good practices and formulate
pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks forward to receiving a
positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that Human Rights Council
resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which renewed it for an
additional period of three years, both call on States to consider favourably his requests for
visits.
Burundi
23. JUA 30/04/2015. Case no: BDI 3/2015. State reply: 04/05/2015. Allégations
relatives à l’usage excessif de la force par la police contre des manifestants qui aurait
entrainé la mort de plusieurs d’entre eux, ainsi qu’à l’arrestation de plus de 200
manifestants, à la suspension de l’émission de plusieurs radios et à l’arrestation et détention
provisoire d’un défenseur des droits de l’homme.
24. JUA 13/11/2015. Case no: BDI 5/2015. State reply: 07/01/2016 and 29/01/2016.
Allégations de violations du droit à la vie et des libertés d’expression, de réunion et
d’association pacifique ainsi que de cas de torture.
25. JAL 20/11/2015. Case no: BDI 6/2015. State reply: None. Allégations de
déclarations de vol auprès d’Interpol, de passeports appartenant à des défenseurs des droits
de l'homme, des militants et des opposant Dijboutis politiques, dans le but de restreindre
leurs activités légitimes.
26. JUA 07/12/2015. Case no: BDI 7/2015. State reply: None. Allégations de violations
des droits à la liberté d’association et liberté d’opinion et expression de plusieurs
associations ainsi que le directeur d’un journal indépendant au Burundi.
27. JUA 18/02/2016. Case no. BDI 3/2016. State reply: None. Allégations de disparition
forcée d’une femme défenseur des droits de l’homme.
28. PR 30/04/2015 « La jeune démocratie du Burundi mise à risque par les violences
pré-électorales, préviennent des experts de l’ONU »
29. PR 16/07/2015 “Burundi: UN experts call for determined Security Council action to
prevent mass violence in the Great Lakes region”
30. PR 13/11/2015 « Des experts de l’ONU se félicitent de l’appel du Conseil de
Sécurité sur le Burundi et exhortent à des actions concrètes »
Observations
Réponses aux communications
31. Le Rapporteur spécial remercie le Gouvernement des informations fournies en
réponse à ses communications du (BDI 3/2015) et du (BDI 5/2015). Le Rapporteur spécial
regrette ne pas avoir reçu de réponse à ses communications BDI 6/2015, BDI 7/2015, BDI
3/2016. Il considère les réponses à ses communications comme faisant partie intégrante de
la coopération des Gouvernements avec son mandat, selon les résolutions du Conseil des
droits de l’homme 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) et 15/21 (2010), et invite de ce fait les
autorités à fournir aussi tôt que possible des réponses détaillées aux préoccupations
soulevées dans ses communications.
32. Le Rapporteur spécial note la réponse du Gouvernement dans le cadre de sa
communication BDI 3/2015 qui justifie l’intervention de la police dans les manifestations
pour des raisons d’insécurité et de troubles à l’ordre public. Il prend également note du fait
que les autorités affirment qu’aucune exécution ou arrestation arbitraire par les forces de
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
9
police n’a été enregistrée et que des enquêtes ont été ouvertes en ce qui concerne les décès
considérés (communication BDI 5/2015). Il invite les autorités burundaises à communiquer
les résultats des procédures judiciaires menées ainsi que de faire part des développements
relatifs à la loi susmentionnée. Par ailleurs, il accueille favorablement l’élaboration d’un
projet de loi relatif à la protection des défenseurs des droits de l’homme.
33. Le Rapporteur spécial reste très préoccupé par la situation du droit à la liberté
d’association et de réunion pacifique, ainsi que de la situation de la liberté d’expression, au
Burundi, en particulier depuis la tenue des élections en avril 2015. Il regrette l’interdiction
de plus en plus fréquente de réunions pacifiques et les atteintes massives à la liberté
d’association (7/2015) pour les organisations non soutenues par le Gouvernement
(A/HRC/31/55/Add.2). Il exprime de graves préoccupations quant à l’usage
disproportionné de la force au cours des manifestations (BDI 3/2015) ainsi que les cas
d’exécutions arbitraires et de torture (BDI 5/2015), mais aussi de disparitions forcées (BDI
3/2016) de défenseurs des droits de l’homme, journalistes et opposants au pouvoir. Le
Rapporteur spécial s’inquiète du fait que les pouvoirs publics tentent de restreindre la
liberté d’expression en accusant les voix discordantes d’être au service de l’opposition dès
lors qu’ils rapportent des faits ou des témoignages mettant en cause les institutions de l’État
(A/HRC/31/55/Add.2).
34. Le Rapporteur spécial souligne que l’exercice du droit d’organiser des réunions
pacifiques et d’y participer suppose que l’État respecte l’obligation qui lui incombe de
faciliter l’exercice de ce droit. Cela suppose une présomption de la part des autorités que la
réunion sera pacifique, que les États ont l’obligation positive de protéger activement les
réunions pacifiques, notamment des agents provocateurs et que les États ont également
l’obligation négative de ne pas entraver indûment le droit de réunion pacifique.
35. En ce qui concerne les allégations d’arrestations arbitraires, le Rapporteur spécial
estime que l’exercice des libertés fondamentales ne devrait pas être soumis à l’autorisation
préalable des autorités, mais tout au plus à une procédure de notification préalable, ayant
pour raison d’être de permettre aux autorités publiques de faciliter l’exercice du droit de
réunion pacifique et de prendre des mesures pour protéger la sécurité et l’ordre publics et
les droits et libertés du reste de la population. Lorsque les organisateurs négligent de
présenter une notification aux autorités, la réunion ne devrait pas être automatiquement
dispersée et les organisateurs ne devraient pas faire l’objet de sanctions pénales ou
administratives assorties d’amendes ou de peines d’emprisonnement. Cela est d’autant plus
important dans le cas des réunions spontanées, lorsque les organisateurs ne peuvent pas se
soumettre à l’obligation de notification préalable ou lorsqu’il n’y a pas d’organisateur ou,
du moins, d’organisateur connu (A/HRC/20/27).
36. Plus généralement, le Rapporteur spécial souhaite faire référence au rapport conjoint
qu’il a co-écrit avec le Rapporteur spécial sur les exécutions extrajudiciaires, sommaires ou
arbitraires sur la bonne gestion des rassemblements (A/HRC/31/66). Ce rapport contient de
nombreuses recommandations qui sont particulièrement pertinentes quant à la situation au
Burundi.
37. Le Rapporteur spécial appelle les autorités à prendre toutes les mesures adéquates,
notamment de nature législatives, pour assurer que les citoyens puissent exercer leurs droits
à la liberté d’association et de réunion pacifique dans un environnement favorable leur
permettant de mener à bien leurs activités sans risque d’être exposés à des menaces,
représailles, intimidations ou actes de harcèlement.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
10
Cameroon
38. JAL 27/04/2015. Case no. CMR 1/2015. State reply: None. Allégations de menaces
et campagne de dénigrement contre deux femmes défenseures des droits de l’homme.
Observations
Réponse à la communication
39. Le Rapporteur spécial regrette ne pas avoir reçu de réponse à sa communication
datée du 27 avril 2015. Il considère les réponses à ses communications comme faisant
partie intégrante de la coopération des gouvernements avec son mandat, selon les
résolutions du Conseil des droits de l’homme 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) et 15/21 (2010) et
invite de ce fait les autorités à fournir dès que possible des réponses détaillées aux
préoccupations soulevées dans ses communications.
40. Le Rapporteur spécial réitère ses préoccupations quant aux menaces et à la
campagne de dénigrement contre Mme Ngo Mbe et Mme Nkom et contre leur association
REDHAC qui semblent être liées à leurs activités de défense des droits de l’homme et en
particulier des droits des personnes lesbiennes, gays, bisexuelles et transgenres (LGBT).
41. Le Rapporteur spécial souhaite attirer l’attention du Gouvernement sur les articles
19 et 22 du Pacte International relatif aux droits civils et politiques (PIDCP) que le
Cameroun a ratifié le 27 juin 1984, qui protègent, respectivement, le droit à la liberté
d'opinion et d'expression et le droit de s’associer librement avec d’autres. Il réitère les
dispositions de la résolution 24/5 du Conseil des droits de l’homme qui « rappelle aux États
leur obligation de respecter et de protéger pleinement le droit de tous les individus … de
s’associer librement … y compris les personnes qui professent des opinions ou des
croyances minoritaires ou dissidentes, les défenseurs des droits de l’homme, … et tous ceux
… qui cherchent à exercer ou à promouvoir ce droit…».
42. Plus généralement, le Rapporteur spécial souhaite faire référence au rapport conjoint
qu’il a co-écrit avec le Rapporteur spécial sur les exécutions extrajudiciaires, sommaires ou
arbitraires sur la bonne gestion des rassemblements (A/HRC/31/66). Ce rapport contient de
nombreuses recommandations qui sont particulièrement pertinentes quant à la situation
dans le pays.
43. Le Rapporteur spécial appelle les autorités à prendre toutes les mesures adéquates,
notamment de nature législatives, pour assurer que les citoyens puissent exercer leurs droits
à la liberté d’association et de réunion pacifique dans un environnement favorable leur
permettant de mener à bien leurs activités sans risque d’être exposés à des menaces,
représailles, intimidations ou actes de harcèlement.
Congo (the Republic of)
44. JAL 09/12/2015. Case no. COG 2/2015. State reply: 11/12/2015; 08/02/2016 ;
02/03/2016 ; 04/04/2016. Allégations quant aux arrestations d’opposants politiques, de
restrictions indues du droit de réunion pacifique et d’usage excessif de la force dans le
cadre de plusieurs manifestations, en majorité pacifiques, contre le référendum
constitutionnel du 25 octobre 2015 proposé par le président congolais actuel.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
11
Observations
Réponse à la communication
45. Le Rapporteur spécial remercie le Gouvernement des informations fournies en
réponse à sa communication du 9 décembre 2015 (COG 2/2015).
46. Le Rapporteur spécial souligne dans un premier temps qu’un usage disproportionné
de la force semble avoir été adopté dans le cadre de ces manifestations, ayant eu pour
conséquence le décès de plusieurs individus. Il rappelle que l’usage de la force au cours des
réunions publiques ne doit être utilisé qu’en cas de circonstances exceptionnelles et doit
faire l’objet d’un test de proportionnalité (A/HRC/20/27). Par ailleurs, le Rapporteur spécial
reste fortement préoccupé par la situation de celles et ceux exerçant leurs droits à la liberté
d’expression et de réunion pacifique dans la République du Congo ainsi que par les
violences qui ont persisté à la suite des élections. Le Haut-Commissaire aux droits de
l’homme a récemment publié un communiqué de presse le 13 avril 2016 dans lequel il
souligne des rapports très alarmants, depuis les élections présidentielles du 20 mars, faisant
état de violentes opérations de sécurité menées contre des chefs de l’opposition et leurs
partisans. Des informations indiquent également des cas d’arrestations massives et de
torture en détention, ainsi que du meurtre et du déplacement de personnes originaires du
Pool. Le Rapporteur spécial souligne enfin que la jouissance du droit d’organiser des
réunions pacifiques et d’y participer suppose que l’État respecte l’obligation qui lui
incombe de faciliter l’exercice de ce droit. Cela suppose une présomption de la part des
autorités que la réunion est pacifique, que les États ont l’obligation positive de protéger
activement les réunions pacifiques, notamment des agents provocateurs, et que les États ont
également l’obligation négative de ne pas entraver indûment le droit de réunion pacifique.
47. En ce qui concerne les allégations d’arrestations arbitraires justifiées par l’absence
de notification sur les manifestations, le Rapporteur spécial estime que l’exercice des
libertés fondamentales ne devrait pas être soumis à l’autorisation préalable des autorités,
mais tout au plus à une procédure de notification préalable, ayant pour raison d’être de
permettre aux autorités publiques de faciliter l’exercice du droit de réunion pacifique et de
prendre des mesures pour protéger la sécurité et l’ordre publics et les droits et libertés du
reste de la population. Lorsque les organisateurs négligent de présenter une notification aux
autorités, la réunion ne devrait pas être automatiquement dispersée et les organisateurs ne
devraient pas faire l’objet de sanctions pénales ou administratives assorties d’amendes ou
de peines d’emprisonnement. Cela est d’autant plus important dans le cas des réunions
spontanées, lorsque les organisateurs ne peuvent pas se soumettre à l’obligation de
notification préalable ou lorsqu’il n’y a pas d’organisateur ou, du moins, d’organisateur
connu (A/HRC/20/27).
48. Il appelle les autorités à prendre toutes les mesures adéquates, notamment de nature
législatives, pour assurer que les citoyens puissent exercer leurs droits à la liberté
d’association et de réunion pacifique dans un environnement favorable leur permettant de
mener à bien leurs activités sans risque d’être exposés à des menaces, représailles,
intimidations ou actes de harcèlement.
Democratic Republic of Congo
49. JUA 16/06/2015. Case no. COD 3/2015. State reply: None. Allégations concernant
la détention arbitraire et incommunicado d’un défenseur des droits de l’homme et les
mauvaises conditions de sa détention.
50. JUA 30/11/2015. Case no. COD 4/2015. State reply: None. Allégations de détention
arbitraire de deux défenseurs des droits de l’homme.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
12
51. JAL 10/12/2015. Case no. COD 5/2015. State reply: 29/01/2016; 11/02/2016 ;
02/03/2016. Allégations de violations du droit à la vie.
52. JUA 16/02/2016. Case no. COD 1/2016. State reply: None. Allégations quant à
l’arrestation et la détention arbitraire de neuf personnes dont deux défenseurs des droits de
l’homme.
Observations
Réponses aux communications
53. Le Rapporteur spécial remercie le Gouvernement des informations fournies en
réponse à sa communication du 10 décembre 2015 (COD 5/2015). Le Rapporteur spécial
regrette néanmoins ne pas avoir reçu de réponse à ses autres communications COD 3/2015,
COD 4/2015 et COD 1/2016. Il considère les réponses à ses communications comme
faisant partie intégrante de la coopération des gouvernements avec son mandat, selon les
résolutions du Conseil des droits de l’homme 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) et 15/21 (2010), et
invite de ce fait les autorités à fournir aussi tôt que possible des réponses détaillées aux
préoccupations soulevées dans ses communications.
54. Le Rapporteur spécial a pris note des éléments de réponse fournis par le
Gouvernement en date du 29 janvier 2016, qui soutiennent notamment que les corps
retrouvés dans la fosse commune ne seraient pas ceux des individus mentionnés dans la
communication COD 5/2015. Le Rapporteur spécial appelle les autorités à fournir
davantage d’explications aux fait allégués dans sa communication COD 5/2015, mais aussi
à fournir des éléments de réponse à ses autres communications.
55. Eu égard à la gravité des allégations portées à son attention, il se dit fortement
préoccupé par la situation du droit à la vie, à la liberté d’expression, au droit à la liberté
d’association et de réunion pacifique en République Démocratique du Congo qui semble
s’être aggravée ces derniers temps. En particulier, il constate avec une vive préoccupation
que les défenseurs des droits de l’homme sont souvent exposés à la détention arbitraire,
ainsi qu’à des menaces et attaques des forces de sécurité gouvernementales, des forces de
police et de groupes armés. Il se dit vivement préoccupé au regard des allégations de
mauvais traitement que certains d’entre eux auraient subis lors de ces arrestations qui
semblent être directement liées à leurs activités légitimes et pacifiques en faveur de la
défense des droits de l’homme et à l’exercice de leur droit à la liberté d’opinion et
d’expression. Le Rapporteur spécial se dit particulièrement préoccupé en ce qui concerne
l’intégrité physique et mentale de M. Fred Bauma Winga (COD 3/2015), de M. Christopher
Ngoyi Mutamba et de M. Yves Makwambala (COD 4/2015), ainsi que de neuf défenseurs
des droits de l’homme (M. Juvin Kombi et M. Pascal Byumanine, membres de la Lutte
pour le Changement (LUCHA) ainsi que M. Innocent Fumbu, M. Saïdi Wetemwami
Heshima, M. Gervais Semunda Rwamakuba, M. Nelson Katembo Kalindalo, M. Jonathan
Kambale Muhasa, M. Osée Kakule Kilala et M. Jojo Semivumbi) arrêtés lors d’une
manifestation pacifique organisée à Goma par LUCHA (COD 1/2016) qui auraient été
placé en détention après leur arrestation et seraient actuellement détenus dans des
conditions carcérales difficiles.
56. Il exhorte les autorités à prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires pour assurer que les
individus, et plus spécifiquement tous les défenseurs des droits de l’homme, puissent
exercer librement leurs droits à la liberté d’association et de réunion pacifique sans risque
d’être exposés à des menaces, représailles, arrestations et détentions arbitraires,
intimidations ou actes de harcèlement.
57. Le Rapporteur spécial recommande aux autorités de prendre des mesures positives
afin de favoriser l’exercice de la liberté d’association et de réunion pacifique de la société
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
13
civile, y compris des membres d’associations non-enregistrées et des syndicalistes, et de
s’assurer que ceux-ci ne sont pas soumis ou menacés d’être soumis à des faits de
discrimination, de menace, de recours à la violence, d’harcèlement, de persécution,
d’intimidation ou de représailles (A/HRC/20/27).
58. Le Rapporteur spécial rappelle les dispositions de la résolution 24/5 du Conseil des
droits de l’homme selon lesquelles les États ont l’obligation « de respecter et de protéger
pleinement le droit de tous les individus de se réunir pacifiquement et de s’associer
librement, à la fois en ligne et hors ligne, notamment à l’occasion des élections, y compris
les personnes qui professent des opinions ou des croyances minoritaires ou dissidentes, les
défenseurs des droits de l’homme, les syndicalistes et tous ceux, notamment les migrants,
qui cherchent à exercer ou à promouvoir ce droit, ainsi que leur obligation de faire en sorte
que les restrictions éventuellement imposées au libre exercice du droit de réunion pacifique
et de la liberté d’association soient conformes aux obligations qui leur incombent en vertu
du droit international des droits de l’homme ».
59. Plus généralement, le Rapporteur spécial souhaite faire référence au rapport conjoint
qu’il a co-écrit avec le Rapporteur spécial sur les exécutions extrajudiciaires, sommaires ou
arbitraires sur la bonne gestion des rassemblements (A/HRC/31/66). Ce rapport contient de
nombreuses recommandations qui sont particulièrement pertinentes quant à la situation
dans le pays.
60. Le Rapporteur spécial appelle les autorités à prendre toutes les mesures adéquates,
notamment de nature législatives, pour assurer que les citoyens puissent exercer leurs droits
à la liberté d’association et de réunion pacifique dans un environnement favorable leur
permettant de mener à bien leurs activités sans risque d’être exposés à des menaces,
représailles, intimidations ou actes de harcèlement.
Djibouti
61. JUA 02/10/2015. Case no. DJI 1/2015. State reply: 22/10/2015. Allégations quant à
l’arrestation et la détention arbitraire de six personnes membres ou sympathisants de
groupes de l’opposition politique.
62. JUA 29/12/2015. Case no. DJI 2/2015. State reply: 11/01/2016. Allégations
concernant l’usage excessif et de manière indiscriminée de la force par les forces de
sécurité dans le cadre d’affrontements entre des manifestants et les autorités
63. JUA 02/02/2016. Case no. DJI 1/2016. State reply: None. Allégations de
condamnation et détention arbitraire d’un défenseur des droits de l’homme.
Observations
Réponses aux communications
64. Le Rapporteur spécial remercie le Gouvernement des informations fournies en
réponse à ses communications DJI 1/2015 et DJI 2/2015. Le Rapporteur spécial regrette
néanmoins ne pas avoir reçu de réponse à sa dernière communication DJI 1/2016. Il
considère les réponses à ses communications comme faisant partie intégrante de la
coopération des Gouvernements avec son mandat, selon les résolutions du Conseil des
droits de l’homme 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) et 15/21 (2010) et invite de ce fait les autorités
à fournir aussi tôt que possible des réponses détaillées aux préoccupations soulevées dans
ses communications.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
14
Environnement dans lequel les droits sont exercés
65. Le Rapporteur spécial se félicite de la libération des six détenus mentionnés dans sa
communication DJI 1/2015. Il note également l’adoption d’un décret destiné à la mise en
place de mesures d’urgence dans le cadre des menaces terroristes.
66. Le Rapporteur spécial exprime néanmoins ses préoccupations quant à l’usage
excessif de la force au cours de manifestations, ainsi que les violations du droit à la vie,
mais aussi les détentions arbitraires qui se sont produites. Il rappelle que l’usage de la force
au cours des réunions publiques ne doit être utilisé qu’en cas de circonstances
exceptionnelles et doit faire l’objet d’un test de proportionnalité (A/HRC/20/27). En ce qui
concerne la lutte légitime contre le terrorisme et d’autres considérations relatives à la
sécurité qui servent souvent de prétexte pour justifier l’adoption de l’état d’urgence ou
d’autres règles plus strictes pour supprimer le droit de réunion pacifique et la liberté
d’association, des décrets d’exception sont souvent été utilisés pour réprimer les libertés de
réunion pacifique, d’association et d’expression (A/HRC/20/27). A cet effet, le Rapporteur
spécial sur la promotion et la protection des droits de l’homme et des libertés
fondamentales dans la lutte antiterroriste a souligné dans un rapport à l’Assemblée générale
que « les États ne devraient pas avoir besoin de recourir à des mesures de dérogation dans
le domaine de la liberté de rassemblement et d’association [et que les] mesures limitatives
prévues par le Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques [étaient] suffisantes
dans une lutte efficace contre le terrorisme» (A/61/267, par. 53).
67. Le Rapporteur spécial recommande aux autorités de prendre des mesures positives
afin de favoriser l’exercice de la liberté d’association et de réunion pacifique de la société
civile, y compris des membres d’associations non enregistrées et syndicalistes, et de
s’assurer que ceux-ci ne sont pas soumis ou menacés d’être soumis à des faits de
discrimination, de menace, de recours à la violence, d’harcèlement, de persécution,
d’intimidation ou de représailles (A/HRC/20/27).
68. Plus généralement, le Rapporteur spécial appelle les autorités à prendre toutes les
mesures adéquates, notamment de nature législatives, pour assurer que les citoyens puissent
exercer leurs droits à la liberté d’association et de réunion pacifique dans un environnement
favorable leur permettant de mener à bien leurs activités sans risque d’être exposés à des
menaces, représailles, intimidations ou actes de harcèlement.
Visite du pays
69. Le Rapporteur spécial rappelle au Gouvernement ses demandes envoyées au
Gouvernement en 2011 et 2013, auxquelles aucune réponse n’a encore été reçue. Il pense
qu’une telle visite permettrait de discuter les possibilités d’une assistance technique dont il
pourrait avoir besoin.
Ethiopia
70. JUA 21/10/2015. Case no. ETH 4/2015. State reply: None. Enforced disappearance,
detention and trumped-up charges against three human rights defenders.
71. JUA 28/12/2015. Case no. ETH 5/2015. State reply: None. Allegations of brutal and
violent repression of peaceful protests.
72. PR 10/07/2015 “Release of five Ethiopian journalists is a positive step, but others
remain in detention – UN expert”
73. PR 21/01/2016 “UN experts urge Ethiopia to halt violent crackdown on Oromia
protesters, ensure accountability for abuses”
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
15
Observations
Responses to communications
74. The Special Rapporteur regrets that, to date, no reply has been received to his
communications. He recalls that responses to his communications are an important part of
the cooperation of the Government of Ethiopia with his mandate, and urges the authorities
to comply with Human Rights Council resolutions on the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association. These resolutions call on States to cooperate fully with and
assist him in the performance of his mandate and to respond promptly to his
communications.
75. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his deepest concern regarding the violent
repression of peaceful protests against the “Addis Ababa Integrated Development Master
Plan” in the Oromia region since mid-November 2015, which has reportedly led to the
killing of hundreds of people and numerous injured protesters, as well as the lack of
investigation against the use of violence by the police and security forces, and the alleged
arrest, detention and disappearances of several protesters labelled as “terrorists” (ETH
5/2015). He urges the authorities to undertake a thorough and independent investigation
into these cases, hold the perpetrators accountable, and provide remedies to the victims and
families of victims. He notes with great concern the report of Human Rights Watch issued
on 15 June 2016 according to which “Ethiopian security forces have killed more than 400
protesters and others, and arrested tens of thousands more during widespread protests in the
Oromia region since November 2015” (https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/15/ethiopia-
protest-crackdown-killed-hundreds).
76. Further concern is expressed at the charges brought against Messrs. Okwoy, Astin
and Hojole, which appear to be directly linked to their legitimate and peaceful work in
defense of human rights and to their peaceful exercise of their rights to freedom of opinion
and expression and to freedom of peaceful assembly and association (ETH 4/2015).
77. The Special Rapporteur urges the authorities to inform him at the earliest of the
results of the investigations undertaken into the killings that occurred during the protests.
He emphasizes that the right to life should be guaranteed by States to all individuals under
all circumstances and at all times, including in the context of the exercise of the rights to
freedom of association and of peaceful assembly, as prescribed by article 3 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. He further urges the Government to provide legal grounds
for the arrest and detention of the three aforementioned human rights defenders.
78. The Special Rapporteur recalls that Ethiopia has ratified the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on 11 June 1993, which enshrines the rights to
freedom of expression and opinion and freedom of peaceful assembly and association as set
forth respectively in articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant. He reminds again to the
authorities of Ethiopia that protestors seek to convey opinions and, very often, challenge
norms, and insists that while the State does not have to agree with the opinions and
criticisms expressed by people who embrace different convictions or beliefs. The State has
a positive obligation to ensure a conducive environment for the free exercise of these rights
enshrined in the Covenant, in particular, for civil society activists to operate freely and
without fear (A/HRC/20/27, paragraph 63).
79. More generally, the Special Rapporteur wishes to refer to the joint report on the
proper management of assemblies he prepared with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions (A/HRC/31/66), which is highly relevant to the situation
in the country.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
16
Anti-Terrorism Proclamation 652/2009
80. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his concerns pertaining to the application of the
Anti-Terrorism Proclamation 652/2009, which have been mentioned in several previous
communications from special procedures mandate holders since its implementation in 2009
and has been the subject of a press release on 18 September 2014. In relation to the
measures and legislation in force aiming at countering terrorism, in his first thematic report
to the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association called upon States to “strictly and narrowly define the offence
of terrorism in line with international law” and to ensure that any restrictions on the rights
to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are prescribed by law, which is
necessary in a democratic society, and proportionate to the objective pursued, and do not
harm the principles of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. Therefore, any
restrictions should be subject to an independent, impartial, and prompt judicial review
(A/HRC/20/27, paragraph 84 (d) and (e)). On different occasions, the Special Rapporteur
on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while
countering terrorism has stressed in a report to the General Assembly that “States should
not need to resort to derogation measures in the area of freedom of assembly and
association. Instead, limitation measures, as provided for in ICCPR, are sufficient in an
effective fight against terrorism” (A/61/267, para. 53).
Country visit
81. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of Ethiopia of his country visit
requests sent in 2011 and 2013, to which a response is yet to be received. He trusts that
such a visit would allow him to examine in situ issues relating to his mandate, identify good
practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks
forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that
Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which
renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call upon States to consider
favourably his requests for visits.
Guinea
82. JUA 29/10/2015. Case no. GIN 3/2015. State reply: None. Allégations quant à
l’arrestation et la détention arbitraire d’un défenseur des droits de l’homme et leader
syndical à Conakry.
Observations
Réponse à la communication
83. Le Rapporteur spécial regrette ne pas avoir reçu de réponse à sa communication
datée du 29 octobre 2015. Il considère les réponses à ses communications comme faisant
partie intégrante de la coopération des gouvernements avec son mandat, selon les
résolutions du Conseil des droits de l’homme 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) et 15/21 (2010) et
invite de ce fait les autorités à fournir aussi tôt que possible des réponses détaillées aux
préoccupations soulevées dans ses communications.
84. Le Rapporteur spécial reste préoccupé par les allégations de détention arbitraire de
M. Jean Dougou Guilavogui, mais aussi par celles relatives aux mauvaises conditions de sa
détention particulièrement inquiétantes eu égard à son état de santé. Il demeure également
vivement préoccupé par le fait que l’arrestation de M. Jean Dougou Guilavogui puisse avoir
un effet dissuasif et intimidant pour les autres militants associatifs et politiques en Guinée.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
17
85. Le Rapporteur Spécial demande aux autorités de fournir à M. Jean Dougou
Guilavogui une assistance médicale adéquate et de justifier des bases légales ayant permis
de le maintenir en détention. Il exhorte les autorités à prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires
pour assurer que celui-ci, et plus généralement, tous les défenseurs des droits de l’homme,
puissent exercer librement leur droit à la liberté d’association et de réunion pacifique sans
risque d’être exposés à des menaces, représailles, intimidations ou actes de harcèlement.
86. Le Rapporteur spécial rappelle les dispositions de la résolution 24/5 du Conseil des
droits de l’homme selon lesquelles les États ont l’obligation « de respecter et de protéger
pleinement le droit de tous les individus de se réunir pacifiquement et de s’associer
librement, à la fois en ligne et hors ligne, notamment à l’occasion des élections, y compris
les personnes qui professent des opinions ou des croyances minoritaires ou dissidentes, les
défenseurs des droits de l’homme, les syndicalistes et tous ceux, notamment les migrants,
qui cherchent à exercer ou à promouvoir ce droit, ainsi que leur obligation de faire en sorte
que les restrictions éventuellement imposées au libre exercice du droit de réunion pacifique
et de la liberté d’association soient conformes aux obligations qui leur incombent en vertu
du droit international des droits de l’homme. »
87. Plus généralement, le Rapporteur spécial appelle les autorités à prendre toutes les
mesures adéquates, notamment de nature législatives, pour assurer que les citoyens puissent
exercer leurs droits à la liberté d’association et de réunion pacifique dans un environnement
favorable leur permettant de mener à bien leurs activités sans risque d’être exposés à des
menaces, représailles, intimidations ou actes de harcèlement.
Kenya
88. JAL 20/04/2015. Case no. KEN 2/2015. State reply: None. Allegations concerning
the freezing of the bank accounts of two non-governmental organizations.
Observations
Response to communication
89. The Special Rapporteur regrets that, to date, no reply has been received to his
communication KEN 2/2015. He recalls that responses to his communications are an
important part of the cooperation of the Government of Kenya with his mandate, and urges
the authorities to comply with Human Rights Council resolutions on the rights to freedom
of peaceful assembly and of association. These resolutions, including resolution 24/5
(2013), call on States to cooperate fully with and assist him in the performance of his
mandate and to respond promptly to his communications.
90. The Special Rapporteur remains concerned about the fact that MUHURI and HAKI
Africa have been unable to access their funds in their bank accounts, as a result of the
inclusion of these organizations in an official list of entities suspected to be associated with
Al-Shabaab. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his concern about the fact that MUHURI
and HAKI Africa may have had their bank accounts frozen as a result of their peaceful and
legitimate human rights activities in Kenya. The Special Rapporteur urges the Government
to provide detailed information concerning the grounds for including both associations on
the list of entities suspected to be associated with Al-Shabaab.
91. He recalls that the ability for associations to access funding and resources is an
integral and vital part of the right to freedom of association. In this regard, in his second
thematic report, he called upon States to “ensure that associations – registered and
unregistered – can seek, receive and use funding and other resources from natural and legal
persons, whether domestic, foreign or international, without prior authorization or other
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
18
undue impediments, including from individuals; associations, foundations or other civil
society organizations; foreign Governments and aid agencies; the private sector; the United
Nations and other entities” (A/HRC/23/39, para. 82(b)).
92. More generally, the Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of Kenya of its
positive obligation to ensure that civil society, including human rights defenders, can carry
out their legitimate work free in a safe and enabling environment without fear of threats or
acts of intimidation, harassment or threats of any sort. He also wishes to refer to the joint
report on the proper management of assemblies he prepared with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (A/HRC/31/66), which is particularly
relevant to the situation in the country.
Country visit
93. The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Kenya never provided a
response to his letter proposing specific dates for a visit to the country during the second
half of March 2016. He reiterates that Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which
established his mandate, and 24/5, which renewed it for an additional period of three years,
both call on States to consider favourably his requests for visits.
Mauritania
94. JAL 07/08/2015. Case no. MRT 3/2015. State reply: None. Allégations relatives à
l’adoption imminente d’un projet de loi relatif aux associations, aux fondations et aux
réseaux d’associations non-conforme avec les normes et standards internationaux en
matière de droits de l’homme, notamment les droits à la liberté d’association et à la liberté
d’opinion et d’expression.
Observations
Réponse à la communication
95. Le Rapporteur spécial regrette ne pas avoir reçu de réponse à sa communication
datée du 7 août 2015. Il considère les réponses à ses communications comme faisant partie
intégrante de la coopération des Gouvernements avec son mandat, selon les résolutions du
Conseil des droits de l’homme 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) et 15/21 (2010) et invite de ce fait
les autorités à fournir aussi tôt que possible des réponses détaillées aux préoccupations
soulevées dans ses communications.
Projet de loi relatif aux associations, aux fondations et aux réseaux d’associations
96. Le Rapporteur spécial réitère ses vives préoccupations quant au projet de loi relatif
aux associations, aux fondations et aux réseaux d’associations, adopté par le Conseil des
ministres le 22 juillet 2015. Si ce projet de loi était adopté par le Parlement, la procédure
d’autorisation préalable qu’il prévoit limiterait indûment l’existence et les activités des
associations non-enregistrées et engendrerait une ingérence indue des autorités en matière
de détermination des statuts, structure et activités des associations. Par ailleurs, la
dissolution ou la suspension des associations serait facilitée et des poursuites pénales à
l’encontre des membres ou dirigeants des associations maintenues ou reconstituées
illégalement pourraient être ouvertes.
97. Le Rapporteur spécial rappelle que le droit à la liberté d’association oblige les États
à prendre des mesures positives pour créer et maintenir un environnement favorable. De
plus, les États ont l’obligation négative de ne pas entraver indûment l’exercice du droit à la
liberté d’association. Les membres d’une association devraient être libres de déterminer les
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
19
statuts, la structure et les activités de celle-ci et de prendre leurs décisions à l’abri de toute
ingérence de l’État (A/HRC/20/27).
98. Le Rapporteur spécial insiste sur le fait que le droit à la liberté d’association
s’applique pendant toute la vie de l’association. La suspension d’une association et sa
dissolution forcée sont parmi les atteintes les plus graves à la liberté d’association. Elles ne
devraient donc être possibles qu’en cas de danger manifeste et imminent résultant d’une
violation flagrante de la législation nationale, conformément au droit international des
droits de l’homme. De telles mesures doivent être strictement proportionnelles à l’objectif
légitime poursuivi et utilisées uniquement lorsque des mesures moins radicales se sont
révélées insuffisantes.
Rwanda
99. JAL 06/11/2015. Case no. RWA 2/2015. State reply: None. Allégations quant aux
arrestations, suivies de leurs libérations, de sept membres d’une organisation non-
gouvernementale de défense des droits de l’homme au Rwanda, ainsi que des allégations
d’actes de harcèlement envers les membres de cette organisation.
Observations
Réponse à la communication
100. Le Rapporteur spécial regrette de ne pas avoir reçu de réponse aux allégations
contenues dans sa communication RWA 2/2015 indiquant des allégations d’arrestations et
d’actes de harcèlement et d’intimidation envers plusieurs membres de la Ligue des droits de
la personne dans la région des Grands Lacs (LDGL). Il considère les réponses aux
questions soulevées dans ses communications comme une partie importante de la
coopération des gouvernements avec son mandat, conformément aux résolutions du Conseil
des droits de l’homme 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) et 15/21 (2010).
101. Le Rapporteur spécial réitère ses préoccupations au sujet des allégations de
harcèlement, d’arrestations signalées, de détentions temporaires des membres de la LDGL,
mais aussi des interrogations qu’ils ont dû subir au sujet de la tenue de leur assemblée
générale, ainsi qu’au sujet de la légalité du nouveau Comité directeur de la LGDL. Le
Rapporteur spécial s’inquiète du fait qu’il semblerait que ces actes soient directement liés
leur exercice de leur droits la liberté d’expression et à la liberté d’association et qu’ils
risqueraient d’avoir un effet dissuasif sur l’exercice de la liberté d’association et
d’expression au Rwanda.
102. Le Rapporteur spécial souligne les commentaires et les recommandations effectués
dans le cadre de son rapport faisant suite à sa visite au Rwanda dans le cadre de son mandat
(A/HRC/26/29/Add.2). En particulier, il s’inquiète du fait que la société civile, et en
particulier les organisations non-gouvernementales et les partis politiques d’opposition,
voient leur champ d’actions de plus en plus limité dans le droit et la pratique, ce qui a pour
effet de limiter leurs droits de réunion pacifique, de liberté d’association et de liberté
d’expression, de manière inquiétante.
103. Il réitère son appel aux autorités à « reconnaître en droit et en pratique, que les droits
à la liberté de réunion pacifique et d'association jouent un rôle décisif dans l'émergence et la
maintenance de systèmes démocratiques efficaces car ils sont un canal pour le dialogue, le
pluralisme, la tolérance et l'ouverture d'esprit, et où la minorité ou les opinions dissidentes
ou croyances sont respectées » (A/HRC/26/29/Add.2, para. 86 a)).
104. Il demande une nouvelle fois aux autorités à prendre toutes les mesures adéquates
pour assurer que les défenseurs des droits de l’homme puissent exercer leurs droits à la
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
20
liberté d’association et de réunion pacifique dans un environnement favorable leur
permettant de mener à bien leurs activités sans risque d’être exposés à des menaces,
représailles, intimidations ou actes de harcèlement.
Sierra Leone
105. JAL 17/12/2015. Case no. SLE 2/2015. State reply: None. Allegations of systemic
judicial harassment of land rights defenders.
Observations
Response to communication
106. The Special Rapporteur regrets that, to date, no reply has been received to his
communication SLE 2/2015. He recalls that responses to his communications are an
important part of the cooperation of the Government of Sierra Leone with his mandate, and
urges the authorities to comply with Human Rights Council resolutions on the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. These resolutions, including resolution
24/5 (2013), call on States to cooperate fully with and assist him in the performance of his
mandate and to respond promptly to his communications.
107. The Special rapporteur reiterates his concern at the alleged systematic persecution of
members of Malen Land Owners and Users Association (MALOA) through judicial
harassment in relation to their legitimate land rights advocacy in the Malen region,
exercising their right to freedom of expression and association.
108. He insists on urging that all necessary measures be taken to ensure that above-
mentioned land rights defenders and supporters of MALOA are provided with all the due
process guarantees of a fair trial, preventing their prosecutions serving, in practice, to stifle
the legitimate exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and association, in
performing their human rights advocacy work in relation to land rights.
109. He reminds the Government of its obligation to respect and protect fundamental
human rights, including the right of all individuals to freely associate. He underlines that
this right involves the positive obligation to establish an enabling environment for members
of associations to perform their activities without fear from threats or acts of intimidation
and harassment of any sort.
South Sudan
110. JAL 29/07/2015. Case no. SSD 1/2015. State reply: None. Alleged imminent entry
into force of the Non-Governmental Organization Bill 2015.
Observations
Response to communication
111. The Special Rapporteur regrets that, to date, no reply has been received to his
communication SSD 1/2015. He recalls that responses to his communications are an
important part of the cooperation of the Government of South Sudan with his mandate, and
urges the authorities to comply with Human Rights Council resolutions on the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. These resolutions, including resolution
24/5 (2013), call on States to cooperate fully with and assist him in the performance of his
mandate and to respond promptly to his communications.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
21
112. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his concern about the entry into force of the Non-
Governmental Organization Bill, 2015, (NGO Bill) in South Sudan. He remains concerned
about the negative impact the legislation is bound to have on the essential work undertaken
by civil society groups, including humanitarian organizations, in South Sudan. As indicated
in the communication, the provisions contained in the legislation appear to be in
contravention of international human rights law and standards and can be used to quell
criticism and deter people wishing to exercise their rights to freedom of association and to
freedom of opinion and expression.
113. The Special Rapporteur also echoes the concerns expressed in the report of the
assessment mission by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights to improve human rights, accountability, reconciliation and capacity in South Sudan
(A/HRC/31/CRP.6), which refers to an on-going trend of repression against civil society
organizations voicing dissent. According to the report, “[v]iolations of the freedom of
opinion and expression, of peaceful assembly, as well as arbitrary arrest and detention of
journalists, media workers or other individuals or groups perceived to be in opposition to
the Government have been an issue of great concern in South Sudan since independence.
The Government, and in particular the National Security Service (NSS), has attempted,
with some success, to suffocate debate and opposition, resulting in alarm and fear among
the population” (para. 170).
114. The Special Rapporteur reminds the State of its obligation to ensure a conducive
environment for the free exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and
association guaranteed in articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR). It also restates that, according to this same Covenant, only a very limited number
of restrictions to these rights may apply, which should be prescribed by law and necessary
in a democratic society for responding to a pressing social need for the interference.
115. The Special Rapporteur encourages the State to overturn any legislation that curtails
the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.
Sudan
116. JAL 11/03/2015. Case no. SDN 1/2015. State reply: None. Alleged deregistration of
fourteen associations in Sudan for contravening the Law on Cultural Groups of 1996
regulating associations.
117. JUA 27/04/2015. Case no. SDN 2/2015. State reply: None. Allegations of the arrest,
detention, inadequate conditions of detention, and charges against a human rights defender.
118. JUA 12/06/2015. Case no. SDN 4/2015. State reply: None. Alleged criminal charges
against two clergyman and undue restrictions of religious freedom of the Christian
communities in Sudan
Observations
Responses to communications
119. The Special Rapporteur regrets that he has not received a response to his
communication and reminds the Government of Sudan that he considers responses to his
communications as an important part of the cooperation of Governments with his mandate.
He calls upon States to cooperate fully with and assist him in the performance of his
mandate, in compliance with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012)
and 15/21 (2010).
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
22
120. The Special Rapporteur reiterates serious concern at the rising infringement on
freedom of association in Sudan. He remains very concerned at the drastic decisions to
deregister fourteen associations for contravening the Law on Cultural Groups of 1996
regulating associations carrying out legitimate work in Sudan, which appear to obstruct the
exercise of the right to freedom of association (SDN 1/2015). He reminds the Government
of Sudan that the action to suspend or dissolve an association is one of the severest types of
restrictions on freedom of association. Therefore, any such decision to suspend or dissolve
an association should comply with international human rights law and standards, namely it
should be guided by the principles of proportionality and necessity (A/HRC/20/27,
paragraph 75).
121. The Special Rapporteur deplores allegations of arrest, detention, inadequate
conditions of detention, and charges against a human rights defender as well as the alleged
criminal charges brought against two clergyman and undue restrictions of religious freedom
of the Christian communities, respectively in communications SDN 2/2015 and SDN
4/2015. He reiterates his concern regarding allegations that indicate that the religious
autonomy of churches, the rights to freedom of expression, religion and freedom of
peaceful assembly of the Christian religious minorities have been seriously undermined by
ongoing mass expulsion, arrests, detentions of foreign Christians and confiscation or
destruction of church properties since the end of 2012. Such actions are bound to have a
detrimental effect on other individuals exercising or wishing to exercise their right to
association, peaceful assembly and freedom of expression and religion.
122. He reminds the Government of Sudan of its positive obligation to ensure that civil
society, including human rights defenders, can carry out their legitimate work free in a safe
and enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of intimidation or harassment of
any sort.
Swaziland
123. JUA 07/05/2015. Case no. SWZ 2/2015. State reply: None. Alleged arbitrary arrest
and continued pre-trial detention of, as well as charges of sedition and terrorism brought
against, two political activists for exercising their rights to freedom of opinion, expression,
association and peaceful assembly.
Observations
Response to communication
124. The Special Rapporteur regrets that no response has been received to date relating to
the allegations contained in his communication indicating allegations of arrest and
continued pre-trial detention of, as well as charges of sedition and terrorism brought
against, Mr. Mario Masuku, the President of the political party ‘the People’s United
Democratic Movement’ (PUDEMO), and Mr. Maxwell Dlamini, the Secretary General of
the party’s youth wing, the Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO). He considers
responses to the questions raised in his communications as an important part of the
cooperation of Governments with his mandate, in accordance with Human Rights Council
resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010).
125. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that the rights to freedom of opinion,
expression and peaceful assembly appear curtailed in an environment where laws are
applied disproportionately against perceived political opponents, activists, and human rights
defenders. He stresses again his concern about the charges brought against them under the
Terrorism Act and Sedition Act that do not appear to comply with relevant international
and regional human rights principles and standards. The Special Rapporteur recalls his
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
23
concerns at the alleged interference in judicial proceedings concerning the review of the
legality of their pre-trial detention. Finally he stresses that the physical and psychological
integrity of Mr. Masuku and Mr. Dlamini may be at risk while in detention. Such actions
are bound to have a detrimental effect on other individuals exercising or wishing to exercise
this right.
126. The Special Rapporteur remains concerned at the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation
to curb freedom of peaceful assembly and association in the country. Although the Special
Rapporteur is aware that States have an interest in protecting national security or public
safety, and the fight against terrorism which are legitimate grounds for restricting freedom
of association, he reminds the Government of Swaziland that there is also need for States to
comply with international human rights law while countering terrorism and that, under the
International Covenant on civil and political rights ratified by Swaziland on 26 March
2004), any limitation must not only pursue a legitimate interest and meet the strict necessity
and proportionality test.
127. He also reiterates his recommendation to the Government to put in place an enabling
and safe environment that is conducive to the free expression of civil society and political
activists allowing individuals to exercise their legitimate rights to freedom of opinion,
expression, association and peaceful assembly.
Uganda
128. JAL 27/04/2015. Case no. UGA 1/2015. State reply: None. Allegation of non-
compliance with international human rights law and standards of a bill regulating
associations which would introduce undue limitations to the rights to freedom of
association.
129. JAL 12/08/2015. Case no. UGA 2/2015. State reply: 07/09/2015. Alleged temporary
arrest and repeated harassment of a human rights defender.
Observations
Responses to communications
130. The Special Rapporteur regrets that no substantial response has been received to
date relating to the allegations contained in his communications. He considers responses to
the questions raised in his communications as an important part of the cooperation of
Governments with his mandate, in accordance with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5
(2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010).
131. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the release of Mr. Justus Orishaba Bagamuhunda
on 19 August 2015, but expressed serious concerns that his arrest and arbitrary
administrative detention may have been related to his work as a human rights defender
focused on the promotion of human rights, democracy and good governance (UGA
2/2015). He calls on the authorities to take all appropriate measures to ensure that human
rights activists can exercise their rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly in
a safe and enabling environment without risk being exposed to threats, retaliation,
intimidation or harassment. He reminds the Government of its obligation to respect and
protect fundamental human rights, including the right of all individuals to freely associate.
Non-Governmental Organisations Bill, 2015 (NGO Bill)
132. As indicated in the communication sent on 27 April 2005 (UGA 1/2015), the Special
Rapporteur remains seriously concerned about certain provisions of the Non-Governmental
Organisations Bill, 2015 (NGO Bill) that would severely restrict the right to freedom of
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
24
association as enshrined in international human rights law and standards. Similarly, he
remains concerned by the vague wording of some of the provisions and cautions the
authorities against ambiguous legal provisions governing the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association that increase the risk of abuses and violations of these rights
and infuse fear of breaking the law among society activists, which in turn can lead to self-
censorship. He is further concerned at that the wide discretion given to the Minister for
Internal Affairs and the National Board for NGOs at the National, District and Sub-County
levels are problematic and could have the effect of discouraging the formation and work of
associations.
133. The Special Rapporteur reminds the State of its obligation to ensure a conducive
environment for the free exercise of the rights of peaceful assembly and association, rights
enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, acceded by the State
on 21 June 1995. It also restates that, according to this same Covenant, only a very limited
number of restrictions to these rights may apply, which should be prescribed by law and
necessary in a democratic society for responding to a pressing social need for the
interference.
Country visit
134. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of Uganda of his country visit
requests sent in 2011 and 2013, to which a response is yet to be received. He believes such
a country visit may be an opportunity to discuss any technical assistance that the
Government may require.
Zambia
135. JAL 11/01/2016. Case no. ZMB 4/2015. State reply: None. Alleged undue delays in
registration process of a non-governmental organization working on Lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and intersex (LGBTI) issues.
Observations
Response to communication
136. The Special Rapporteur regrets that no response has been received to date relating to
the allegations contained in his communication ZMB 4/2015. He considers responses to the
questions raised in his communications as an important part of the cooperation of
Governments with his mandate, in accordance with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5
(2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010).
137. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his concern at the reportedly undue delays in
reviewing the application for registration of the Engender Rights Centre for Justice and the
subsequent refusal to register it for reasons that could be related to the organization’s
peaceful activities in advocating and speaking out against discrimination and defending the
rights of LGBTI persons in Zambia. The Special Rapporteur further reiterates his concerns
with regard to the judicial proceedings against Mr. Kasonkomona that appear to result from
the legitimate exercise of his right to freedom of expression on a TV show and more
generally to his human rights activities within the Engender Rights Centre for Justice.
138. The Special Rapporteur is of the opinion that a “notification procedure”, rather than
a “prior authorization procedure” that requests the approval of the authorities to establish an
association as a legal entity, complies better with international human rights law and should
be implemented by States. Under this notification procedure, associations are automatically
granted legal personality as soon as the authorities are notified by the founders that an
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
25
organization was created. Any decision rejecting the submission or application must be
clearly motivated and duly communicated in writing to the applicant. Associations whose
submissions or applications have been rejected should have the opportunity to challenge the
decision before an independent and impartial court (A/HRC/20/27).
139. More generally, the Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of its obligation to
respect and protect the right of all individuals to freely associate. He underlines that this
right involves the positive obligation to establish an enabling environment for members of
associations to perform their activities without fear from threats or acts of intimidation and
harassment of any sort.
140. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur refers to refer to the report of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/19/41) in which he insists on the right of LGBTI
not to be discriminated against and enjoy human rights on an equal footing, including in the
context of their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Country visit
141. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his willingness to undertake a
country visit to Zambia, as indicated by his letter on 30 October 2013. He trusts that such a
visit would allow him to examine first-hand issues relating to his mandate, identify good
practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks
forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that
Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which
renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call upon States to consider
favourably his requests for visits.
Zimbabwe
142. JUA 23/03/2015. Case no. ZWE 1/2015. State reply: 30/03/2015. Alleged arbitrary
arrest, incommunicado detention and enforced disappearance of a human rights defender.
Observations
Response to communication
143. The Special Rapporteur regrets that no substantial response has been received to
date relating to the allegations contained in his communication. He considers responses to
the questions raised in his communications as an important part of the cooperation of
Governments with his mandate, in accordance with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5
(2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010).
144. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his utmost concern regarding to the arbitrary
arrest, incommunicado detention and enforced disappearance of human rights defender and
activist Mr. Dzamara in March 2015. He urges again the authorities to carry out an
independent, thorough and effective investigation to locate his whereabouts and bring
perpetrators to justice. He expresses serious concern about the stagnant investigations and
widespread chilling effect that the disappearance of a human rights defender may have on
others.
145. He stresses that it is the obligation of States to respect and fully protect the rights of
all individuals to assemble peacefully and associate freely, online as well as offline
(A/HRC/RES/24/5, operational paragraph 2). Moreover, he reaffirms that the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are crucial cornerstones for the possible
emergence and sustainability of effective democratic systems.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
26
146. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of Zimbabw of its positive
obligation to ensure that civil society, including human rights defenders, can carry out their
legitimate work free in a safe and enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of
intimidation or harassment of any sort.
Country visit
147. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of Zimbabwe of his country visit
requests sent in 2011 and 2013, to which a response is yet to be received. He trusts that
such a visit would allow him to examine first-hand issues relating to his mandate, identify
good practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks
forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that
Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which
renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call upon States to consider
favourably his requests for visits.
IV. Americas region
148. During the reporting period, the Special Rapporteur sent 27 communications to 11
countries in the Americas region. A total of 14 communications were follow-ups to cases
previously sent to the attention of the State concerned.
149. The Special Rapporteur remains concerned about worrying reports from the region
regarding peaceful protestors and members of associations, including non-governmental
organizations, political parties and trade unions, who were criminalized, stigmatized,
intimidated, physically assaulted, arbitrarily arrested or detained, as well as killed, because
they went to the streets to voice their discontent or they carried out legitimate activities that
contradicted certain political or economic interests.
150. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur reminds States that the Human Rights Council
stressed that peaceful protests should not be viewed as a threat and encouraged the States to
engage in an open, inclusive and meaningful dialogue when dealing with peaceful protests
and their causes (A/HRC/RES/22/10). He reiterates that human rights and fundamental
freedoms are indivisible and belong to every individual, hence they are not rights enjoyed
by States, but rather by individuals who may espouse minority or dissenting views or
beliefs. Finally, he reaffirms that the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association are crucial cornerstones for the possible emergence and sustainability of
effective democratic systems.
Brazil
151. JUA 14/07/2015. Case no. BRA 2/2015. State reply: None. Alleged imminent
eviction of approximately 20,000 persons residing in three urban informal settlements in the
State of Minas Gerais.
152. JAL 28/10/2015. Case no. BRA 8/2015. State reply: 30/10/2015. Alleged undue
restrictions on the rights of peaceful assembly and association of proposed terrorism
legislation.
153. PR 11/04/2015 “Brazil anti-terrorism law too broad, UN experts warn”
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
27
Observations
Responses to communications
154. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Brazil for the reply to his
communication sent on 28 October 2015. The Special Rapporteur regrets that the
Government of Brazil has yet not replied to the communication BRA 2/2015 and urges the
authorities to provide a detailed response to the questions raised in this letter, in conformity
with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010).
155. The Special Rapporteur takes note of the steps undertaken by the authorities to
implement measures against terrorism. According to the Brazilian Government, the recent
legislation is only a continuation of its previous policy and is applied legitimately according
to international standards and has therefore no link with the World Cup in 2014, as well as
the upcoming 2016 Olympic Games.
156. However, the Special Rapporteur remains concerned at the possible misuse of anti-
terrorism legislation to curb freedoms of peaceful assembly and association in the country.
Although the Special Rapporteur is aware that States have an interest in protecting national
security or public safety, and the fight against terrorism which are legitimate grounds for
restricting freedom of association, he calls on the Government of Brazil to ensure that any
restrictions on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are prescribed
by law, which is necessary in a democratic society, and proportionate to the objective
pursued, and do not harm the principles of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness.
Therefore, any restrictions should be subject to an independent, impartial, and prompt
judicial review (A/HRC/20/27, paragraph 84 (d) and (e)).
157. On different occasions, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of
human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism has stressed in a report
to the General Assembly that “States should not need to resort to derogation measures in
the area of freedom of assembly and association. Instead, limitation measures, as provided
for in ICCPR, are sufficient in an effective fight against terrorism” (A/61/267, para. 53).
158. Moreover, he reaffirms that the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association are necessary elements for the possible emergence and sustainability of
effective democratic systems. In this regard, States should therefore make every effort to
facilitate those rights.
Canada
159. JAL 27/04/2015. Case no. CAN 1/2015. State reply: 28 April 2015. Allegations
concerning the compatibility of Bill C-51, an “Act to enact the Security of Canada
Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts”, with international
norms and standards on human rights.
160. JAL 29/06/2015. Case no. CAN 2/2015. State reply: 29/06/2015. Allegations of
protracted undue interference in the form of intrusive audits and threat of revocation of
charitable status for registered charities.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
28
Observations
Responses to communications
161. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Canada for its detailed and
substantive response received to the communication sent on 29 June 2015. He nevertheless
regrets that a substantial response to his communication CAN 1/2015 is yet to be received,
and urges the authorities to provide a detailed response to the questions raised in his letter,
in conformity with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21
(2010).
162. The Special Rapporteur takes note of the Government’s response that tax incentives
are not aimed at restricting freedom of expression, but rather giving a definition of what
kind of organization is eligible for tax assistance. According to the Government, such
limitation is necessary in order to afford overall confidence in the charitable sector - sector
being supported by taxpayers - the law has to define limits to what is accepted as charitable.
The Special Rapporteur also takes note that, on average, 93% of charities selected for audits
are able to continue their charitable work. The Government further stresses the fact that
some organizations do not benefit from the tax exemption does not impede them from
exercising their activities, and from benefiting their full enjoyment of freedom of
association.
163. The Special Rapporteur also notes with appreciation the response provided by the
Government, especially the legal environment greatly supporting the freedom of association
and expression in Canada. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur remains concerned about
the overall impact on registered charitable associations, which has led to self-censorship by
some of these associations, has exerted a drain on their limited resources and has led to the
revocation of charitable status for others.
164. Regarding communication CAN 1/2015, the Special Rapporteur reiterates its
concern about the compatibility of Bill C-51 with international human rights standards and,
in particular, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. He advocates that when
absolutely necessary, the measures provided by the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights are adequate to combat terrorism or handle other security considerations.
165. The Special Rapporteur stresses that the right to freedom of association obliges
States to take, on one hand, positive measures to establish and maintain an enabling
environment and on the other hand, negative measures not to obstruct the exercise of the
right to freedom of association, which includes guaranteeing that association can freely
carry out their activities, without discrimination (A/HRC/20/27).
Country visit
166. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of Canada of his willingness to
undertake a country visit to Canada, as indicated in his letters from 2013, 2014 and 2015.
He looks forward to receiving a positive reply from the new administration.
Chile
167. JAL 08/07/2015. Case no. CHL 2/2015. State reply: 12/10/2015. Presunta solicitud
de remoción de la directora del Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos (INDH) y críticas
públicas hechas hacia este instituto debido a la publicación de un informe escolar de
Derechos Humanos en el que se critica el accionar de Carabineros en el manejo de las
protestas en 2011
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
29
Observaciones
Respuesta a la comunicación
168. El Relator Especial agradece las respuestas del Gobierno de Chile a su
comunicación. En este sentido, agradece al Estado por su cooperación con su mandato,
conforme a las resoluciones 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) y 15/21 (2010) del Consejo de
Derechos Humanos.
Visita de país
169. El Relator Especial agradece la invitación a su mandato y la cooperación del Estado
chileno a lo largo de la visita que ocurrió en el país del 21 al 30 de septiembre de 2015.
Quiere destacar la cooperación ejemplar de las autoridades chilenas que contribuyeron
altamente al excito de la misión. Él desea referirse a su informe de misión, que contiene sus
conclusiones y recomendaciones sobre su visita (A/HRC/32/36/Add.1).
Colombia
170. JUA 20/08/2015. Case no. COL 4/2015. State reply: 25/09/2015. Presuntos actos de
intimidación y amenazas de muerte contra un defensor de derechos humanos.
Observaciones
Respuesta a la comunicación
171. El Relator Especial agradece el Gobierno de Colombia por sus respuestas a las
comunicaciones del 20 de agosto de 2015 (COL 4/2015) y por su cooperación con su
mandato, conforme a las resoluciones 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) y 15/21 (2010) del
Consejo de Derechos Humanos.
172. El Relator Especial leyó con atención la respuesta a los interrogantes planteados en
su comunicación del 20 de agosto de 2015, y acoge positivamente las declaraciones y los
pronunciamientos públicos de las autoridades a favor de la comunidad de Paz de San José
de Apartadó. Asimismo, acoge positivamente el convenio establecido con la Fundación
para la Libertad de Expresión y la evaluación de la queja por los hechos mencionados por la
Procuraduría delegado para las Fuerzas militares.
173. En este contexto, pide al Gobierno de Colombia mantenerlo informado del estado de
las investigaciones respecto al caso. No obstante, el Relator Especial se muestra muy
preocupado por el alto nivel de impunidad que prevalece respecto a las agresiones y
violaciones de los derechos de los defensores y defensoras, incluyendo asesinatos y
atentados contra la vida en Colombia. El Relator Especial exhorta a las autoridades a que
tomen las medidas necesarias para que estos actos sean investigados de forma pronta y
adecuada, que los culpables respondan ante la justicia y que las víctimas obtengan
reparación adecuada, en particular, en casos en los cuales la policía, u otros agentes
estatales, resultan involucrados.
174. Recuerda la obligación de los Estados de garantizar un entorno propicio para el libre
ejercicio del derecho de asociación; un derecho consagrado en el Pacto Internacional de
Derechos Civiles y Políticos, ratificado por Colombia el 29 de Octubre de 1969. A su vez,
advierte contra los entornos que puedan obstaculizar gravemente el disfrute de los derechos
a la libertad de reunión pacífica y de asociación (A/HRC/20/27, párrafo 20).
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
30
Ecuador
175. JAL 09/07/2015. Case no. ECU 4/2015. State reply: 08/10/2015. Presunta
advertencia de disolución de la Fundación Andina para la Observación y Estudio de
Medios, Fundamedios, en aplicación del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 16.
176. JAL 10/12/2015. Case no. ECU 6/2015. State reply: 20/04/2016. Alegaciones sobre
actos de violencia física y verbal y actos de intimidación contra mujeres defensoras de
derechos humanos.
177. PR 17/09/2015 “Ecuador / Libertad de expresión: Relatores de ONU y la CIDH
condenan medidas para disolver a una destacada organización”
Observaciones
Respuestas a comunicaciones
178. El Relator Especial agradece el Gobierno de Ecuador por sus respuestas a las
comunicaciones del 9 de julio de 2015 (ECU 4/2015). Sin embargo, lamenta no haber
recibido una respuesta su otra comunicación enviada en el período del presente reporte. En
este sentido, recuerda al Estado que considera aquellas respuestas como formando parte
integral de la cooperación de los Estados con su mandato, de conformidad con las
resoluciones 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) y 15/21 (2010) del Consejo de Derechos Humanos.
179. El Relator Especial toma nota de los esfuerzos para garantizar que se archive el
procedimiento administrativo de disolución iniciado a Fundamedios. No obstante, subraya
sus inquietudes en cuanto a la afirmación del Estado en su respuesta con respecto a “la
prohibición de ejercer su índole político, evitando alertar infundadas, con la única finalidad
de afectar el prestigio de Ecuador y su institucionalidad, así como transparentar sus fuentes
de financiamiento y la utilización de dichos recursos” que restringe fuertemente el derecho
a la libertad de expresión de Fundamedios.
180. El Relator Especial reitera sus serias inquietudes con respecto a la libertad de
expresión y de asociación en Ecuador e invita el Estado a garantizar un entorno propicio
para el libre ejercicio del derecho de asociación; un derecho consagrado en el Pacto
Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, ratificado por Ecuador el 6 de marzo de
1969. En particular, el Relator Especial hace hincapié en el riesgo para la libertad de
asociación representado por el Decreto 739 que establece importantes restricciones al
trabajo de las organizaciones y que otorga al Estado amplias atribuciones para obstaculizar
los registros legales de dichas organizaciones y disolverlas.
181. El Relator Especial recuerda que La palabra "asociación" se refiere, entre otras
cosas, a organizaciones de la sociedad civil, clubes, cooperativas, ONG, asociaciones
religiosas, partidos políticos, sindicatos, fundaciones e incluso asociaciones establecidas en
la Web, ya que el papel de Internet ha sido decisivo, por ejemplo, para facilitar la
participación activa de la ciudadanía en la construcción de sociedades democráticas”
(A/HRC/20/27). Consecuentemente, la libertad de asociación está estrechamente vinculada
a la libertad de expresión.
182. El Relator Especial recuerda también que el derecho a la libertad de asociación es
efectivo durante toda la vida de la asociación. La suspensión y la disolución involuntaria de
una asociación son las formas más severas de restricción de la libertad de asociación. Por
consiguiente, de conformidad con las normas internacionales de derechos humanos, esas
medidas solo podrán imponerse ante un riesgo claro e inminente de violación flagrante de
la legislación nacional. Deberán ser estrictamente proporcionales a su legítimo objetivo y se
utilizarán únicamente cuando sean insuficientes medidas menos severas (A/HRC/20/27).
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
31
Visita de país
183. El Relator Especial confía en que el Gobierno de Ecuador responderá
favorablemente a sus solicitudes de visita hechas en 2014 y 2015. Recuerda que el Consejo
de Derechos Humanos exhorta a los Estados a que colaboren plenamente con el Relator
Especial en el desempeño de sus funciones y consideren favorablemente sur solicitudes
para realizar visitas (A/HRC/RES/24/5, OP 6).
El Salvador
184. JAL 28/05/2015. Case no. SLV 2/2015. State reply: 27/07/2015; 11/08/2015.
Alegaciones sobre el presunto asesinato de dos defensores, padre e hijo, de los derechos de
las personas con discapacidad en El Salvador.
185. JUA 07/01/2016. Case no. SLV 3/2015. State reply: None. Alegaciones sobre actos
de vigilancia, amenazas y acoso judicial contra dos abogadas de derechos humanos.
Observaciones
Respuestas a comunicaciones
186. El Relator Especial agradece la respuesta del Gobierno del Salvador a su
comunicación del 28 de mayo de 2015 (SLV 2/2015). Sin embargo, lamenta no haber
recibido una respuesta a su comunicación del 7 de enero de 2016 (SLV 3/2015) y solicita a
las autoridades a responder a los interrogantes planteados en esta comunicación en la mayor
brevedad, de conformidad con las resoluciones 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) y 15/21 (2010)
del Consejo de Derechos Humanos, que instan a los Estados a colaborar plenamente con su
mandato.
187. El Relator Especial leyó con atención las respuestas a los interrogantes planteados
en su comunicación del 28 de mayo de 2015 (SLV 2/2015), así como el compromiso de las
autoridades de garantizar la investigación del caso relativo a la muerte del Sr. Israel
Antonio Quintanilla –Presidente de la Asociación de Lisiados de Guerra (ALGES) y
persona con discapacidad- como su hijo el Sr. Carlos Alberto Quintanilla. El Relator
Especial saluda también la Resolución del Expediente SS-0163-2015 emitida el día ocho de
julio de 2015 quien acuerda prioridad a la investigación del caso en el sistema de justicia.
Asimismo, el Relator Especial solicita al Estado de El Salvador que informe sobre las
acciones realizadas y las medidas adoptadas para dar cumplimiento a sus obligaciones
internacionales.
188. El Relator Especial recuerda a las autoridades que deben tomar medidas necesarias
para que estos actos sean investigados de forma pronta y adecuada, que los culpables
respondan ante la justicia y que las víctimas obtengan reparación adecuada, en particular,
en casos en los cuales la policía, u otros agentes estatales, resultan involucrados.
189. Recuerda la obligación de los Estados de garantizar un entorno propicio para el libre
ejercicio del derecho de asociación; un derecho consagrado en el Pacto Internacional de
Derechos Civiles y Políticos, ratificado por el Salvador el 30 de noviembre de 1979. A su
vez, advierte contra los entornos que puedan obstaculizar gravemente el disfrute de los
derechos a la libertad de reunión pacífica y de asociación.
Honduras
190. JAL 05/05/2015. Case no. HND 1/2015. State reply: None. Alegaciones sobre
declaraciones difamatorias contra una organización de derechos humanos.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
32
191. UA 31/08/2015. Case no. HND 2/2015. State reply: None. Presuntas amenazas e
intento de homicidio contra periodista, sindicalista y defensora de derechos humanos.
192. JAL 10/11/2015. Case no. HND 3/2015. State reply: 01/02/2016. Alegaciones de
muertes violentas y ataques contra defensores y defensoras de derechos LGBTI.
193. JUA 14/01/2016. Case no. HND 1/2016. State reply: 04/04/2016. Alegaciones de
asesinato, ataques, intimidación y amenazas contra miembros de comunidades indígenas y
defensores de derechos humanos.
Observaciones
Respuestas a comunicaciones
194. El Relator Especial agradece el Gobierno de Honduras por sus respuestas a las
comunicaciones del 10 de noviembre de 2015 (HND 3/2015) y del 14 de enero del 2016
(HND 1/2016). Sin embargo, lamenta no haber recibido una respuesta a sus otras dos
comunicaciones enviadas en el período del presente reporte. En este sentido, recuerda al
Estado que considera aquellas respuestas como formando parte integral de la cooperación
de los Estados con su mandato, de conformidad con las resoluciones 24/5 (2013), 21/16
(2012) y 15/21 (2010) del Consejo de Derechos Humanos.
195. El Relator Especial leyó con atención las respuestas a los interrogantes planteados
en su comunicación del 1 de febrero de 2015 (HND 3/2015), y saluda el compromiso del
Gobierno sobre la lucha contra la discriminación, incluyendo la adopción de varias normas
protectoras y saluda la adopción de la Ley de Protección para las y los Defensores de
Derechos Humanos, Periodistas, Comunicadores Sociales y Operadores de Justicia.
También, el Relator Especial tomó nota de la respuesta del Estado del 4 de abril de 2016
(HND 1/2016) sobre la investigaciones abiertas en los casos de varios asesinato, ataques,
intimidación y amenazas contra miembros de comunidades indígenas y defensores de
derechos humanos así como de las medidas tomadas para cumplir con su deber de consultar
a los pueblos indígenas.
196. En este sentido, el Relator Especial pide al Estado de Honduras mantenerlo
informado del estado de las investigaciones respecto de la investigaciones en curso. Sin
embargo, el Relator Especial solicita a las autoridades responder lo antes posible a los
interrogantes planteados en las comunicaciones HND 1/2015 y HND 2/2015 acerca de
presuntos actos de declaraciones difamatorias contra la organización Plataforma EPU, así
como resuntas amenazas e intento de homicidio contra la Sra. Elizabeth Zúñiga, periodista,
sindicalista y defensora de derechos humanos, respectivamente.
197. El Relator Especial reitera su preocupación respecto de los repetidos ataques y actos
de hostigamiento contra defensores y defensoras de los derechos humanos en Honduras, por
ejemplo, en el contexto de organizaciones implicadas en el EPU (HND 1/2015) o en contra
de miembros de asociaciones indígenas (HND 1/2016) y de organizaciones trabajando para
los derechos de las personas LGBTI (HND 3/2015). Se muestra muy preocupado por el alto
nivel de impunidad que prevalece respecto a las agresiones y violaciones de los derechos de
los defensores y defensoras, incluyendo asesinatos y atentados contra la vida. Esta situación
ha sido objeto de numerosas comunicaciones por parte de los Procedimientos Especiales de
las Naciones Unidas.
198. El Relator Especial exhorta a las autoridades a que tomen las medidas necesarias
para que estos actos sean investigados de forma pronta y adecuada, que los culpables
respondan ante la justicia y que las víctimas obtengan reparación adecuada, en particular,
en casos en los cuales la policía, u otros agentes estatales, resultan involucrados. Recuerda
la obligación de los Estados de garantizar un entorno propicio para el libre ejercicio del
derecho de asociación; un derecho consagrado en el Pacto Internacional de Derechos
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
33
Civiles y Políticos, ratificado por Honduras el 25 de agosto de 1997. A su vez, advierte
contra los entornos que puedan obstaculizar gravemente el disfrute de los derechos a la
libertad de reunión pacífica y de asociación.
Grupos sometidos a mayores riesgos
199. Con respecto a las alegaciones que indican en particular ataques cometidos contra
miembros de comunidades indígenas o contra personas en razón de su orientación sexual e
identidad de género, el Relator Especial invita al Gobierno de Honduras a referirse a los
instrumentos legislativos internacionales que señalan medidas y principios concretos que
los Estados deben adoptar para lograr la no discriminación y la igualdad; entre otros, la
Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas que
exhorta a los Estados a combatir los prejuicios, eliminar la discriminación y promover la
tolerancia, la comprensión y las buenas relaciones entre los pueblos indígenas y todos los
demás sectores de la sociedad, y el informe del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas
para los Derechos Humanos que solicita a los Estados proteger a las personas frente a la
violencia homófoba y transfóbica, prevenir la tortura y los tratos crueles, inhumanos y
degradantes motivados por la orientación sexual y la identidad de género y prohibir también
la discriminación por esos motivos, revocar las leyes que tipifiquen como delito la
homosexualidad, salvaguardar las libertades de expresión, de asociación, y de reunión
pacífica para las personas LGBTI y reconocer sus derechos a disfrutar o ejercer, en pie de
igualdad con los demás, todos los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales
(A/HRC/19/41).
Visita de país
200. El Relator Especial agradece la invitación extendida a su mandato el 9 de enero de
2013, pero lamenta no haber recibido una respuesta a su reciente proposición de fechas,
según correo del 8 de abril de 2015. Confía en que el Gobierno de Honduras le cursará
prontamente nuevas proposiciones factibles para una visita en un futuro cercano.
Mexico
201. JUA 04/03/2015. Case no. MEX 2/2015. State reply: 08/04/2015. Alegaciones sobre
la detención de un periodista y activista social de origen maya.
202. JUA 30/04/2015. Case no. MEX 5/2015. State reply: None. Presuntos actos
intimidatorios contra organizaciones integrantes de la Red Nacional en Defensa de los
Derechos Humanos (RENDDH).
203. JAL 22/07/2015. Case no. MEX 7/2015. State reply: 13/10/2015; 13/10/2015 bis.
Alegaciones de amenazas de muerte, vigilancia e intento de secuestro contra defensores de
los derechos humanos.
204. JUA 30/11/2015. Case no. MEX 13/2015. State reply: 01/04/2016. Alegaciones de
detención arbitraria y malos tratos a cuatro defensores de los derechos humanos.
Observaciones
Respuestas a comunicaciones
205. El Relator Especial agradece el Gobierno de México por sus respuestas a las
comunicaciones MEX 2/2015, MEX 7/2015 and MEX 13/2015. Sin embargo, lamenta no
haber recibido una respuesta a la comunicación MEX 5/2015 enviada en el período del
presente reporte. En este sentido, recuerda al Estado que considera aquellas respuestas
como formando parte integral de la cooperación de los Estados con su mandato, de
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
34
conformidad con las resoluciones 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) y 15/21 (2010) del Consejo de
Derechos Humanos.
206. En este contexto, el Relator toma nota de la respuesta del Gobierno en donde se
aclaran las investigaciones iniciadas para determinar la posible existencia de algún delito en
el caso del Sr. Pedro Celestino Canché Herrera (MEX 2/2015). El Relator Especial toma
nota de las medidas cautelares y las medidas de protección extendidas a la Asamblea
Popular del Pueblo Juchiteco (MEX 7/2015). Leyó con atención la argumentación
proporcionada por el Estado mexicano en cuanto a las bases legales de las detenciones de
los defensores de derechos humanos e integrantes de la Sección 22 del Sindicato Nacional
de Trabajadores de la Educación (MEX 13/2015). En este contexto, el Relator Especial
expresa preocupación por los motivos avanzados para justificar dichas detenciones y
lamenta que el Estado no haya proporcionado más informaciones en relación con los puntos
levantados en su comunicación. El Relator Especial esta también preocupado por los actos
intimidatorios contra los miembros del de las organizaciones participantes en la “Gira
Nacional” ocurridos en diversas oportunidades, objeto de una comunicación (MEX
5/2015) a la cual el Gobierno no contesto.
207. Solicita al Gobierno mantenerlo informado de la situación actual de las
investigaciones, diligencias judiciales y planes de protección para garantizar los derechos
de los defensores y defensoras de derechos humanos en México, así como los logros y
avances del Mecanismo Nacional de Protección para personas defensoras de derechos
humanos y periodistas.
208. El Relator Especial permanece seriamente preocupado por alegaciones de
asesinatos, torturas, detenciones arbitrarias, actos de tortura, y criminalización de
manifestantes, miembros de asociaciones trabajando para la defensa de derechos humanos,
así como la presunta impunidad que prevalece respecto a estas agresiones y violaciones. En
particular, le preocupa la seguridad e integridad física y psicológica de los miembros de
asociaciones que trabajan en temas relacionados con los derechos humanos, en un contexto
de creciente violencia e inseguridad que pone en riesgo el ejercicio legítimo de su derecho a
la libertad de reunión pacífica y asociación.
209. Asimismo, hace hincapié en el recién comunicado de prensa del 6 de abril de 2016,
en el cual tres relatores especiales expresaron su grave preocupación en relación con los
atentados personales contra los defensores de derechos humanos en México, mismos que
incrementan el peligro, el riesgo y la vulnerabilidad para ellos y su trabajo. Este llamado se
inscribió en el contexto de una ola de críticas en diversos medios mexicanos contra
defensores de derechos humanos, organizaciones no gubernamentales y miembros de
organismos internacionales de derechos humanos que está empeorando el clima para la
promoción y protección de los derechos humanos en el país.
210. El Relator Especial recuerda la obligación positiva de los Estados Partes del Pacto
Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos de garantizar la protección de los derechos
contenidos en dicho Pacto contra violaciones por sus agentes y por personas o entidades
privadas, la cual incluye el deber de adoptar las medidas adecuadas para prevenir,
investigar, juzgar y sancionar a los responsables, y reparar el daño causado. A su vez,
advierte contra los entornos que puedan obstaculizar gravemente el disfrute de los derechos
a la libertad de reunión pacífica, de asociación y de libertad de expresión.
Nicaragua
211. JAL 29/05/2015. Case no. NIC 4/2015. State reply: None. Alegaciones sobre
presuntas agresiones y deportación arbitraria contra dos defensores de derechos humanos
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
35
del Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional (CEJIL) que está basado en Costa
Rica.
212. JAL 14/01/2016. Case no. NIC 6/2015. State reply: 11/03/2016; 11/03/2016 bis.
Alegaciones de abuso de autoridad y funciones, y falta de protección de manifestantes y
defensores de derechos humanos, por parte de la Policía Nacional nicaragüense en el marco
de una manifestación campesina contra la construcción del Canal interoceánico en
Nicaragua.
Observaciones
Respuestas a comunicaciones
213. El Relator agradece la respuesta del Gobierno de Nicaragua recibida el 11 de marzo
de 2016 en la cual se le indica que el rol de la policía nacional ha sido de resguardar el
orden en el transcurro de las manifestaciones para que se desarrollen de forma pacífica y
que ningún abuso de autoridad sucedió en este marco. Sin embargo, lamenta no haber
recibido una respuesta a su comunicación del 29 de mayo de 2015 (NIC 4/2015) y solicita a
las autoridades a responder a los interrogantes planteados en esta comunicación en la mayor
brevedad, de conformidad con las resoluciones 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) y 15/21 (2010)
del Consejo de Derechos Humanos, que instan a los Estados a colaborar plenamente con su
mandato.
214. El Relator Especial leyó con atención las respuestas a los interrogantes planteados
en su comunicación NIC 6/2015, y se congratula por el compromiso de las autoridades de
garantizar el libre goce y ejercicio de los derechos humanos de los ciudadanos de
Nicaragua, incluido los derechos de reunión pacífica y de libertad de expresión. Según las
informaciones proporcionadas por el Estado, todas las medidas tomadas durante la
manifestación consistieron a garantizar la buena movilidad de los participantes y
contrarrestar la violencia de unos participantes. El Estado alega que los organizadores no
acudieron a solicitar un permiso como dispuesto por la Constitución y la ley 872, tampoco
informaron la policía sobre la ruta de la marcha y ningún abuso de autoridad fue registrado.
215. El Relator Especial recuerda que el artículo 21 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos
Civiles y Políticos dispone que el ejercicio del derecho de reunión pacífica “sólo podrá
estar sujeto a las restricciones previstas por la ley que sean necesarias en una sociedad
democrática, en el interés de la seguridad nacional, de la seguridad pública o del orden
público, o para proteger la salud o la moral públicas o los derechos y libertades de los
demás”. Asimismo, subraya que la libertad de reunión pacífica es un derecho, no un
privilegio y su ejercicio no debe estar sujeto a una autorización previa de las autoridades
(A/HRC/31/66). Las autoridades estatales pueden poner en marcha un sistema de
notificación previa, donde el objetivo es permitir que las autoridades estatales tengan una
oportunidad para facilitar el ejercicio de este derecho, para tomar medidas con el fin de
proteger la seguridad y / o el orden público y proteger los derechos y libertades de otros.
Cualquier procedimiento de notificación no debe funcionar como una solicitud de facto
para la autorización o como base para la regulación basada en el contenido.
216. El Relator Especial está también preocupado por informaciones recibidas sobre
actos de represión de las manifestaciones por la policía, incluyendo la participación de un
uso excesivo de la fuerza, así como detenciones arbitrarias y, posteriormente, violaciones
de las garantías del debido proceso. Expresa inquietudes sobre el hecho de que la violencia
haya podido justificar injerencia en el ejercicio del derecho de reunión pacífica. El Relator
Especial considera que los Estados tienen también la obligación negativa de evitar
injerencias indebidas en el ejercicio del derecho de reunión pacífica. Toda restricción que
se imponga debe ser necesaria y proporcional al objetivo planteado.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
36
Visita de país
217. El Relator Especial confía en que el Gobierno de Nicaragua responderá
favorablemente a sus solicitudes de visita hechas en 2015. Recuerda que el Consejo de
Derechos Humanos exhorta a los Estados a que colaboren plenamente con el Relator
Especial en el desempeño de sus funciones y consideren favorablemente sur solicitudes
para realizar visitas (A/HRC/RES/24/5, OP 6).
Peru
218. JAL 30/07/2015. Case no. PER 2/2015. State reply: None. Presunta vulneración del
derecho a la libre asociación mediante la adopción de las Resoluciones Directorales
Ejecutivas (RDE) No. 085-2015-DE y 097-2015/APCI-DE de la Agencia Peruana de
Cooperación Internacional (APCI).
219. JUA 25/08/2015. Case no. PER 3/2015. State reply: 14/04/2016. Presuntos actos de
intimidación y amenazas de muerte contra defensora de derechos humanos, en relación con
proyecto minero.
220. JUA 03/12/2015. Case no. PER 5/2015. State reply: None. Alegaciones de atentados
a la vida, amenazas de muerte y cargos judiciales contra un defensor de derechos humanos.
Observaciones
Respuestas a comunicaciones
221. El Relator agradece la respuesta del Gobierno recibida el 14 de abril de 2016, pero el
lamenta no haber recibido una respuesta a sus otras comunicaciones y reitera considerar las
respuestas a sus comunicaciones como un componente esencial de la cooperación de los
Gobiernos con su mandato, según resoluciones 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) y 15/21 (2010)
del Consejo de Derechos Humanos. Por consiguiente, insta a las autoridades a proporcionar
respuestas detalladas a todas las inquietudes planteadas en su comunicación lo antes
posible.
222. El Relator Especial insta a las autoridades a proporcionar respuestas detalladas a
todas las inquietudes planteadas en sus comunicaciones lo antes posible. Reitera suma
preocupación por las alegaciones de atentados en contra de la vida, de amenazas e
intimidación en contra de personas tendrían relación con su legítima actuación como
defensores de los derechos humanos afectando el ejercicio de sus derechos a la libertad de
opinión y expresión y a la libertad de asociación (PER 3/2015 y PER 5/2015).
223. En este sentido, el Relator Especial insta a las autoridades peruanas a que adopten
todas las medidas necesarias para proteger la vida, la seguridad y las libertades de los
defensores de los derechos humanos y a que adopten las medidas efectivas para investigar,
procesar e imponer las sanciones adecuadas a cualquier persona responsable de las
violaciones alegadas.
Las Resoluciones Directorales Ejecutivas (RDE) No. 085-2015-DE y 097-2015/APCI-DE
224. En cuanto a la comunicación PER 2/2015, el Relator Especial reitera su
preocupación por las alegaciones recibidas indicando un posible impacto negativo de las
RDE No. 085-2015-DE y 097-2015/APCI-DE sobre el ejercicio de los derechos de libre
expresión y asociación. En este sentido, recuerda que las restricciones a los susodichos
derechos sólo pueden aplicarse excepcionalmente, ser proporcionales a objetivos legítimos
y obedecer estrictamente a intereses de seguridad nacional, integridad de la población,
orden público, protección de la salud o moral públicas, o de protección de los derechos y
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
37
libertades de los demás, además de estar prescritas por ley y ser necesarias en una sociedad
democrática, es decir de existir una necesidad social acuciante para una injerencia (Artículo
22 de Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, el cual Perú ratificó el 28 de abril
de 1978).
225. En este contexto, insta las autoridades a revocar leyes y disposiciones que violan
estándares internacionales, así como a abstenerse en interferir con las libertades de
expresión y asociación cuando no sea necesario, de conformidad con sus obligaciones
internacionales.
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
226. JAL 27/03/2015. Case no. VEN 4/2015. State reply: 29/05/2015; 18/06/2015.
Muerte violenta de un menor de 14 años durante una protesta pacífica en San Cristóbal,
Táchira.
227. JAL 08/05/2015. Case no. VEN 5/2015. State reply: None. Alegaciones sobre una
nueva serie de actos de vigilancia, hostigamiento, intimidación y difamación contra
defensores y defensoras de derechos humanos por su participación en sesiones de la
Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos
228. JAL 26/06/2015. Case no. VEN 7/2015. State reply: 29/09/2015. Alegaciones de
una serie de actos de difamación y hostigamiento contra defensores de derechos humanos
por su participación en la sesión del Comité del Pacto Internacional de Derechos
Económicos, Sociales y Culturales.
229. JAL 20/07/2015. Case no. VEN 9/2015. State reply: None. Alegaciones de actos de
intimidación contra defensores de derechos humanos a través de transmisiones de la canal
estatal Venezolana de Televisión
230. JAL 09/11/2015. Case no. VEN 12/2015. State reply: 25/01/2016. Alegaciones de
robo a mano armada en el domicilio de un defensor de derechos humanos junto con su hijo
después de comentarios de carácter derogatorio y estigmatizante contra su organización de
derechos humanos por parte de las autoridades.
231. JAL 03/12/2015. Case no. VEN 15/2015. State reply: 23/12/2015. Alegadas
restricciones a derechos humanos a la libertad de expresión y asociación antes de un
proceso electoral legislativo el 6 de Diciembre de 2015.
232. PR 22/07/2015 “Es hora de poner fin a las represalias televisadas contra defensores
de derechos humanos en Venezuela”
233. PR 04/12/2015 “Las libertades fundamentales son clave para elecciones justas y
pacíficas en Venezuela – Expertos en derechos humanos de la ONU”
Observaciones
Respuestas a comunicaciones
234. El Relator agradece las respuestas del Gobierno de Venezuela a sus comunicaciones
VEN 4/2015 y VEN 12/2015. Sin embargo, lamenta no haber recibido una respuesta a su
comunicaciones VEN 5/2015, VEN 7/2015, VEN 9/2015 y VEN 15/2015 y solicita a las
autoridades a responder a los interrogantes planteados en estas comunicaciones en la mayor
brevedad, de conformidad con las resoluciones 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) y 15/21 (2010)
del Consejo de Derechos Humanos, que instan a los Estados a colaborar plenamente con su
mandato.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
38
235. El Relator Especial agradece el Gobierno por su respuesta a su comunicación VEN
4/2015 y toma nota del proceso judicial llevado a cabo en el caso de la muerte de un menor,
Kluiverth Roa Núñez. Asimismo, toma nota de la legislación en vigor para proteger la
libertad de reunión pacífica y de libertad de expresión. A su vez, el Relator Especial
agradece la respuesta detallada del Gobierno venezolano a su comunicación del 9 de
noviembre de 2015 (VEN 12/2015) en la cual expone las medidas tomadas para proteger
los defensores de los derechos humanos. El Relator también toma nota de la respuesta del
Gobierno en donde se aclaran las investigaciones iniciadas para determinar la posible
existencia de algún delito y las medidas cautelares puestas a favor de las supuestas
víctimas.
236. Con respecto al alto volumen de reportes e informaciones que todavía indican
alarmantes violaciones a los derechos de reunión pacífica y de asociación, el Relator
Especial advierte contra los entornos que puedan obstaculizar gravemente el disfrute de
estos derechos y recuerda al Gobierno de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela su
obligación de proteger activamente las reuniones pacíficas y asegurar que las personas que
ejercen el derecho a la libertad de asociación puedan actuar libremente, sin temor a posibles
amenazas, actos de intimidación o violencia, como arrestos o detenciones arbitrarios o
campañas difamatorias en los medios de difusión; ambos derechos consagrados en el Pacto
Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, ratificado por el país el 10 de mayo de 1978.
237. Recuerda que los derechos de reunión pacífica y de asociación son fundamentales
para la plena participación de las personas en los asuntos públicos y una buena gobernanza
(A/68/299, párrafo 6) y hace nuevamente hincapié en el papel de las asociaciones en
general, y los partidos políticos en particular, como medios clave para el funcionamiento
de un régimen democrático. El Relator Especial insta a la República Bolivariana de
Venezuela a que reconozca que los derechos a la libertad de reunión pacífica y de
asociación desempeñan un papel primordial en la democracia y asegure que nadie sea
criminalizado, violentado ni intimidado por ejercer estos derechos.
238. El Relator Especial está muy preocupado por la creciente inseguridad y hostilidad en
contra de las y los defensores de los derechos humanos en Venezuela (VEN 5/2015, VEN
7/2015, 9/2015, 12/2015). En particular, las campañas de desprestigio contras las y los
defensores, la persistentes intimidaciones, incluyendo a través del monitoreo de sus
actividades, algunas con respaldo de las autoridades públicas, las cuales tiene un efecto
inhibidor para su trabajo e incrementan los riesgos a los que se enfrentan. Las alegaciones,
de ser confirmadas, se enmarcarían en un contexto del persistente aumento de inseguridad
para las y los defensores de los derechos humanos en la República Bolivariana de
Venezuela. Reiteramos nuestra grave preocupación por lo que pareciera representar un
patrón sistemático de detenciones arbitrarias en contra de personas que se identifican como
opositores políticos.
239. En este contexto, expresamos grave preocupación por los actos de violencia contra
quienes participan en eventos de campaña política y electoral, incluyendo el asesinato del
Sr. Luis Manuel Díaz (VEN 15/2015) así como otros actos de intimidación por parte de
grupos armados; situación que vulneraría el ejercicio legítimo de los derechos a la libertad
de opinión y expresión, a la libertad de asociación y a la participación política.
240. El Relator Especial reitera sus serias inquietudes con respecto a la justificación de la
violencia utilizada por parte de la Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana para dispersar
reuniones pacíficas, en flagrante oposición con las disposiciones del derecho internacional
y las obligaciones que el país se comprometió a respetar y garantizar (VEN 4/2015).
241. Los Estados tienen la obligación de proteger activamente y promover la celebración
de reuniones pacíficas y para ello debe existir una presunción favorable del rol
indispensable que aquéllas desempeñan en las sociedades democráticas. Reitera, a su vez,
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
39
que según el PIDCP, sólo podrán en contadas excepciones aplicarse ciertas restricciones al
derecho de reunión, las cuales deberán ser proporcionales a la consecución de legítimos
objetivos y obedecer estrictamente a intereses de seguridad nacional, integridad de la
población, orden público, protección de la salud o moral públicas, o de protección de los
derechos y libertades de los demás, además de estar prescritas por ley y ser necesarias en
una sociedad democrática, es decir de existir una necesidad social acuciante para una
injerencia.
Visita de país
242. El Relator Especial confía en que el Gobierno de la República Bolivariana de
Venezuela responderá favorablemente a sus solicitudes de visita hechas en 2011 y 2013.
Recuerda que el Consejo de Derechos Humanos exhorta a los Estados a que colaboren
plenamente con el Relator Especial en el desempeño de sus funciones y consideren
favorablemente sur solicitudes para realizar visitas (A/HRC/RES/24/5, OP 6).
V. Asia-Pacific region
243. The Special Rapporteur sent a total of 47 communications to 19 countries in the
Asia-Pacific region in the period covered by this report, 17 of which were follow-up to
previous communications.
244. The Special Rapporteur remains concerned about the number of cases of
criminalization of, and instances of threats and physical attacks against, individuals
exercising their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and/or association in the region. He
is also concerned about the several legislative developments in the region that are bound to
hinder the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.
245. He reiterates that in democratic societies, demonstrations and protests represent a
central mechanism for raising awareness about political and social concerns, including on
environmental, labour or economic issues, to hold both Governments and corporations
accountable.
246. The Special Rapporteur calls again on States to pay particular attention to the plights
of groups at risk. He noted that in this region, groups at high risk of violations, including
journalists, trade unionists, environmental activists and indigenous peoples, among others,
face considerable opposition, harassment and , stigmatization from State and non-State
actors because of their views and human rights activities. He urges the Governments to
improve the situations of these often marginalized groups and recalls that the State retains
the primary responsibility for ensuring the protection and promotion of their rights. In that
this regard, he asked asks that positive measures, including affirmative action initiatives, be
taken to ensure that all individuals belonging to groups most at risk have the ability to
exercise effectively exercise their rights, including the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association.
Afghanistan
247. JAL 17/12/2015. Case no. AFG 3/2015. State reply: None. Landmine attack against
members of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC).
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
40
Observations
Responses to communications
248. The Special Rapporteur regrets that he has not yet received a response to his
communication sent during the reporting period, and reminds the Government of
Afghanistan that he considers responses to his communications as an important part of the
cooperation of governments with his mandate. He looks forward to receiving detailed
responses to the questions raised in this letter, at the earliest possible convenience, in
conformity with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21
(2010).
249. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his grave concern at the fatal attack carried out
against members of the AIHRC, which appears to be in direct retaliation for their human
rights work both in Nangerhar Province and in Afghanistan and which can have a chilling
effect on other defenders promoting and protecting human rights in the country. He reminds
the Government of Afghanistan of its positive obligation to ensure that civil society,
including human rights defenders, can carry out their legitimate work free in a safe and
enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of intimidation, harassment or
assassination of any sort.
Australia
250. JAL 15/04/2015. Case no. AUS 4/2015. State reply: 03/06/2015. Allegations
concerning the Federal Government’s discontinuing of funding for basic services in remote
aboriginal communities, which may affect more than 100 such communities in the state of
Western Australia.
251. JAL 12/02/2016. Case no. AUS 1/2016. State reply: 13/04/2016. Alleged restrictions
on the rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression in provisions of the Criminal
Code Amendment (Prevention of Lawful Activity) Bill 2015 in the state of Western
Australia.
252. PR 15/02/2016 UN human rights experts urge Western Australia’s Parliament not to
pass proposed anti-protest law
Observations
Responses to communications
253. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Australia for its replies to the
communications sent during this reporting period.
254. The Special Rapporteur wishes to underscore again that indigenous peoples are a
group at risk based on their level of marginalization in the exercise of the rights to freedom
of peaceful assembly and of association (A/HRC/26/29, para. 10). He recalls that “[t]he
rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association play a key role in empowering
individuals belonging to groups most at risk to claim other rights and overcome the
challenges associated with marginalization. Such rights must therefore not only be
protected, but also facilitated. It is the responsibility of all stakeholders to ensure that the
voices of individuals belonging to groups most at risk are heard, and taken into account, in
compliance with the principles of pluralism of views, tolerance, broadmindedness and
equity” (para. 72).
255. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his concerns that the provisions of the Criminal
Code Amendment (Prevention of Lawful Activity) Bill 2015 in the state of Western
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
41
Australia are so broad as to prohibit peaceful acts of protest and establish prohibitions that
go far beyond the legitimate restrictions established by the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, especially articles 19 and 21. He remains also concerned that the
mandatory and disproportionate penalties could have the deterrent effect on the legitimate
exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of expression, silencing
and punishing human rights defenders and any dissenters that hinder, obstruct or prevent a
lawful activity. He urges the relevant authorities to amend the draft to bring it into
compliance with international human rights norms and standards.
Bangladesh
256. JAL 10/04/2015. Case no. BGD 1/2015. State reply: 17/04/2015. Allegations of
summary executions.
257. JUA 12/08/2015. Case no. BGD 5/2015. State reply: None. Alleged stigmatization
of two human rights non-governmental organizations by the police, and possible threats
against a human rights defender, his relatives and colleagues.
258. JAL 02/10/2015. Case no. BGD 6/2015. State reply: 06/11/2015. Alleged acts of
harassment and intimidation against human rights defenders, and against relatives of
victims of enforced disappearances and against a group of non-governmental organizations.
259. PR 06/11/2015 Bangladesh NGOs: UN expert warns against proposed funding bill
Observations
Responses to communications
260. The Special Rapporteur takes note of the responses of the Government of
Bangladesh acknowledging receipt of his communications. However, he regrets that the
Government failed to provide substantial responses to the questions raised in the
communications since the establishment of the mandate in 2011. He considers responses to
his communications as an important part of the cooperation of governments with his
mandate and again urges the authorities to comply with Human Rights Council resolutions
24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010) on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly
and association that call upon States to cooperate fully with and assist him in the
performance of his mandate and to respond promptly to his communications. In the absence
of information to the contrary, the Special Rapporteur concludes that there is substance in
the allegations presented in his communications.
261. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his deep concern about the indiscriminate use of
petrol bomb attacks by opposition demonstrators, as well as the excessive use of force by
security forces, including apparent extrajudicial killings, which have led to the death of at
least 49 and 32 individuals respectively. He urges the authorities to undertake thorough and
independent investigations into these cases, hold the perpetrators accountable, and provide
remedies to the victims and families of victims. In this regard, he wishes to refer to the joint
report on the proper management of assemblies he prepared with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (A/HRC/31/66), which is highly relevant to
the present case.
262. The Special Rapporteur remains concerned about the media release issued by the
police alleging defamation that targets the legitimate human rights work of Odhikar and
BAMAK, which have a “chilling effect” on all organizations monitoring human rights
violations, in particular those receiving foreign funding. This intimidating action on the part
of the police could contribute to stifling reporting on issues of public interest, including on
human rights violations, and restrict the legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
42
expression and opinion and the right to seek, impart and receive information. He reiterates
his serious concerns regarding the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Adilur
Rahman Khan, his relatives and colleagues, and all human rights defenders denouncing
alleged violations committed by law enforcement authorities in Bangladesh.
263. The Special Rapporteur further remains concerned about the sudden cancellation of
a commemorative event in Dhaka on the occasion of the International Day of the Victims of
Enforced Disappearances scheduled on 30 August 2015, as well as about the intimidation
of the victims' families. Such incidents appear to be related to their legitimate and peaceful
work as human rights defenders, and part of a wider effort by Government authorities to
silence the voices of those speaking out against enforced disappearances and exercising
their legitimate rights to freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom
of association. He is particularly concerned that these alleged measures are also an attempt
to maintain a climate of impunity for crimes committed by State authorities.
264. The Special Rapporteur remains deeply concerned about the draft Foreign Donations
(Voluntary Activities) Regulation Act, which will be considered during the next
parliamentary session. He reiterates all the concerns he has made on this Bill in the past
years (see PR 06/11/2015). He calls on again the authorities “not to adopt the Bill as its
purpose clearly violates the right to freedom of association, and has a ricochet effect on the
realization of other human rights, as well as on the delivery of aid in a country prone to
natural disasters. [He] stand[s] ready to provide assistance to the Government to help
ensure that the Bill complies with international human rights law” (PR 06/11/2015).
265. More generally, the Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of its positive
obligation to ensure that civil society, including human rights defenders, can carry out their
legitimate work free in a safe and enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of
intimidation and harassment of any sort.
Country visit
266. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending requests to visit
Bangladesh, as indicated by letter on 27 January 2014. He trusts that such a visit would
allow him to examine issues relating to his mandate, identify good practices and formulate
pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks forward to receiving a
positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that Human Rights Council
resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which renewed it for an
additional period of three years, both call on States to consider favourably his requests for
visits.
Cambodia
267. AL 08/05/2015. Case no. KHM 2/2015. State reply: None. Follow-up
communication regarding draft legislation on association.
268. JAL 10/08/2015. Case no. KHM 3/2015. State reply: None. Alleged judicial
harassment of a Cambodian human rights defender and leader of a human rights
organization.
269. JUA 18/11/2015. Case no. KHM 5/2015. State reply: None. Alleged arbitrary arrest
and continued detention of four human rights defenders, and the ban imposed on a human
rights training session.
270. JAL 03/12/2015. Case no. KHM 6/2015. State reply: None. Alleged physical
harassment of Mr. Kung Sophea and Mr. Nhay Chamraoen, two Parliamentarians of the
main opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) in their legitimate and peaceful
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
43
exercise of the right to freedom of association and the right to participate in political and
public life.
271. JUA 21/12/2015. Case no. KHM 7/2015. State reply: 14/01/2016. Allegations of
arbitrary arrest and detention, and lack of due process guarantees and fair trial of members
of the opposition parties Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) and Sam Rainsy Party
(SRP- which later merged into CNRP), on the basis of their political views.
272. PR 22/05/2015 Cambodian civil society excluded from NGO bill drafting process,
UN rights expert warns
273. PR 15/07/2015 “Cambodia’s NGO Bill threatens a free and independent civil
society” – UN expert urges Senate to reject it
Observations
Responses to communications
274. The Special Rapporteur takes note of the response of the Government of Cambodia
to his joint communication of 21 December 2015 (KHM 7/2015) informing his fellow
Special Rapporteur Ms. Rhona Smith that the letter should be directed to the judiciary. He
looks forward to receiving a detailed response shortly. However, he regrets that the
Government failed to respond to all the other communications sent during the reporting
period. He considers responses to his communications as an important part of the
cooperation of governments with his mandate and again urges the authorities to comply
with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010) on the
rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association that call upon States to cooperate
fully with and assist him in the performance of his mandate and to respond promptly to his
communications.
275. The Special Rapporteur reiterates all the serious concerns he made in his various
communications and press statements on the draft Law on Associations and Non-
Governmental Organisations (LANGO), which later became an Act of Parliament, which is
unequivocally threatens the very existence of a free and independent civil society in
Cambodia. He urges the Government to review the law and bring it in compliance with
international human rights norms and standards without delay.
276. He further reiterates his concern that the judicial procedures against Mr. Chakrya are
related to his legitimate and peaceful work providing legal assistance in Cambodia, and that
it is an attempt to dissuade him from continuing his work in cases concerning land rights
and, more broadly, to quell criticism and deter individuals from exercising their legitimate
right to freedom of association in Cambodia.
277. Similarly, he reiterates serious concerns about the alleged arbitrary arrest and
continued detention of Messrs. Try Sovikea, Sun Mal, Sim Samnang and Ven Vorn, which
appear directly related to their legitimate human rights work, defending and exercising their
rights to freedom of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association. Further
concern is reiterated that the ban imposed on the human rights training session and the
threat to arrest the participants may be linked to the legitimate human rights activities of
Mother Nature who work closely with local communities to teach them about methods of
direct but peaceful action to protect their environment and human rights.
278. The Special Rapporteur also remains concerned about the physical harassment of
Mr. Kung Sophea and Mr. Nhay Chamraoen, two parliamentarians belonging to the main
opposition party CNRP, in their legitimate and peaceful exercise of the rights to freedom of
opinion and expression, freedom of association and to participate in political and public
life. Similarly, serious concern is reiterated at the alleged arbitrary arrest, in some cases
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
44
alleged arbitrary detention, prosecution and unfair trial of other members of CNRP, which
seems directly related to their political views and membership in the opposition party and to
the exercise to their rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
Further concern is reiterated at the alleged arbitrary arrest, unfair trial, continued detention
and health deterioration of Mr. Hong Sok Hour, a Senator for the Sam Rainsy Party and the
alleged arbitrary removal of the parliamentary status and immunity of Mr. Sam Rainsy,
both of which appear directly related to their political views and memberships in the
opposition party and to their exercise to their rights to freedom of expression, association
and peaceful assembly. Concern is also expressed again at the interference in the work of
legitimate human rights organizations and defenders, such as doctors from LICADHO.
279. Overall, the Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned about the escalating trend of
suppression of criticism against the Government, be they emanating from political parties
or non-governmental organizations, which seems to be precipitated by the forthcoming
elections – the communal election scheduled for 2017 and the National Assembly election
scheduled for 2018 - in an attempt to silence and intimidate critical voices. In this regard,
he reminds the Government of Cambodia of its positive obligation to ensure that civil
society, including human rights defenders, can carry out their legitimate work free in a safe
and enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of intimidation, harassment or
threats of any sort. He also wishes to refer to the joint report on the proper management of
assemblies he prepared with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions (A/HRC/31/66), which is particularly relevant to the present situation in
Cambodia, most notably in relation to the ‘Black Monday’ Campaign.2
Country visit
280. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending requests to visit
Cambodia, as indicated by letters on 23 September 2011 and 30 October 2013. He trusts
that such a visit would allow him to examine in situ issues relating to his mandate, identify
good practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks
forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that
Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which
renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call upon States to consider
favourably his requests for visits.
China (People’s Republic of)
281. JAL 16/04/2015. Case no. CHN 2/2015. State reply: 21/05/2015. Allegations
relating to a new draft law on overseas NGOs which, if adopted without changes, would
violate international law and standards related to the rights to freedom of association and of
peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
282. JAL 26/11/2015. Case no. CHN 11/2015. State reply: 22/01/2016. Alleged
demolition of 37 Christian Catholic and Protestant churches, removal of over 500 churches
in Zhejiang Province and enforced disappearance of a Pastor for protesting the planned
demolition of a church.
283. JAL 23/12/2015. Case no. CHN 13/2015. State reply: 10/02/2016. Alleged
sentencing of a human rights defender.
2 See the press release issued after the reporting period:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=19954&LangID=E
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
45
284. JUA 15/01/2016. Case no. CHN 1/2016. State reply: 28/02/2016. Alleged arbitrary
arrest and detention of six labour activists and human rights defenders.
285. PR 16/07/2015 “Lawyers need to be protected not harassed” – UN experts urge
China to halt detentions
Observations
Responses to communications
286. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of China for its responses to all the
communications sent during the reporting period, the majority of which are still awaiting
translation at the time of drafting this report.
287. He expresses his deep disappointment at the adoption on 28 April 2016 by the
National People’s Congress of the Law on the Management of Foreign Non-Governmental
Organizations’ Activities on 28 April 2016, which will enter into force on 1 January 2017.
He believes that the “excessively broad and vague provisions, and administrative discretion
given to the authorities in regulating the work of foreign NGOs, can be wielded as tools to
intimidate, and even suppress, dissenting views and opinions in the country... [Furthermore,
it is feared that] this Law will severely hinder the work of civil society organizations whose
work is deemed sensitive by the authorities, and it will have a detrimental impact on the
existence and operations of domestic NGOs that cooperate with foreign NGOs and/or are
dependent of funding from them, and which carry out activities in the field of human rights,
including economic and social rights”.3
288. While awaiting the translation of the responses received, the Special Rapporteur
remains gravely disturbed by allegations of arrests, criminalization, harassment of families
and disappearance of individuals, including lawyers and trade unionists, as a result of the
exercise of their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and/or freedom of association. He
is equally concerned about the situation of individuals similarly targeted in the Tibet
Autonomous Region and neighbouring provinces because of the exercise of these rights. To
this end, he urges the authorities of China to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of
everyone to free association and peaceful assembly. In this regard, he reminds the
Government of China of its positive obligation to ensure that civil society, including human
rights defenders, can carry out their legitimate work free in a safe and enabling environment
without fear of threats or acts of intimidation, harassment or threats of any sort. He also
wishes to refer to the joint report on the proper management of assemblies he prepared with
the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (A/HRC/31/66),
which is particularly relevant to the present situation in the country.
Country visit
289. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending requests to visit
China, as indicated by letters on 23 September 2011 and on 15 November 2013. He trusts
that such a visit would allow him to examine in situ issues relating to his mandate, identify
good practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks
forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that
Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which
renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call upon States to consider
favourably his requests for visits.
3 See the press release issued after the reporting period:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=19921&LangID=E
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
46
India
290. JAL 04/08/2015. Case no. IND 6/2015. State reply: 23/09/2015. Allegations
concerning the unfounded investigation and charges against two human rights defenders in
relation to their legitimate human rights work, as well as measures restricting access to their
organizations’ funding.
291. JAL 18/06/2015. Case no. IND 7/2015. State reply: 17/08/2015. Alleged arbitrary
freezing of Greenpeace India’s bank accounts.
292. JUA 12/08/2015. Case no. IND 8/2015. State reply: None. Alleged arbitrary arrest
and detention of two women human rights defenders.
293. JAL 11/09/2015. Case no. IND 10/2015. State reply: 23/09/2015. Allegations of
human rights violations committed by law enforcement authorities in Manipur.
Observations
Responses to communications
294. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of India for its responses to the
communications of 4 August 2015 (IND 6/2015) and 18 June 2015 (IND 7/2015). He takes
of the Government’s acknowledgement of the letter dated 11 September 2015 (IND
10/2015); and he regrets that his communication dated 12 August 2015 is left unanswered.
He urges the Government to provide a detailed response to both communications without
delay.
295. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his concern about the alleged arbitrary arrest and
detention of Ms. Mallik and Ms. Gond, which appear to be linked to their legitimate work
to protect the environment and the human rights of tribal and indigenous forest
communities in Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh, and, in particular, their recent involvement in
non-violent protests in the district.
296. Similarly, he reiterates concern about the arbitrary detention, intimidation and
harassment of human rights defenders in the Manipur region and at the apparent role of the
law enforcement authorities in these acts. Further concern is reiterated that the charges
brought against them appear to be an attempt to dissuade them in the pursuance of their
legitimate and peaceful human rights activities and exercising their respective rights to
freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, including advancing the rights
of indigenous peoples, silencing criticism of activities by law enforcement authorities in
Manipur, and highlighting alleged rights violations committed under the auspices of the
Armed Forces Special Powers Act.
297. The Special Rapporteur remains concerned about the targeting of Ms. Setalvad and
Mr. Anand, as well as their organizations, as a result of their peaceful and legitimate human
rights work, including the legal assistance provided by Citizens for Justice and Peace in Ms.
Jafri’s ongoing petition. He urges the authorities to cease such targeting.
298. In this connection, he reminds the Government of India of its positive obligation to
ensure that civil society, including human rights defenders, can carry out their legitimate
work free in a safe and enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of intimidation,
harassment or assassination of any sort.
299. The Special Rapporteur expresses once again concern at the restrictions imposed on
Greenpeace India, which appear to be based solely on its activities in promotion of human
rights, including a safe, clean environment. More generally, serious concern is expressed at
the apparent increasing limitation placed on associations, including limitations on their
access to foreign funding and the undue cancellation of their registration on the basis of
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
47
burdensome administrative requirements imposed to those organizations in receipt of
foreign funds.
300. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur believes that the Foreign Contribution
Regulation Act 2010 and Foreign Contribution Regulation Rules 2011 fail to comply with
international human rights norms and standards as they impose “a total ban on associations’
access to foreign funding on vaguely defined grounds for a broad purpose not included in
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ enumerated list of legitimate
aims”.4
Country visit
301. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of India of his pending requests to
visit the country, as indicated by letters on 26 September 2014. He trusts that such a visit
would allow him to examine first-hand issues relating to his mandate, identify good
practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks
forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that
Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which
renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call upon States to consider
favourably his requests for visits.
Indonesia
302. JAL 08/09/2015. Case no. IDN 7/2015. State reply: None. Alleged threats and
intimidation of a human rights defender in West Papua province.
303. JAL 09/10/2015. Case no. IDN 8/2015. State reply: None. Alleged excessive use of
force by Indonesian security forces in Papua Province which resulted in the death of nine
individuals and injured several persons.
Observations
Responses to communications
304. The Special Rapporteur regrets that he has not yet received a response to his
communications sent during the reporting period, and reminds the Government of
Indonesia that he considers responses to his communications as an important part of the
cooperation of governments with his mandate. He looks forward to receiving detailed
responses to the questions raised in them, at the earliest possible convenience, in
conformity with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21
(2010).
305. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his concern at at the threats made against Mr.
Hesegem, which appear to be a clear attempt to dissuade him from documenting human
rights abuses committed by local and regional police in the West Papuan highlands.
Similarly, He remains concerned at the apparent role of local and regional police in the on-
going intimidation and harassment of Mr. Hesegem, which appears to be related to the
legitimate exercise of his right to freedom of expression. He reminds the Government of
Indonesia of its positive obligation to ensure that civil society, including human rights
defenders, can carry out their legitimate work free in a safe and enabling environment
without fear of threats or acts of intimidation, harassment or threats of any sort.
4 See the information note released on 20 April 2016 on the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act and
Rules: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/FAssociation/InfoNoteIndia.pdf
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
48
306. The Special Rapporteur further reiterates his grave concern at what appears to be a
pattern of excessive use of force by Indonesia security forces against indigenous peoples in
Papua Province, which has resulted in the killing of nine persons and injuries to many
others. In several instances, they were exercising peacefully their rights to freedom of
opinion, expression, assembly and association. He remains also concerned that the alleged
use of firearms and excessive force by Indonesian law enforcement personnel appears to
target primarily members of indigenous Papuan communities. He urges the authorities to
undertake a thorough and independent investigation into these cases, hold the perpetrators
accountable, and provide remedies to the victims and families of victims. He also wishes to
refer to the joint report on the proper management of assemblies he prepared with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (A/HRC/31/66),
which is particularly relevant to the present situation.
Country visit
307. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending requests to visit
Indonesia, as indicated by his letters on 23 September 2011 and 30 October 2013. He trusts
that such a visit would allow him to examine first-hand issues related to his mandate,
identify good practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders.
He looks forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He
reiterates that Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and
24/5, which renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call upon States to
consider favourably his requests for visits.
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
308. JAL 12/05/2015. Case no. IRN 4/2015. State reply: 04/03/2016. Alleged mass arrest
and harassment of Ahwazi Arabs minorities in Khuzestan Province.
309. JUA 19/05/2015. Case no. IRN 5/2015. State reply: 16/03/2016. Alleged arrest,
detention and unfair trial of human rights defender, Ms. Narges Mohammadi.
310. JAL 05/10/2015. Case no. IRN 17/2015. State reply: None. Alleged custodial death
of a political prisoner in Iran.
311. JUA 29/10/2015. Case no. IRN 20/2015. State reply: 04/03/2016; 16/03/2016.
Alleged arbitrary detention, sentencing to flogging and subjecting human rights activist to
virginity test.
312. JUA 22/01/2016. Case no. IRN 1/2016. State reply: None. Alleged arbitrary
detention, denial of due process and of inadequate medical treatment of a human rights
defender.
313. JUA 01/02/2016. Case no. IRN 2/2016. State reply: None. Alleged arbitrary
detention and denial of adequate medical treatment to an elderly person.
Observations
Responses to communications
314. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Iran for its responses to his
communications of 12 May 2015 (IRN 4/2015), 19 May 2015 (IRN 5/2015) and 29
October 2015 (IRN 20/2015). He regrets, however, that he has not yet received a response
to his other communications sent during the reporting period. He reminds the Government
that he considers responses to his communications as an important part of the cooperation
of governments with his mandate. He looks forward to receiving detailed responses to the
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
49
questions raised in this letter, at the earliest possible convenience, in conformity with
Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010).
315. The Special Rapporteur remains deeply disturbed by allegations that indicate an on-
going trend of criminalization of human rights defenders and political activists exercising
their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, as illustrated by the
aforementioned cases. Moreover, he reiterates grave concern at the reported instances of
unfair trials as well as torture and ill-treatment and lack of access to or inadequate health
care of activists, leading to the death of one political prisoner, while in detention facilities.
316. The Special Rapporteur urges the authorities of Iran to protect and promote the
rights to free association and peaceful assembly. In this regard, he reminds the Government
of Iran of its positive obligation to ensure that civil society, including human rights
defenders and political activists, can carry out their legitimate work free in a safe and
enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of intimidation, harassment or
assassination of any sort.
317. He also wishes to refer to the joint report on the proper management of assemblies
he prepared with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
(A/HRC/31/66), which is particularly relevant to the present situation in the country.
Japan
1. JAL 15/06/2015. Case no. JPN 1/2015. State reply: 27/07/2015. Allegations of the
use of unjustified harassment, excessive use of force and arbitrary arrests against peaceful
protestors in Okinawa, including Mr. Masatsugi Isa, Mr. Hiroj Yamashiro, Mr. Dagakku
Tanimoto, and Mr. Nakasone.
Observations
Response to communication
318. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Japan for its response to his
communication.
319. The Special Rapporteur takes note of the information received in the response from
the Government. He, however, remains concerned about the excessive use of force and
arrests of peaceful demonstrators who sought to protect the biodiverse ecosystem of
Okinawa upon which local communities depend for their livelihoods and their culture. In
this regard, he wishes to refer to the joint report on the proper management of assemblies he
prepared with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
(A/HRC/31/66), which is relevant to the present case.
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
320. JAL 29/05/2015. Case no. LAO 1/2015. State reply: None. Allegations relative to a
new draft Decree on associations and foundations which would not comply with
international law and standards related to the rights to freedom of association and of
opinion and expression, if adopted without further changes.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
50
Observations
Response to communication
321. The Special Rapporteur regrets that he has not yet received a response to his
communication sent during the reporting period, and reminds the Government of the Lao
People’s Democratic Republic that he considers responses to his communications as an
important part of the cooperation of governments with his mandate. He looks forward to
receiving detailed responses to the questions raised in this letter, at the earliest possible
convenience, in conformity with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16
(2012) and 15/21 (2010).
322. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his concern that numerous provisions contained in
the draft Decree do not comply with international human rights law and standards
pertaining to the freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of association, including
the ability for associations to operate freely without State’s undue interference.
323. The Special Rapporteur further reiterates his utmost concern about the
disappearance of human rights defender and land activist Mr. Sombath Somphone in
December 2012. Further to his various communications, press releases and reports to the
Human Rights Council, he urges once again the authorities to shed full light on his
whereabouts, bring the alleged perpetrators to justice, and provide remedies to his family.
324. Overall, the Special Rapporteur urges the authorities of Lao People’s Democratic
Republic to protect and promote the rights to free association and peaceful assembly. In this
regard, he reminds the Government of its positive obligation to ensure that civil society,
including human rights defenders and political activists, can carry out their legitimate work
free in a safe and enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of intimidation,
harassment or assassination of any sort.
Country visit
325. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending requests to visit the
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, as indicated by his letters on 12 December 2011 and 30
October 2013. He trusts that such a visit would allow him to examine first-hand issues
related to his mandate, identify good practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to
relevant stakeholders. He looks forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible
opportunity. He reiterates that Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established
his mandate, and 24/5, which renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call on
States to consider favourably his requests for visits.
Malaysia
326. JAL 18/08/2015. Case no. MYS 3/2015. State reply: 30/03/2016. Alleged violations
of freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly in Malaysia, including the
blocking of the website “Sarawak Report” and harassment of its journalists, as well as the
suspension of two other news outlets and arrest of peaceful protestors.
327. JAL 16/12/2015. Case no. MYS 4/2015. State reply: None. Charges brought against
a woman human rights defender for her role in organising peaceful protests.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
51
Observations
Responses to communications
328. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Malaysia for its response to his
communication of 18 August 2015 (MYS 3/2015), but regrets that he has not yet received a
response to his other communication sent during the reporting period (MYS 4/2015). He
reminds the Government that he considers responses to his communications as an important
part of the cooperation of governments with his mandate. He looks forward to receiving
detailed responses to the questions raised in this letter, at the earliest possible convenience,
in conformity with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21
(2010).
329. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his serious concern about the apparent crackdown
on independent voices in the media, including the blocking of access to material on the
Internet, as well as about the use of the Sedition Act of 1948 to arrest, detain and charge
human rights activists for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of
peaceful assembly, promoting human rights and accountability in Malaysia.
330. He further reiterates his concern about the charges against Ms. Abdullah which he
believes are related to her human rights activism and her exercise of the right to
fundamental freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association.
331. He remains concerns at the continued targeting of members of BERSIH 2.0 despite
previous appeals from various mandate-holders of the United Nations Special Procedures to
your Excellency’s Government to ensure protection and promotion of the rights of the
coalition and its members.
332. In this regard, he wishes to refer to the joint report on the proper management of
assemblies he prepared with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions (A/HRC/31/66), which is highly relevant to the situation in the country.
333. He also reminds the Government of its positive obligation to ensure that civil
society, including human rights defenders, can carry out their legitimate work free in a safe
and enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of intimidation and harassment of
any sort.
Country visit
334. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending requests to visit
Malaysia, as indicated by his letters on 23 September 2011 and 30 October 2013. He trusts
that such a visit would allow him to examine first-hand issues related to his mandate,
identify good practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders.
He looks forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He
reiterates that Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and
24/5, which renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call on States to
consider his requests for visits favourably.
Myanmar
335. JUA 06/03/2015. Case no. MMR 2/2015. State reply: 15/05/2015. Alleged peaceful
assembly of more than 300 security personnel near Aung Myay Bateman monastery, near
to Letpadan in northern Yangon Region on 3 March 2015 in response to approximately 150
students peacefully protesting for amendments to the National Education law.
336. JUA 07/04/2015. Case no. MMR 3/2015. State reply: None. Alleged arbitrary
detention of peaceful protestors against electricity hikes as well as alleged bystanders.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
52
337. JUA 10/04/2015. Case no. MMR 4/2015. State reply: 31/07/2015. Alleged arbitrary
arrest and detention of individuals in relation to peaceful protests.
338. JUA 03/08/2015. Case no. MMR 8/2015. State reply: 14/11/2015. Alleged arbitrary
detention of an activist for interfaith peaceful coexistence.
339. JUA 05/11/2015. Case no. MMR 11/2015. State reply: 11/01/2016. Allegations on
multiple restrictions affecting the enjoyment of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression in advance of the parliamentary election in Myanmar on 8 November.
Observations
Responses to communications
340. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Myanmar for its response to four
of his communications out of five sent during the reporting period. He regrets that he has
not yet received a response to his fifth communication.
341. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges that all the communications sent during the
reporting period concerned the previous State administration. He warmly welcomes the
waves of release of political prisoners, including the students who were peacefully
protesting for amendments to the National Education law.
342. The Special Rapporteur notes the many human rights challenges that need to be
addressed in a meaningful manner, as identified by the Special Rapporteur on the situation
of human rights in Myanmar (A/HRC/31/71). In this regard, he is encouraged by current
efforts towards legislative reform, notably of the Law on the Right to Peaceful Assembly
and Peaceful Procession. He calls on the authorities to ensure that the revised legislation
fully complies with international human rights norms and standards. In this regard, he
stands ready to provide technical assistance as deemed necessary.
343. The Special Rapporteur remains seriously concerned about, inter alia, the human
rights situation in Rakhine State, and the discrimination and persecution suffered by the
Rohingya community. He calls on the new Government to bring positive tangible change in
this regard.
Country visit
344. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending requests to visit
Myanmar, last indicated by letter on 30 October 2013. He trusts that such a visit would
allow him to examine first-hand issues related to his mandate, identify good practices and
formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He reiterates that Human
Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which renewed it
for an additional period of three years, both call upon States to consider his requests for
visits favourably.
Nepal
345. JAL 20/08/2015. Case no. NPL 2/2015. State reply: None. Alleged excessive use of
force by the police to disperse a peaceful protest in Kathmandu, and serious injuries
sustained by several protestors.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
53
Observations
Response to communication
346. The Special Rapporteur regrets that he has not yet received a response to his
communication sent during the reporting period, and reminds the Government of Nepal that
he considers responses to his communications as an important part of the cooperation of
governments with his mandate. He looks forward to receiving detailed responses to the
questions raised in this letter, at the earliest possible convenience, in conformity with
Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010).
347. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his serious concerns about the reported excessive
use of force against peaceful demonstrators by police forces in the dispersing of a peaceful
protest for Dalit human rights. In this regard, he wishes to refer to the joint he report on the
proper management of assemblies he prepared with Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions (A/HRC/31/66), which is highly relevant to the present
case. With reference to the announcement made in August 2015 by the Government of the
establishment of a committee to investigate these allegations, the Special Rapporteur looks
forward to receiving detailed information on any progress made in relation to the
investigations undertaken.
348. More generally, the Special Rapporteur also reiterates his concerns about the
situation of Dalit human rights defenders, including women human rights defenders, who
are most at risk of attacks and retaliation. In this regard, he also reminds the Government of
its positive obligation to ensure that civil society, including human rights defenders, can
carry out their legitimate work free in a safe and enabling environment without fear of
threats or acts of intimidation and harassment of any sort.
Country visit
349. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending request to visit
Nepal, as indicated by his letter on 26 September 2014. He trusts that such a visit would
allow him to examine first-hand issues related to his mandate, identify good practices and
formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks forward to
receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that Human
Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which renewed it
for an additional period of three years, both call on States to consider favourably his
requests for visits.
Pakistan
350. JAL 02/12/2015. Case no. PAK 12/2015. State reply: None. Allegations on the
killing of a Pakistani journalist and human rights activist related to the exercise of his
legitimate rights to freedom of opinion and expression.
351. JUA 25/02/2016. Case no. PAK 4/2016. State reply: None. Alleged arbitrary arrest,
detention and charging of human rights defender.
Observations
Responses to communications
352. The Special Rapporteur regrets that he has not yet received a response to his
communications sent during the reporting period, and reminds the Government of Pakistan
that he considers responses to his communications as an important part of the cooperation
of governments with his mandate. He looks forward to receiving detailed responses to the
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
54
questions raised in these letters, at the earliest possible convenience, in conformity with
Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010).
353. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his grave concern about the killing of Mr.
Mehsud, which illustrates the violent and dangerous conditions facing journalists, media
workers and human rights defenders in Pakistan when exercising their legitimate rights to
freedom of opinion and expression and of association. He urges the authorities to undertake
a thorough and independent investigation into this case, hold the perpetrators accountable,
and provide remedies to the family of the victim.
354. In relation to the case of Mr. Baloch, the Special Rapporteur reiterates his concern
about his arrest, incommunicado detention and charges brought against him, which he
believes are in linked to his legitimate human rights work and peaceful social activism.
Concern is also reiterated in relation to the conditions of his detention, given that neither his
family nor his legal counsel has reportedly been allowed to visit the detainee. He urges the
authorities to release Mr. Baloch without delay.
355. More generally, the Special Rapporteur urges the Government to ensure that civil
society, including human rights defenders, can carry out their legitimate work free in a safe
and enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of intimidation, harassment or
assassination of any sort.
Country visit
356. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending requests to visit
Pakistan, as indicated by his letter sent in September 2011 and October 2013. He trusts that
such a visit would allow him to examine first-hand issues related to his mandate, identify
good practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks
forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that
Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which
renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call on States to consider favourably
his requests for visits.
Philippines
357. JAL 15/06/2015. Case no. PHL 3/2015. State reply: None. Alleged surveillance of
the Southern Mindanao office of the Alliance for the Advancement of People's Rights
(Karapatan) and the intimidation of its members.
Observations
Response to communication
358. The Special Rapporteur regrets that he has not yet received a response to his
communication sent during the reporting period, and reminds the Government of the
Philippines that he considers responses to his communications as an important part of the
cooperation of governments with his mandate. He looks forward to receiving detailed
responses to the questions raised in these letters, at the earliest possible convenience, in
conformity with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21
(2010).
359. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his concern at the surveillance and intimidation of
the members of Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights (Karapatan), as well as
the surveillance on their office, which he believes are linked to their peaceful and legitimate
human rights activities and the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and
association.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
55
360. He reminds the Government of its positive obligation to ensure that civil society,
including human rights defenders, can carry out their legitimate work free in a safe and
enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of intimidation and harassment of any
sort.
Country visit
361. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending requests to visit the
Philippines, as indicated by his letter sent in September 2011 and October 2013. He trusts
that such a visit would allow him to examine first-hand issues related to his mandate,
identify good practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders.
He looks forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He
reiterates that Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and
24/5, which renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call on States to
consider favourably his requests for visits.
Republic of Korea
362. JUA 11/06/2015. Case no. KOR 2/2015. State reply: 01/02/2016. Alleged excessive
use of force and detention of protestors and human rights activists during peaceful protests
commemorating the Sewol ferry accident and during the Labour Day march.
363. JAL 20/11/2015. Case no. KOR 3/2015. State reply: 20/05/2016 (link not yet
available). Denial of entry and deportation of a human rights defender which impeded his
attendance at an international civil society event.
Observations
Responses to communications
364. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of the Republic of Korea for its
response to his communications.
365. He refers to his report on his visit to the Republic of Korea undertaken from 20 to 29
January 2016 (A/HRC/32/36/Add.2) for an assessment of the situation of the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the country.
Singapore
366. JAL 30/10/2015. Case no. SGP 2/2015. State reply: 24/12/2015, 24/03/2016.
Alleged charges against a human rights defender and blogger for exercising her right to
freedom of peaceful assembly.
Observations
Response to communication
367. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Singapore for its response to his
communication.
368. The Special Rapporteur takes note of the information received in the two responses
from the Government, including the information provided to the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights defenders. He, however, remains concerned about the trial opened
against Ms. Han Hui Hui and her fellow protestors on charges which appear to be solely
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
56
based on their efforts to promote and protect human rights and on their legitimate exercise
of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of opinion and expression.
369. He wishes to refer to the joint report on the proper management of assemblies he
prepared with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
(A/HRC/31/66), which is highly relevant to the present case.
Thailand
370. JUA 27/05/2015. Case no. THA 5/2015. State reply: 02/06/2015. Alleged killing
and attempted killing of former detainees charged with security-related offenses in
Thailand, including three members of the Justice for Peace Network (JOP).
371. JUA 16/07/2015. Case no. THA 7/2015. State reply: 20/07/2015. Alleged arbitrary
detention, prosecution, and trial before a military court of 14 students belonging to the Neo
Democracy Movement (NDM) due to their participation in peaceful protests.
372. JUA 25/02/2016. Case no. THA 9/2015. State reply: 29/02/2016. Alleged charges,
detention and/or convictions of 26 persons in relation to lèse-majesté offences, for having
exercised their right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Observations
Responses to communications
373. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Thailand for its responses to his
communications of 16 July 2015 (THA 7/2015) and 25 February 2016 (THA 9/2015). He
takes note of the acknowledgement made by the Government of his communication of 27
May 2015 (THA 5/2015), and looks forward to receiving substantial information on the
concerns raised in this letter.
374. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his grave concern about the killing of Mr.
Masawee Masalae and the attempted killings of Mr. Torlep Sapa-Ing, Mr. Rorsuwan Bu-
Nae and Mr. Arsae Niseng, as well as the reported failure of the police to protect them and
other persons in a similar situation, and to investigate these acts. Further concern is
reiterated that the attacks appear to target former detainees initially charged with security-
related offenses but subsequently acquitted or released for lack of evidence, in Yala
Province and Pattani Province, in Thailand, including three members of the Justice for
Peace Network (JOP). He urges the authorities to undertake a thorough and independent
investigation into these cases, hold the perpetrators accountable, and provide remedies to
the victims and families of victims.
375. While noting the response of the Government to his letter of 16 July 2015, the
Special Rapporteur reiterates his serious concern that the alleged arbitrary detention,
prosecution, and trial before a military court of the 14 students were linked to their
participation in a series of peaceful protests against the current regime and forced evictions
of rural communities in north-eastern Thailand. He remains concerned about the fact the
students were tried before a military court despite their status as civilians. He stresses that
military tribunals should have jurisdiction only over military personnel who commit
military offences or breaches of military discipline, and only when those offences or
breaches do not amount to serious human rights violations.
376. The Special Rapporteur remains particularly worried about the context in which
restrictions to multiple rights and fundamental guarantees against human rights defenders
and political opponents in Thailand have taken place, following the military coup and
imposition of martial law. He stresses that while the Government does not have to agree
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
57
with the opinions and criticisms expressed by people who embrace different convictions or
beliefs, it has a positive obligation to ensure that civil society, including human rights
defenders and political opponents, can carry out their legitimate work free in a safe and
enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of intimidation and harassment of any
sort.
377. In this regard, he reiterates his disagreement with the rationale behind the use of the
lèse-majesté legislation as a means to protect the rights and reputation of the King of
Thailand and the necessity to uphold national security and public order. He considers that it
does not comply with Thailand’s international human rights obligations, which include the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In that regard, he requests again
further information on the measures taken, in order to repeal or amend the lèse-majesté
laws and to bring domestic legislation into conformity with Thailand’s obligations under
international human rights instruments.
378. The Special Rapporteur wishes finally to refer to the joint report on the proper
management of assemblies he prepared with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions (A/HRC/31/66), which is highly relevant to the present
situation in Thailand.
Country visit
379. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending requests to visit
Thailand, as indicated by his letter sent in September 2011 and October 2013. He trusts that
such a visit would allow him to examine first-hand issues related to his mandate, identify
good practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks
forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that
Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which
renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call upon States to consider
favourably his requests for visits.
Viet Nam
380. JUA 06/01/2015. Case no. VNM 3/2015. State reply: None. Alleged physical
assault, arrest and detention of human rights defenders.
Observations
Response to communication
381. The Special Rapporteur regrets that he has not yet received a response to his
communication sent during the reporting period, and reminds the Government of Viet Nam
that he considers responses to his communications as an important part of the cooperation
of governments with his mandate. He looks forward to receiving detailed responses to the
questions raised in these letters, at the earliest possible convenience, in conformity with
Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010).
382. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his serious concern about the physical assault of
Mr. Nguyen, Mr. Vu, Mr. Ly and Mr. Le by Vietnamese police officers, and that such
attacks appear to be increasingly used in the country as a means of intimidating human
rights defenders to discourage them to exercise peacefully their rights to freedoms of
expression and peaceful assembly to conduct their legitimate activities. He further reiterates
his concern about the arrest and detention of Mr. Nguyen, which appear to be in retaliation
for his cooperation with representatives of the European Union in the context of the annual
EU-Viet Nam human rights dialogue.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
58
383. More generally, the Special Rapporteur expresses grave concern about the increased
persecution of members of civil society who seek to promote and protect human rights, or
voice dissent against the Government, which include physical assaults by the police or by
unidentified individuals. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of its positive
obligation to ensure that civil society, including human rights defenders, can carry out their
legitimate work free in a safe and enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of
intimidation and harassment of any sort.
Country visit
384. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending request to visit Viet
Nam, as indicated by his letter sent in 2014. He trusts that such a visit would allow him to
examine first-hand issues related to his mandate, identify good practices and formulate
pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks forward to receiving a
positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that Human Rights Council
resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which renewed it for an
additional period of three years, both call on States to consider favourably his requests for
visits.
VI. Middle East and North Africa region
385. During the current reporting period, the Special Rapporteur sent 24 communications
to 9 countries in the Middle East and North Africa region.
386. The Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned about the number of cases
addressing allegations of violations of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, and
especially the right to freedom of association of, inter alia, human rights defenders and
individuals expressing opinions of political dissent.
387. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes his concern about the various legal and illegal
measures used to restrict the rights of civil society and human rights defenders, often for
exercising the rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression in relation to their
legitimate human rights work. Such measures reported have included the use of
disproportionately restrictive legislation, arbitrary arrests, detention, prosecution, travel
bans and torture.
388. The adoption of restrictive legislation, including security and counterterrorism
legislation may have a significant impact that disproportionately restricts the right to
freedom of association of civil society and human rights defenders and is of increasing
concern in this region. The Special Rapporteur urges States to ensure that all new
legislation and amendments adopted are compliant with the fundamental rights to freedom
of peaceful assembly and association, in accordance with the International Convention on
Civil and Political Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Arab
Charter.
389. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that although the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly and association is not absolute, any restrictions must be compliant with
international human rights law, which provides that any limitations must be proportionate
and a necessary response to a pressing social need. The Special Rapporteur urges States to
implement and promote the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association in
practice in the region.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
59
Algeria
390. JUA 22/12/2015. Case No. DZA 3/2015. State reply: 22/03/2016. Allégations de
détention arbitraire et harcèlement judiciaire d’un journaliste et défenseur des droits de
l’homme.
Observations
Réponse à la communication
391. Le Rapporteur spécial remercie le Gouvernement algérien de sa réponse à sa
communication.
392. Il note qu’une information judiciaire a été ouverte par le tribunal d’El Bayadh contre
M. Bourras pour incitation des citoyens à la désobéissance civile, à la rébellion contre
l’autorité de l’Etat, outrage au Président de la République. Le juge d’instruction a procédé à
sa mise en détention provisoire. Il a par la suite prononcé le 17 janvier 2016 un non-lieu au
sujet des charges criminelles (incitation des citoyens à la désobéissance civile et à la
rébellion contre l’autorité de l’Etat), ce que le Rapporteur spécial note avec satisfaction. En
revanche, il a retenu la charge d’outrage au Président de la République. Le non-lieu a fait
l’objet d’un appel par le Parquet territorialement compétent, conduisant à la remise en
liberté de M. Bourras. Le 28 février 2016, la chambre d’accusation a infirmé la décision du
juge d’instruction, demandant la poursuite de l’enquête pénale, ce que le Rapporteur spécial
déplore. Il réitère ses préoccupations quant au fait que l’arrestation et les poursuites
engagées contre M. Bourras semblent être liées à ses activités légitimes et pacifiques en
faveur de la défense des droits et à l’exercice de son droit à la liberté d'opinion et
d'expression. Il exhorte les autorités compétentes à cesser toutes poursuites contre celui-ci.
393. Eu égard aux nombreuses informations qu’il reçoit régulièrement faisant état
d’arrestation et de détention, souvent pour une courte durée, de militants associatifs ou
syndicalistes, au cours de manifestations, le Rapporteur spécial réitère de sérieuses
préoccupations quant à l’intégrité physique et psychologique de celles et ceux exerçant
leurs droits à la liberté d’association et de réunion pacifique en Algérie. Il appelle les
autorités à prendre des mesures positives pour protéger les acteurs associatifs et
syndicalistes afin qu’ils puissent exercer leurs activités sans risque d’être exposés à des
menaces, représailles, intimidations ou actes de harcèlement.
394. Plus généralement, il appelle les autorités à prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires
pour assurer la mise en place d’un dialogue authentique avec les associations et les
syndicats, y compris ceux critiques à l’égard du Gouvernement, dans la mesure où ils
constituent des acteurs essentiels permettant aux autorités de prendre connaissance,
d’appréhender et de traiter des aspirations et revendications de la population.
Visite de pays
395. Le Rapporteur spécial rappelle au Gouvernement ses demandes de visite formulées
en 2011 et 2013. Il est convaincu qu’une visite du pays lui permettrait de mieux
comprendre le contexte dans lequel le droit de réunion pacifique et d’association y est
exercé et d’engager un dialogue constructif avec le Gouvernement sur ces questions. A la
lumière des résolutions 15/21 et 24/5 du Conseil des droits de l’homme qui appellent les
Etats à répondre favorablement aux demandes de visite, il espère recevoir prochainement
une réponse positive du Gouvernement.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
60
Bahrain
396. JUA 27/11/2015. Case no. BHR 9/2015. State reply: 12/12/2015. Alleged arbitrary
detention and prosecution of the Secretary General of the main opposition political party in
Bahrain, Al-Wefaq National Islamic Society, and a well-known religious figure in the
country.
397. PR 16/07/2015. “Bahrain: Freed from jail, now all charges against Nabeel Rajab
must be dropped”
Observations
Responses to communications
398. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Bahrain for its reply to the
communication sent during this reporting period.
399. Regarding the case of Mr. Sheikh Ali al Salman, the Secretary General of the main
opposition party in Bahrain, the Al-Wefaq National Islamic Society, and a well-known
religious figure in the country (BHR 9/2015), the Special Rapporteur reiterates his serious
concerns from his last Observations Report (A/HRC/29/25/Add.3, para. 504). The history
of the targeting of Sheikh Ali al Salman and most recently, his sentencing to two years’
imprisonment for his dissenting views and the exercise of his rights to freedom of
association and freedom of opinion and expression, remain of serious concern.
400. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Bahrain for the information
provided about the conviction of Sheikh Al Salman and his appeal, which was delayed.
However, the Special Rapporteur urges the Government of Bahrain to implement the
Opinion of the Working Group of Arbitrary Detention, which concludes that Sheikh Al
Salman is arbitrarily deprived of his liberty and calls for his release
(A/HRC/WGAD/2015/23, para. 42). The Special Rapporteur would also appreciate
additional information about the appeal of Sheikh Al Salman’s sentence, which was
delayed in late 2015.
401. In relation to the case of human rights defender, Mr. Nabeel Rajab, the Special
Rapporteur acknowledged his release on bail for health reasons and called on the
Government to drop the charges against him (PR 16/07/2015). Mr. Rajab was detained and
charged for exercising his right to freedom of expression on the social media platform,
Twitter and was previously subjected to reprisals.
402. The Special Rapporteur takes this opportunity to remind the Government that the
term “association” denotes “any groups of individuals or any legal entities brought together
in order to collectively act, express, promote, pursue or defend a field of common interests”
and that the term refers to, among others, “civil society organizations, clubs, cooperatives,
NGOs, religious associations, political parties, trade unions, foundations or even online
associations” (A/HRC/20/27, paras. 51 and 52). He urges the Government of Bahrain to
promote and protect the right to freedom of association to everyone in Bahrain, including
those exercising their right to express opinions of political dissent.
Country visit
403. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of Bahrain of his pending requests
to visit Bahrain, as indicated by his last letters of 2 September 2011 and 30 October 2013.
He trusts that such a visit would allow him to examine first-hand issues relating to his
mandate, identify good practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant
stakeholders. He looks forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible
opportunity. He reiterates that Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
61
his mandate, and 24/5, which renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call on
States to consider favourably his requests for visits.
Egypt
404. JAL 13/04/2015. Case no. EGY 4/2015. State reply: 28/07/2015. Allegations of
charges against a woman human rights defender for witnessing the violent dispersal of a
peaceful protest and the killing of a female activist.
405. JUA 01/06/2015. Case no. EGY 6/2015. State reply: 02/07/2015; 16/08/2015.
Alleged arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment, as well as the denial of medical
treatment of two children.
406. JOL 19/08/2015. Case no. EGY 9/2015. State reply: None. Allegation of undue
restrictions on the right of everyone to freedom of artistic expression under Egyptian
legislation on artistic censorship, and Minister of Culture Decrees.
407. JAL 12/06/2015. Case no. EGY 10/2015. State reply: 18/08/2015. Alleged growing
restrictions on civil society and the increased targeting of human rights defenders in the
context of the implementation of the NGO law and through the use of travel bans.
408. JOL 21/06/2015. Case no. EGY 11/2015. State reply: 05/08/2015. Alleged non-
compliance of the national anti-terrorism draft law with the country’s international human
rights obligations, including a number of provisions of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights.
409. JAL 10/11/2015. Case no. EGY 16/2015. State reply: None. Alleged arrest,
detention and charges to be brought against a journalist and human rights defender.
410. JUA 17/12/2015. Case no. EGY 17/2015. State reply: 02/02/2016. Allegations of
arbitrary arrest, detention, and torture of a peaceful protestor and human rights defender.
411. JUA 08/02/2016. Case no. EGY 1/2016. State reply: None. Alleged arbitrary arrest
and detention of two journalists for the exercise of their right to freedom of expression and
association.
412. JUA 12/02/2016. Case no. EGY 2/2016. State reply: None. Alleged arbitrary arrest,
detention and charges against three human rights defenders for their legitimate human
rights work and the exercise of their rights to freedom of association and freedom of
expression.
413. JAL 23/02/2016. Case no. EGY 3/2016. State reply: None. Alleged attempt to
arbitrarily close a human rights organisation in violation of the rights to freedom of
association and freedom of expression.
Observations
Responses to communications
414. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Egypt for its replies and urges it
to respond to the grave allegations contained in the letters sent on 8 February 2016 (EGY
1/2016), 12 February 2016 (EGY 2/2016) and 23 February 2016 (EGY 3/2016), as soon as
possible.
415. He recalls the importance of responding to his communications as part of the
Government’s cooperation with his mandate, in accordance with Human Rights Council
resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010). In the absence of information to
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
62
the contrary, the Special Rapporteur concludes that there is substance in the allegations
presented in his communications.
416. The Special Rapporteur expresses grave concern about the pattern of increasing
violence and restrictions on civil society and human rights organisations in Egypt during
this period, including human rights defenders involved in peaceful protests. He strongly
reiterates his call for the Government of Egypt to fully implement its obligations to protect
and promote the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association in the country, in
accordance with articles 21 and 22 of the International Convention on Civil and Political
Rights, and article 28 of the Arab Charter, ratified by Egypt in 1982 and signed by Egypt in
2004, respectively (A/HRC/29/25/Add.3, para. 145).
417. The Special Rapporteur strongly denounces the killing of Ms. Shaimaa Sabry
Ahmed al-Sabbagh and 20 other individuals during protests on 24 January 2015 (EGY
4/2015). In this context, the Special Rapporteur would appreciate additional information
regarding investigations into the death of Ms. Al-Sabbagh and whether anyone has been
held accountable for her death. He calls on the Government of Egypt to ensure that the use
of force by police and security forces are restricted by the principles of legality, precaution,
necessity, proportionality and accountability, and takes this opportunity to refer the
Government to his recent joint report on the proper management of assemblies
(A/HRC/31/66).
418. In connection with the case of Ms. Azza Soliman, who was a witness of the killing
of Ms. Al-Sabbagh, the Special Rapporteur welcomes her acquittal, as well as that of 16
other defendants on 24 October 2015 (EGY 4/2015). However, he remains seriously
concerned that the charges brought against Ms. Soliman were because of her testimony
concerning the killing of Ms. Al-Sabbagh.
419. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his concern about the targeting of the human
rights defenders and journalists through measures such as arrest, detention, including
lengthy pre-trial detention and judicial procedures. He urges the Government to release
them and to protect their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, as well as
the right to freedom of expression.
420. He welcomes the release of the human rights defender and journalist, Mr. Hossam
Bahgat, on 10 November 2015 (EGY 16/2015). However, he remains seriously concerned
that his arrest, detention and interrogation were as a result of his work for the human rights
organization, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, and the online news site, Mada
Masr. He refers to the PR of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights
defenders and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to
freedom of opinion and expression issued on 11 November 2015.
421. The Special Rapporteur strongly reiterates his concerns in the case of human rights
defender and peaceful protestor, Mr. Mahmoud Mohamed Ahmed Hussein, concerning his
arrest, detention and torture (EGY 17/2015). The Special Rapporteur acknowledges the
short response of the Government of 2 February 2016 and would appreciate detailed
information about any investigation conducted to verify the charges against Mr. Hussein, as
well as the allegations of torture. He expresses grave concern for Mr. Hussein, who has
been in pre-trial detention for over two years, where he remains, reportedly for exercising
his right to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. He urges the
Government to respond to the communication sent.
422. The Special Rapporteur also expresses concern in the case of three members of the
human rights organization, the Belady Foundation, namely Ms. Aya Hegazy, Mr. Mohamed
Hassanein and Ms. Amira Farag, who were arrested, detained and charged (EGY 2/2016),
allegedly for their human rights work. He urges the Government to respond to the
communication sent.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
63
423. Regarding the cases of journalists, Mr. Hisham Ahmed Awad Jafar and Mr. Ismail
Alexandrani, the Special Rapporteur expresses serious concern about the apparent reason
for their arrest and detention is for their work as journalists (EGY 1/2016). He urges the
Government to respond to the communication sent.
424. The Special Rapporteur would like to take this opportunity to reminds the
Government of Egypt of its obligation “to respect and fully protect the rights of all
individuals to assemble peacefully and associate freely, online as well as offline, including
in the context of elections, and including persons espousing minority or dissenting views or
beliefs, human rights defenders, trade unionists and others, including migrants, seeking to
exercise or to promote these rights, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that any
restrictions on the free exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association are in accordance with their obligations under international human rights law”
(A/HRC/RES/24/5, operative para. 2).
NGO Law (84/2002)
425. NGO Law (84/2002) has been utilized arbitrarily against organisations who seek to
carry out peaceful and legitimate human rights activities or express dissenting views. The
Special Rapporteur calls on the Government to end the restrictions, including travel bans
and licensing restrictions, on civil society exercising their right to freedom of association.
426. In the case of the Nadeem Center for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence and
Torture, the Special Rapporteur expresses his serious concern about the “administrative
closing order” issued and attempt to forcibly close the organisation under the NGO Law
(EGY 3/2016). He urges the Government to respond to the communication sent.
427. Regarding the use of travel bans to restrict the movement of human rights activists
to travel abroad (EGY 10/2015), the Special Rapporteur remains concerned in the cases of,
inter alia, Mr. Hossameldin Ali, Ms. Esraa Abdel Fattah and Mr. Ahmed Ghonim of the
Egyptian Democratic Academy, various staff members of the Cairo Institute for Human
Rights Studies, and human rights defender, Mr. Mohamed Lotfy.
428. The Special Rapporteur repeats his calls to the Government of Egypt to review NGO
Law (84/2002) and to bring it into line with international human rights norms and
standards.
Laws and Ministerial Decrees on artistic censorship
429. Several laws and Ministerial Decrees impose severe restrictions on the right to
freedom of artistic expression and the right to freedom of association that go well beyond
the requirements of proportionality and necessity (EGY 9/2015). The instruments of
concern are the Law the censorship of audio-visual materials (Law 430/1955 amended by
Law 38/1992); the Prime Ministerial Decree on the implementation regulation for audio-
visual materials (162/1993); Minister of Culture Decree on censorship of artistic works
(220/1976); and the Law on the Federation of Artistic Syndicates (Law 35/1978).
430. The Special Rapporteur expresses serious concern for the prohibition of artistic
works under these instruments and urges the Government of Egypt to review and amend
these instruments to bring them into compliance with, inter alia, the right to freedom of
association provided under articles 22 and 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, ratified by Egypt in 1982, and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, ratified by Egypt in 1982, respectively.
431. Under the Law on the Federation of Artistic Syndicates (Law 35/1978), the Special
Rapporteur is concerned that artists may be imprisoned for not joining the relevant
professional syndicate (acting, film production, music) or obtaining a temporary work
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
64
permit, if they produce, participate in, or disseminate or exhibit their art. He reiterates that
“an important component of the right to freedom of association is that no one may be
compelled to belong to an association… This aspect is particularly relevant for unions or
political parties since a direct interference in their membership may jeopardize their
independence” (A/HRC/20/27, para. 55).
Draft Anti-terrorism Law
432. A number of draft amendments to the Egyptian anti-terrorism law were introduced
that undermine several fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly and association (EGY 11/2015). The Special Rapporteur acknowledges the
lengthy reply from the Government. However, he expresses serious concern about the
broad definition of “terrorism” and “terrorist acts” solely based on the goals of the
organisation, which may result in the criminalization of organisations without factual
evidence established by an independent judicial body.
433. The Special Rapporteur calls upon the Government of Egypt to “strictly and
narrowly define the offence of terrorism in line with international law” and to “ensure that
any restrictions on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are
prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society, and proportionate to the aim pursued,
and do not harm the principles of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. Any
restrictions should be subject to an independent, impartial, and prompt judicial review”
(A/HRC/20/27, para. 84).
Israel
434. JUA 08/12/2015. Case no. ISR 9/2015. State reply: None. Alleged arbitrary
detention and acts of intimidation, including death threats, against members of a human
rights organization.
Observations
Response to communication
435. The Special Rapporteur regrets that he has not yet received a response to his
communication sent on 8 December 2015 (ISR 9/2015) and reminds the Government of
Israel that he considers responses to his communications as an important part of the
cooperation of Governments with his mandate.
436. He calls upon States to cooperate fully with and assist him in the performance of his
mandate, in compliance with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012)
and 15/21 (2010). In the absence of information to the contrary, the Special Rapporteur
concludes that there is substance in the allegations presented in his communications.
437. In connection with the members of the human rights organization, Youth Against
settlements, the Special Rapporteur reiterates his serious concern about their arbitrary
detention and acts of intimidation, including death threats, against its members (ISR
9/2015). He reminds the Government of Israel of its negative obligation not to obstruct the
exercise of the right to freedom of association and its positive obligation to ensure that civil
society, including human rights defenders, can carry out their legitimate work free from
undue restrictions.
438. He calls on the Government of Israel to cooperate with his mandate and all of the
other Special Procedures mandates in accordance with its international obligations.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
65
Kuwait
439. JAL 17/04/2015. Case no. KWT 2/2015. State reply: 28/04/2015; 18/05/2015;
05/06/2015; 28/09/2015. Alleged arbitrary arrest, temporary detention and charges brought
against a human rights defender, as well as an alleged act of reprisal for his cooperation
with the United Nations.
440. JAL 13/08/2015. Case no. KWT 5/2015. State reply: 14/09/2015. Allegations of
arrest and imprisonment of an individual related to the exercise of his legitimate rights to
freedom of expression and opinion and freedom of association.
441. JAL 17/12/2015. Case no. KWT 7/2015. State reply: 11/02/2016. Allegations of
sentencing and action taken to revoke the citizenship of a human rights defender and
journalist.
Observations
Responses to communications
442. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Kuwait for responding to all the
communications sent during this reporting period. He is grateful for the cooperation
extended to the mandate, in compliance with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5
(2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010).
443. The recent cases in the State of Kuwait suggest that the space for the exercise of the
rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression and opinion by civil society,
including political dissent, in the country is restricted. Particularly, the criminalization of
criticism of the Government or political leadership, including under article 25 of the Penal
Code of Kuwait, which has been used in this regard.
444. In connection with the cases of the former representative of the People’s Assembly
of the State of Kuwait, Mr. Musallam Al-Barrak, and the human rights defender, Mr.
Fairouz Abdullah Abd al-Kareem, the Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its
detailed replies of 14 September 2015 and 11 February 2016, respectively (KWT 5/2015
and KWT 7/2015). However, the Special Rapporteur reiterates his serious concern that the
arrest, detention and conviction of Mr. Al-Barrak and Mr. Al-Kareem are related to the
exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and opinion and freedom of association in
light of alleged criticism of the Emir of Kuwait.
445. Regarding the case of Mr. Nawaf al-Hendal, the Special Rapporteur welcomes his
acquittal and that of 10 other defendants on 1 March 2016 (KWT 2/2015). However, he
remains seriously concerned that his prior arrest, detention and the charges issued against
him were acts of intimidation and reprisal in response to his work at the UN Human Rights
Council and monitoring protests in the country. He reminds that international law provides
for a right to unhindered access to and communication with international bodies on matters
of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This right is derived from the human rights to
freedom of expression, association, assembly and movement contained in international
human rights instruments and in customary international law. The right to unhindered
access to and communication with international bodies is also explicitly recognised in the
Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and is codified in specific provisions applying to
certain UN human rights treaty bodies. Enjoyment of this right implies that those accessing
or attempting to access or communicate with these bodies should not face any form of
intimidation of reprisal for doing so. The Special Rapporteur urges the Government of
Kuwait to respect these rights and to refrain from any reprisals against persons or
organisations engaging with the United Nations within the field of human rights.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
66
446. The Special Rapporteur takes this opportunity to restate that the term “association”
denotes “any groups of individuals or any legal entities brought together in order to
collectively act, express, promote, pursue or defend a field of common interests” and that
the term refers to, among others, “civil society organizations, clubs, cooperatives, NGOs,
religious associations, political parties, trade unions, foundations or even online
associations” (A/HRC/20/27, paras. 51 and 52). He also reminds the Government of Kuwait
of its negative obligation not to obstruct the exercise of the right to freedom of association
and its positive obligation to ensure that civil society can carry out their legitimate work
free from undue restrictions online as well as offline (A/HRC/RES/24/5, operational para.
2).
Morocco
447. JAL 04/05/2015. Case no. MAR 2/2015. State reply: 28/08/2015. Allégations de
diverses restrictions au droit de réunion pacifique et d’association d’une organisation de
défense des droits de l’homme.
448. JAL 23/07/2015. Case no. MAR 5/2015. State reply: None. Allégations concernant
des entraves administratives restreignant les activités d’associations marocaines œuvrant
pour la promotion du droit à la vie privée et des mesures d’intimidation exercées à
l’encontre des défenseurs des droits de l’homme.
449. JAL 03/08/2015. Case no. MAR 6/2015. State reply: None. Allégations d’actes
d’intimidations et de harcèlement contre des défenseurs des droits de l’homme et d’autres
individus exerçant leur droit à la liberté d’association et de réunion pacifique au Sahara
occidental.
Observations
Réponses aux communications
450. Le Rapporteur spécial remercie le Gouvernement du Maroc pour sa réponse datée du
28 août 2015 à sa communication MAR 2/2015. Il regrette cependant de ne pas avoir reçu
de réponse à ses deux autres lettres. Il considère les réponses à ses communications comme
faisant partie intégrante de la coopération des gouvernements avec son mandat, selon les
résolutions du Conseil des droits de l’homme 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) et 15/21 (2010) et
invite de ce fait les autorités à fournir dès que possible des réponses détaillées aux
préoccupations soulevées dans ses communications.
451. Le Rapporteur spécial note les informations fournies par le Gouvernement quant à la
protection du droit à la liberté de réunion pacifique dans la législation marocaine. Le
Rapporteur demeure néanmoins préoccupé par une tendance de restrictions de ce droit et du
droit à la liberté d’association, notamment d’entraves visant des associations, ainsi que des
défenseurs des droits de l’homme. Il souhaite faire référence au rapport conjoint qu’il a co-
écrit avec le Rapporteur spécial sur les exécutions extrajudiciaires, sommaires ou arbitraires
sur la bonne gestion des rassemblements (A/HRC/31/66). Ce rapport contient de
nombreuses recommandations qui sont pertinentes quant à la situation dans le pays.
452. Le Rapporteur spécial réitère son inquiétude quant aux actes d’intimidation et de
harcèlement de défenseurs des droits de l’homme et d’individus au Sahara occidental, par
des autorités de l’Etat. Il demeure préoccupé au sujet de la situation difficile dans laquelle
les défenseurs des droits de l’homme tentent d’exercer leurs droits à la liberté d’association
et de réunion pacifique, ainsi que leur droit à la liberté d’expression au Sahara occidental.
453. Le Rapporteur spécial appelle les autorités à prendre toutes les mesures adéquates,
notamment de nature législatives, pour assurer que les citoyens puissent exercer leurs droits
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
67
à la liberté d’association et de réunion pacifique dans un environnement favorable leur
permettant de mener à bien leurs activités sans risque d’être exposés à des menaces,
représailles, intimidations ou actes de harcèlement.
Visite de pays
454. Le Rapporteur spécial rappelle au Gouvernement du Maroc ses demandes de visite
formulées en 2011 et 2013. Il est convaincu qu’une visite du pays lui permettrait de mieux
comprendre le contexte dans lequel le droit de réunion pacifique et d’association y est
exercé et d’engager un dialogue constructif avec le Gouvernement sur ces questions. A la
lumière de l’esprit des résolutions 15/21 et 24/5 du Conseil des droits de l’homme qui
appelle les Etats à répondre favorablement aux demandes de visite, il espère recevoir une
réponse positive du Gouvernement.
Oman
455. JUA 27/03/2015. Case no. OMN 2/2015. State reply: None. Alleged acts of
intimidation and reprisal, in the form of a travel ban, against an Omani human rights
defender and blogger for his cooperation with the Special Rapporteur on the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.
Observations
Response to communication
456. The Special Rapporteur regrets that he has not yet received a response to his
communication sent on 27 March 2015 (OMN 2/2015) and reminds the Government of
Oman that he considers responses to his communications as an important part of the
cooperation of Governments with his mandate.
457. He calls upon States to cooperate fully with and assist him in the performance of his
mandate, in compliance with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012)
and 15/21 (2010). In the absence of information to the contrary, the Special Rapporteur
concludes that there is substance in the allegations presented in his communications.
458. In connection with the case of Mr. Mohammed Al-Fazari, the Special Rapporteur
condemns the travel ban issued as an act of intimidation and reprisal against Mr. Al-Farzari
for his cooperation with the Special Rapporteur during his country visit to Oman between 8
and 13 September 2014. He strongly regrets that the Government of Oman has not replied
to this communication and he reminds the Government of its international obligation to
cooperate with the mandate.
459. The Special Rapporteur takes the opportunity to call on the Government of Oman to
implement the recommendations made in his country visit report, including to ensure that
no one be criminalized for exercising their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association, or subjected to threats or use of violence, harassment, persecution, intimidation
or reprisals; as well as to adopt a new law on associations that complies with international
human rights standards, including the right to freedom of association without delay
(A/HRC/29/25/Add.1, para.70).
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
68
Saudi Arabia
460. JUA 19/10/2015. Case no. SAU 8/2015. State reply: None Alleged torture and
imminent execution of a child without access to a fair trial and due process guarantees for
participating in anti-Government protests.
461. JUA 11/12/2015. Case no. SAU 11/2015. State reply: None Alleged arbitrary
convictions and sentences, including public flogging, of two bloggers and human rights
defenders upheld on appeal for the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and
freedom of association.
Observations
Responses to communications
462. The Special Rapporteur regrets that he has not yet received responses to his
communications sent on 19 October 2015 (SAU 8/2015) and 11/12/2015 (SAU 11/2015).
He reminds the Government of Saudi Arabia that he considers responses to his
communications as an important part of the cooperation of Governments with his mandate.
463. He calls upon States to cooperate fully with and assist him in the performance of his
mandate, in compliance with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012)
and 15/21 (2010). In the absence of information to the contrary, the Special Rapporteur
concludes that there is substance in the allegations presented in his communications.
464. In connection with the case of the juvenile, Mr. Dawood Hussain Al-Marhoon, who
was subjected to excessive force during protests, was detained, tortured and sentenced to
death, the Special Rapporteur sincerely regrets that the Government of Saudi Arabia has not
replied to the Joint Urgent Appeal sent on 19 October 2015 (SAU 8/2015). He urges the
Government to take all necessary measures to halt the execution of Mr. Al-Marhoon, which
constitute an arbitrary execution.
465. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of Saudi Arabia that minority
groups, such as children, are persons most at risk of discrimination, unequal treatment and
harassment in the context of the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association (A/HRC/26/29). He takes this opportunity to remind the Government to ensure
that any system of prior notification gives effect to the presumption in favour of assemblies,
places narrow limits on the discretion of authorities to restrict assemblies, and incorporates
a proportionality assessment (A/HRC/31/66, para. 28(a)).
466. Regarding the case of two human rights defenders and bloggers, Mr. Raef Badawi
and Mr. Miklif bin Daham al Shammari, the Special Rapporteur strongly condemns their
sentences to imprisonment and public flogging for their work and the exercise of their right
to freedom of association.
467. He reminds the Government of Saudi Arabia of its obligation “to respect and fully
protect the rights of all individuals to assemble peacefully and associate freely, online as
well as offline, including in the context of elections, and including persons espousing
minority or dissenting views or beliefs, human rights defenders, trade unionists and others,
including migrants, seeking to exercise or to promote these rights, and to take all necessary
measures to ensure that any restrictions on the free exercise of the rights to freedom of
peaceful assembly and of association are in accordance with their obligations under
international human rights law” (A/HRC/RES/24/5, operative para. 2).
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
69
Tunisia
468. JOL 24/07/2015. Case no. TUN 1/2015. State reply: None. Non-conformité
présumée de divers articles d’un projet de loi organique relatif à la lutte contre le terrorisme
et à la répression du blanchiment d’argent avec un certain nombre de dispositions du Pacte
international relatif aux droits civils et politiques.
Observations
Réponses aux communications
469. Le Rapporteur spécial regrette de ne pas avoir reçu de réponse à sa lettre du 24
juillet 2015. Il considère les réponses à ses communications comme faisant partie intégrante
de la coopération des gouvernements avec son mandat, selon les résolutions du Conseil des
droits de l’homme 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) et 15/21 (2010) et invite de ce fait les autorités
à fournir dès que possible des réponses détaillées aux préoccupations soulevées dans ses
communications.
470. Le Rapporteur spécial réitère sa vive préoccupation quant à la législation relative à
la lutte contre le terrorisme et à la répression du blanchiment d’argent, qui pourrait donner
lieu à un usage abusif pour restreindre les libertés fondamentales des citoyens, notamment à
cause d’une définition trop large du terme « terrorisme ». Il souhaite rappeler au
Gouvernement que toute mesure visant à lutter contre le terrorisme et à préserver la sécurité
nationale doit être conforme aux obligations de l’Etat au titre du droit international,
notamment le droit international des droits de l’homme. Les mesures doivent répondre aux
critères de nécessité et de proportionnalité et ne doivent pas entraver les activités et la
sécurité des individus, des groupes et des organes de la société qui œuvrent à la promotion
et à la défense des droits de l’homme.
Visite de pays
471. Le Rapporteur spécial remercie le Gouvernent tunisien de son invitation à effectuer
une visite de pays.
VII. Europe and Central Asia region
472. During the present reporting period, the Special Rapporteur sent 27 communications
to 13 countries in the Europe and Central Asia region. The majority of the communications
concerned disproportionate restrictions on the right to freedom of association and several
others related to draft laws or legislation, which were considered as in breach of the right to
freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
473. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his concern for associations, including human
rights organisations and minority groups, including religious groups, who are subject to
persecution for their work. He highlights the use of measures, such as criminalization,
detention and violence being utilized to restrict the exercise of the right to freedom of
peaceful assembly and association of members of these groups.
474. He also emphasizes the use of legislative measures, including security and
counterterrorism legislation, adopted, which disproportionately restricts the right to
freedom of association of civil society and human rights defenders in the region. The
Special Rapporteur urges States to ensure that all new legislation adopted is compliant with
the fundamental rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, in accordance with
the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, where applicable.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
70
Armenia
475. JAL 03/07/2015. Case no. ARM 1/2015. State reply: 31/08/2015; 06/10/2015.
Alleged excessive use of force by the police to disperse a peaceful demonstration in
Yerevan, and the subsequent arrest and detention of demonstrators, journalists and human
rights monitors.
Observations
Response to communication
476. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Armenia for responding to the
communication sent during this reporting period.
477. In connection with the excessive use of force used to disperse peaceful protestors in
Yerevan, the Special Rapporteur acknowledges the replies of the Government of Armenia
of 31 August 2015 and 6 October 2015 (ARM 1/2015). However, he remains concerned
about the possible use of force by the police and requests that the results of the preliminary
investigation of the criminal case be made publicly available and shared when it is
complete.
478. He calls on the Government of Armenia to ensure that the use of force by police and
security forces are restricted by the principles of legality, precaution, necessity,
proportionality and accountability, and takes this opportunity to refer the Government to his
recent Report on the proper management of assemblies (A/HRC/31/66).
479. Additionally, he reaffirms that while assemblies can be subject to certain
restrictions, which are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, there
should be a presumption in favour of holding peaceful assemblies and prohibitions should
be measures of last resort. In this context, he believes that a swift notification procedure to
hold a peaceful assembly complies better with international standards, whereas other
requirements can result in undue interference (A/HRC/20/27, para.28).
Azerbaijan
480. JAL 29/05/2015. Case no. AZE 2/2015. State reply: 11/09/2015. Alleged pre-trial
detention, charges and sentencing of four human rights defenders as a result of their
legitimate human rights work.
481. JUA 19/08/2015. Case no. AZE 3/2015. State reply: 11/09/2015. Alleged detention
and sentencing of two human rights defenders as a result of their legitimate human rights
work.
482. JAL 31/08/2015. Case no. AZE 4/2015. State reply: 30/10/2015. Alleged murder of
an Azerbaijani journalist and Chairperson of the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and
Safety allegedly for criticizing a footballer on social media.
483. PR 02/06/2015. “Azerbaijani activists must be freed before the Baku 2015 Games –
UN expert”
484. PR 20/08/2015. “Deeply distressing – UN experts condemn latest prison sentencing
of rights defenders in Azerbaijan”
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
71
Observations
Responses to communications
485. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Azerbaijan for responding to all
the communications sent during this reporting period.
486. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the recent release of several prominent human
rights activists. On 17 March 2016, Mr. Rasul Jafarov and Mr. Anar Mammadli were
released as part of a presidential pardon, and no more charges are reportedly pending
against them. On 28 March 2016, Mr. Intigam Aliyev was released after the Supreme Court
decided to convert his 7.5-year prison sentence to a five-year suspended term. On 25 May
2016, the Supreme Court released Ms. Khadija Ismail on a 3.5-year probation with a 2-year
ban on professional activities (she spent 1.5 years in prison). The Special Rapporteur calls
on the authorities to lift this ban.
487. Regarding the case of Ms. Leyla Yunus and Mr. Arif Yunusov, the Special
Rapporteur welcomes the suspension of their sentence and their subsequent release from
detention. However, he remains concerned at the charges that remain outstanding against
them, and the limited nature of their freedom. Furthermore, he remains very concerned for
their health conditions, which are reported to have seriously deteriorated during their period
in detention, with allegations of the failure to provide them with adequate and independent
medical assistance whilst detained.
488. In relation to the case of the journalist, Mr. Rasim Aliyev, the Special Rapporteur
strongly condemns the killing of Mr. Aliyev and acknowledges receipt of the Government’s
reply of 30 October 2015 (AZE 4/2015). He expresses grave concern that Mr. Aliyev was
killed for his journalism and for exercising his right to freedom of association and freedom
of expression and opinion. The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by
the Government in relation to the ongoing investigation into Mr. Aliyev’s killing and would
appreciate an update on the outcome of the investigation, including whether anyone has
been held accountable for his killing.
489. The Special Rapporteur remains serious concerned about several dozens of
individuals still in detention because of the exercise of their rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and/or association. He urges the authorities to release them without delay, drop all
outstanding charges against them and lift all the restrictions imposed on them. He further
urges the authorities to bring its legislation regulating the operations of, and use of foreign
funds by, NGOs in compliance with international human rights norms and standards.
490. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of Azerbaijan of its
positive obligation to ensure that civil society, including human rights defenders and
political activists, can carry out their legitimate work free in a safe and enabling
environment without fear of threats or acts of intimidation, harassment or assassination of
any sort.
Country visit
491. The Special Rapporteur thanks again the Government of Azerbaijan for its
invitation, and hopes to be able to undertake a visit in September 2016.
France
492. JOL 28/12/2015. Case no. FRA 7/2015. State reply: 26/02/2016. Analyse de la loi n°
2015-1556 du 30 novembre 2015 relative aux mesures de surveillance des communications
électroniques internationales et de la loi n°2015-1501 du 20 novembre 2015 prorogeant
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
72
l'application de la loi n° 55-385 du 3 avril 1955 relative à l'état d'urgence et renforçant
l'efficacité de ses dispositions, au regard des obligations internationales de la France en
matière de droits de l'homme.
Observations
Réponse à la communication
493. Le Rapporteur spécial remercie le Gouvernement français pour sa réponse à la
communication en date du 3 février 2015.
494. Au sujet de la communication envoyée concernant la loi n° 2014-1353 du 13
novembre 2014 en matière de terrorisme, le Rapporteur spécial remercie le Gouvernement
pour l’explication détaillée et substantielle reçue. Néanmoins, il demeure préoccupé par les
effets de cette législation anti-terroriste et ses conséquences sur l’exercice du droit de
réunion pacifique et la liberté d’opinion et d’expression. Il rappelle à l’Etat son obligation
de mener la lutte anti-terroriste dans le respect de ses responsabilités internationales en
matière de droits de l’homme et de veiller à ce que toute mesure prise n’entrave pas les
activités ou la sécurité des individus, des groupes et des organes de la société qui œuvrent à
la promotion et à la défense des droits de l’homme.
Italy
495. JUA 28/08/2015. Case no. ITA 4/2015. State reply: None. Allegations of the arrest
of a lawyer and human rights defender, as well as the imminent risk of his extradition to
Algeria.
Observations
Response to communication
496. The Special Rapporteur regrets that he has not yet received a response to his
communication sent on 28 August 2015 (ITA 4/2015) and reminds the Government of Italy
that he considers responses to his communications as an important part of the cooperation
of Governments with his mandate.
497. In the case of the co-founder and Director of the human rights organization
Alkarama, Mr. Rachid Mesli, the Special Rapporteur welcomes his release following the
ruling by the Turin Court of Appeal. The Court recognised Mr. Mesli's important and
peaceful work in the defence of human rights, as well as the high risk of him facing torture
if he were to be extradited to Algeria. However, he reiterates his concern about the arrest of
Mr. Mesli, and his physical safety and psychological well-being had he been returned to
Algeria (ITA 4/2015). Mr. Mesli was previously been detained incommunicado, beaten,
threatened and convicted of having “encouraged terrorism” in Algeria. He subsequently
received a presidential pardon. After corresponding with victims of human rights violations
in Algeria, he was once again charged with terrorist offences and later sentenced to 20
years imprisonment in absentia by an Algerian court. Whilst travelling to Italy with his
family for a holiday in August 2015, Mr. Mesli was arrested at the Swiss-Italian border for
three days, after which an Italian judge granted Algeria 10 days to make a request for
extradition.
498. The Special Rapporteur refers the Government of Italy to the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which it is a
party. The Convention that “[n]o State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a
person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
73
in danger of being subjected to torture,” which, in the case of Mr. Mesli would be
reportedly due to his peaceful and legitimate activities in promoting human rights in
Algeria.
499. He refers to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, which provides that “[f]or the purpose of determining whether
there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant
considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a
consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.” Moreover, he calls
on all States, including Italy to take all necessary steps to secure the rights to freedom of
peaceful assembly and association, as per article 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights.
Kazakhstan
500. JUA 02/04/2015. Case no. KAZ 1/2015. State reply: 22/05/2015. Alleged arbitrary
arrest and detention of an environmental civil society activist.
501. JUA 31/08/2015. Case no. KAZ 2/2015. State reply: 12/10/2015. Alleged repeated
arrest and detention of a lawyer and human rights defender for his role in convening a
peaceful assembly and denouncing corruption cases.
502. JAL 06/10/2015. Case no. KAZ 3/2015. State reply: 26/10/2015. Allegations of
potential human rights violations as a result of a draft law relating to the activities of non-
governmental organizations which, if adopted with no further changes, may seriously
compromise the independence and existence of civil society organizations in Kazakhstan.
503. JAL 15/10/2015. Case no. KAZ 4/2015. State reply: 26/10/2015. Allegations of the
imminent adoption of draft law on non-governmental organizations that may result in
violations to freedom of association and freedom of expression.
504. PR 01/09/2015. “UN expert raises alarm as Kazakhstan jails twice a rights defender
for convening a peaceful assembly”
505. PR 15/10/2015. “New draft law threatens the independence and existence of NGOs
in Kazakhstan, warns UN rights expert”
Observations
Responses to communications
506. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Kazakhstan for responding to all
the communications sent during this reporting period.
507. In connection with the case of the human rights defender, Mr. Saken Baikenov, the
Special Rapporteur acknowledges receipt of the Government’s detailed response of 22 May
2015 (KAZ 1/2015). However, the Special Rapporteur remains concerned about arrest,
detention and charges against Mr. Baikenov are in retaliation for his human rights work and
the exercise of his rights to freedom of association and expression.
508. Regarding the case of lawyer and human rights defender, Mr. Ermek Narymbaev,
the Special Rapporteur acknowledges receipt of the Government’s detailed response of 12
October 2015 (KAZ 2/2015). He reiterates his concern about the repeated arrest and
detention of Mr. Narymbaev for his participation in a peaceful rally and the exercise of his
rights to freedom of assembly and association and freedom of expression and opinion (PR
01/09/2015).
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
74
509. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of Kazakhstan of its obligation “to
respect and fully protect the rights of all individuals to… associate freely, online as well as
offline… including human rights defenders… seeking to exercise or to promote these
rights, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that any restrictions on the free exercise
of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are in accordance with
their obligations under international human rights law (A/HRC/RES/24/5, operative para.
2).
Draft amendments to laws on public associations
510. The draft “Law on the introduction of amendments and addenda to several
legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan relating to activities of non-governmental
organizations” makes several amendments to laws regulating NGOs in the country. The
Special Rapporteur is concerned by provisions that may compromise the independence of
civil society organisations, including restrictions on access to funding and requirements to
register information about NGOs on a Government database (KAZ 4/2015).
511. He acknowledges receipt of the Government’s reply and appreciates the efforts of
the Government to bring the law on public associations into line with international norms
and standards. However he concludes that the practices outlined in the draft law appear to
add supplementary bureaucratic obstacles and exacerbate negative perceptions of the role of
associations (PR 15/10/2015). He recalls that the ability for associations to access funding
and resources is an essential and vital part of the right to freedom of association
(A/HRC/20/27, para 67).
512. The Special Rapporteur finally recalls the constructive dialogues during the mission
he undertook in January 2015, and calls on the authorities to implement all the
recommendations he put forward in his country visit report (A/HRC/29/25/Add.2). In this
regard, he remains ready to provide any support the authorities may require to implement
these recommendations.
Kyrgyz Republic
513. JAL 30/07/2015. Case no. KGZ 2/2015. State reply: None. Allegations of increased
targeting of human rights defenders and civil society organisations, by both State and non-
State actors, including in the context of retrogressive draft legislations and amendments, for
their peaceful and legitimate human rights work.
514. JAL 21/09/2015. Case no. KGZ 3/2015. State reply: 18/01/2016. Alleged
persecution against religious minorities in the Kyrgyz Republic, namely the raid and
closure of a Baptist church and the arbitrary detention and torture of Jehovah’s witnesses.
515. JAL 22/12/2015. Case no. KGZ 4/2015. State reply: None. Alleged ban imposed
against a human rights defender from entering the Kyrgyz Republic for her peaceful and
legitimate human rights work.
Observations
Responses to communications
516. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Kyrgyz Republic for its replies
and urges it to respond to the grave allegations contained in the letters sent on 30 July 2015
(KGZ 2/2015) and 22 December 2015 (KGZ 4/2015), as soon as possible.
517. He recalls the importance of responding to his communications as part of the
Government’s cooperation with his mandate, in accordance with Human Rights Council
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
75
resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010). In the absence of information to
the contrary, the Special Rapporteur concludes that there is substance in the allegations
presented in his communications.
Draft Law on Introducing Amendments and Changes to Some Legislative Acts of the
Kyrgyz Republic (“Foreign agents” Law)
518. The Special Rapporteur once again reiterates his concern that the draft Law on
Introducing Amendments and Changes to Some Legislative Acts of the Kyrgyz Republic
(“Foreign agents” Law) may arbitrarily restrict the right to freedom of association and
obstruct the legitimate work of organisations, including human rights organisations, in the
country (KGZ 2/2015). He regrets that the draft “foreign agents” Law was passed by the
parliament in the preliminary reading in early June 2015, despite widespread criticism.
519. The draft law requires non-commercial, non-governmental organisations involved in
“political activities” and receiving funds by foreign sources to register as “foreign agents”.
It permits further control of NGOs and civil society organisations, including human rights
organisations, in the country and criminalises NGOs deemed to “incite citizens to refuse to
fulfil their civic duties” with a sentence of up to three years imprisonment. The Special
Rapporteur expresses grave concern about the potential impact of the law on civil society,
including human rights organisations.
Draft Bill on the formation of a positive attitude toward non-traditional forms of sexual
relations
520. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his grave concerns regarding the draft Bill on the
formation of a positive attitude toward non-traditional forms of sexual relations and regrets
that the Kyrgyz Government has not responded to the communication sent on 30 July 2015
(KGZ 2/2015). The draft Bill may have discriminatory consequences and negative impacts
it could have on the peaceful and legitimate work of human rights defenders. The Bill
would amend several pieces of legislation, including the Law on Peaceful Assembly, and
introduce a range of criminal and administrative sanctions on persons contributing towards
the creation of “a positive attitude toward non-traditional sexual orientation.”
521. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his concern at the detrimental effect of the Bill on
the peaceful and legitimate work of human rights defenders in the Kyrgyz Republic who
are working to protect and promote the rights of the LGBTI community. He reminds the
Government of the Kyrgyz Republic of its obligation to safeguard the human rights of
LGBTI people in accordance with international human rights law based on Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which, in article 1, unequivocally reads: “All human beings
are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (A/HRC/26/29, para. 20). He reminds the
Government of the Kyrgyz Republic of the Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women recommendation, which urges the State to ensure the draft
Bill is not adopted (CEDAW/C/KGZ/CO/4, para. 10(a)), as well as the reports of the
Human Rights Committee regarding violence perpetrated against LGBTI people and a
failure to address such violence (CCPR/C/KGZ/CO/C, para. 9).
522. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his grave concerns about the increased targeting of
human rights defenders and civil society organisations, by both State and non-State actors,
in the Kyrgyz Republic. In particular, he refers to the case of three human rights defenders,
Mr. Dimitry Kabak, Mr. Khusanbay Saliev and Mr. Valerian Vakhitov, and several human
rights organisations; the Human Rights Advocacy Centre, Labrys and Human Rights Watch
(KGZ 2/2015). He regrets that the Government has not responded to the communication
sent. He reiterates his grave concerns about the increased level of harassment against civil
society and human rights defenders in the country.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
76
523. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic of its
obligation “to respect and fully protect the rights of all individuals to… associate freely,
online as well as offline… including human rights defenders… seeking to exercise or to
promote these rights, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that any restrictions on
the free exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are in
accordance with their obligations under international human rights law (A/HRC/RES/24/5,
operative para. 2).
524. In connection with the case of Ms. Mihra Rittmann, the Director of Human Rights
Watch’s Bishkek Office, the Special Rapporteur regrets that he has not received a response
from the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic (KGZ 4/2015). The case concerns a refusal-
of-entry order imposed on Ms. Rittmann for her human rights work, including at Human
Rights Watch. The Special Rapporteur calls on the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic to
respond to the Joint Allegation Letter sent on 22 December 2015 and in addition requests
further information on whether Ms. Rittmann has subsequently been granted access to the
country.
525. In relation to the case of religious minority groups, the Elchilik Jiyini Church and
Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Special Rapporteur acknowledges the reply of the Government of
18 January 2016 (KGZ 3/2015). He requests the Government to provide additional
information about any investigations or inquiries conducted regarding the criminal
prosecutions against Jehovah’s Witnesses or their associations, as well as information on
developments in ongoing cases. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government that
minority groups, such as religious groups, are persons most at risk of discrimination,
unequal treatment and harassment in the context of the exercise of the right to freedom of
peaceful assembly and association (A/HRC/26/29).
526. He recalls that the term “association” denotes “any groups of individuals or any
legal entities brought together in order to collectively act, express, promote, pursue or
defend a field of common interests” and that the term refers to, among others, “civil society
organizations, clubs, cooperatives, NGOs, religious associations, political parties, trade
unions, foundations or even online associations” (A/HRC/20/27, paras. 51 and 52). He
urges the Government to recognize that the rights to both freedom of peaceful assembly and
association play a significant role in the development and survival of meaningful
democratic systems since they allow for an environment where minority or dissenting
views or beliefs are respected and enable dialogue, pluralism, tolerance and
broadmindedness.
527. The Special Rapporteur takes this opportunity to remind the Government of the
Kyrgyz Republic of its positive obligation to ensure to promote a safe and enabling
environment for individuals and groups to exercise their rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly, of expression and of association, recalls that all States have the responsibility in
all circumstances, to promote, respect and protect human rights and to prevent human rights
violations, including extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, arbitrary arrest and
detention, enforced disappearances, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment, and sexual violence (A/HRC/RES/31/37, para. 1).
Country visit
528. The Special Rapporteur thanks again the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic for its
invitation to conduct an official visit to the country.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
77
Moldova (Republic of)
529. JAL 07/12/2015. Case no. MDA 5/2015. State reply: 21/01/2016. Alleged
stigmatization and criminal proceedings against civil society associations and human rights
defenders in direct response to their legitimate and peaceful human rights work in the
Transnistrian region.
Observations
Response to communication
530. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Moldova for responding to the
communication sent during this reporting period.
531. In connection with the criminal proceedings initiated against the human rights
association, Promo-LEX, in the region of Transnistria, the Special Rapporteur notes the
State’s reply of 21 January 2016 (MDA 5/2015). However, he remains concerned about the
situation of human rights organisations in the region and acknowledges the measures taken
by the Government of Moldova in this regard. Additionally, he would appreciate
information about whether a reply has subsequently been received from Political
Representatives in Tiraspol relating to the case and whether there has been any dialogue on
such matters.
532. The Special Rapporteur takes this opportunity to remind the Government of
Moldova that it has a positive obligation to ensure a safe and conducive environment to the
free exercise of the right of association, as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, acceded by the Republic of Moldova on 26 January 1973
(A/HRC/29/25/Add.3, paras. 44, 45 and 46).
Montenegro
533. JOL 02/03/2015. Case no. MNE 1/2015. State reply: 29/04/2015. Alleged fast-
tracked reform of the Public Assembly Act adopted by the Parliament, which allegedly
excessively and disproportionately limits the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and
freedom of expression.
534. JAL 10/12/2015. Case no. MNE 2/2015. State reply: 16/01/2016. Alleged situation
of intimidation and violence against journalists and media outlets, as well as in the context
of protests in the country.
Observations
Responses to communications
535. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Montenegro for responding to all
the communications sent during this reporting period.
Reform of the Public Assembly Act
536. Amendments were made to the Public Assembly Act through a fast-tracked
procedure to address gaps in the law and the Special Rapporteur notes the Government’s
reply of 29 April 2015 in response to concerns of provisions that excessively and
disproportionately limit the rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression (MNE
1/2015). He remains concerned that provisions relating to blanket bans, geographical
restrictions, mandatory notifications and authorizations based on the message of assemblies
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
78
or on traffic flow considerations are intrusive restrictions that exceed the criteria of
necessity and proportionality.
537. The Special Rapporteur takes this opportunity to remind the Government to ensure
that any system of prior notification gives effect to the presumption in favour of assemblies,
places narrow limits on the discretion of authorities to restrict assemblies, and incorporates
a proportionality assessment (A/HRC/31/66, para. 28(a)). Also, he emphasizes that the
“time, place and manner” restrictions should never be used to undermine the message or
expressive value of an assembly or to dissuade the exercise of the right to freedom of
assembly (A/HRC/31/66, para. 34).
538. Regarding the Joint Allegation Letter sent on 10 December 2015 about the
intimidation and violence of journalists and media outlets, including at protests, as well as
measures of arrest and prosecution (MNE 2/2015). The Special Rapporteur notes the reply
of the Government of 16 January 2016. However, he remains concerned about the details of
the individual cases outlined that were not directly addressed in the State’s reply and would
appreciate additional information in this regard. He takes this opportunity to remind the
Government of Montenegro to protect the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association, and freedom of expression and opinion.
539. He reaffirms that the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are
necessary elements for the possible emergence and sustainability of effective democratic
systems. In this regard, States should therefore make every effort to facilitate those rights.
Moreover, he stresses that it is the obligation of States to respect and fully protect the rights
of all individuals to assemble peacefully and associate freely, online as well as offline
(A/HRC/RES/24/5, operational para. 2).
Norway
540. JAL 24/07/2015. Case no. NOR 1/2015. State reply: 22/09/2015. Alleged
investigation of a human rights organization and its President for their peaceful and
legitimate human rights activities.
Observations
Response to communication
541. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Norway for responding to the
communication sent during this reporting period.
542. In the case of the human rights organization, the Global Network for Rights and
Development, and its President, Mr. Loai Deeb, the Special Rapporteur thanks the
Government of Norway for its reply (NOR 1/2015), and looks forward to being kept
informed of all developments about this case.
Russian Federation
543. JAL 06/03/2015. Case no. RUS 1/2015. State reply: 20/05/2015. Alleged killing of a
political opposition leader in Moscow for his peaceful and legitimate political activities.
544. JAL 07/08/2015. Case no. RUS 4/2015. State reply: 16/11/2015. Alleged targeting
and criminalization of environmental human rights defender and the inclusion on the
“foreign agent” list of a human rights organisation in Ozersk, Chelyabinsk region in an
attempt to hinder the work the organisation’s work.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
79
545. JAL 11/11/2015. Case no. RUS 6/2015. State reply: 21/12/2015. Alleged charges
against 16, and sentencing of seven, Jehovah´s Witnesses, as well as the closure of their
local organisations and prohibition on their religious literature for their peaceful religious
activities.
546. JAL 25/02/2016. Case no. RUS 2/2016. State reply: 23/05/2016 (not yet available).
Alleged liquidation of a human rights organization for its legitimate human rights activities.
Observations
Responses to communications
547. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Russia for its replies to all his
communications sent during the reporting period.
Law on Non-commercial Organisations which Carry Functions of Foreign Agents
548. In the case of Ms. Nadezdha Kutepova, director of the human rights organization
Planet of Hopes, the Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its substantial response
of 16 November 2015 regarding the listing of the organization as a “foreign agent” by the
Ministry of Justice and criminalization of Ms. Kutepova (RUS 4/2015). However, he
remains concerned with the listing of associations in the Russian Federation for the reasons
outlined below.
549. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his concerns about the definitions under the Law
on Non-commercial Organizations which Carry Functions of Foreign Agents (the Law) and
restates his concerns from his previous observations report regarding the apparent violation
of fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to freely associate
(A/HRC/29/25/Add.3, paras. 436 and 437). He acknowledges that the provisions of the
Law are based on a presumption that non-profit organizations act fairly and within the law
but remains gravely concerned about the use of such definitions to single out associations
that allegedly carry out political activities and is worried about the targeting of human
rights organizations. In this context, he shares the observation of the Human Rights
Committee that considers the definition of “political activity” in the Law as very broadly
construed, allowing authorities to register a wide range of non-governmental organizations
as “foreign agents”, without their consent or a court decision (CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, para.
22).
550. In this context, the Special Rapporteur warns against justifications for excessive
intrusive methods based on the need for greater transparency within the civil society sector
and emphasizes the highly detrimental impact of such legislation on human rights
organisations. He reminds the State of its a negative obligation not to obstruct the exercise
of the right to freedom of association and its positive obligation to ensure that civil society,
including human rights defenders, in the Russian Federation can carry out their legitimate
work free from undue restrictions. Finally, he calls on the Government to ensure that the
Law and its application are consistent with international human rights law, including the
right to freedom of association, including, inter alia, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights ratified by the Federation of Russia in 1973.
551. In the case of Mr. Boris Nemtsov, a prominent political opposition leader, the
Special Rapporteur notes the response of the Government of 20 May 2015 and strongly
condemns his killing (RUS 1/2015). He restates his request for the authorities to publicly
share the results of the criminal investigation into Mr. Nemtsov’s murder, and any relevant
judicial inquiries. He would also appreciate additional information about how the relevant
investigation body of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation operated in
accordance with international standards of impartiality, effectiveness and independence,
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
80
including in relation to its composition and procedures. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes
that the right to life should be guaranteed by States to all individuals under all
circumstances and at all times, including in the context of the exercise of the rights to
freedom of association, as prescribed by article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
552. Regarding the alleged violations perpetrated against Jehovah’s Witnesses, the
Special Rapporteur is grateful for the State’s reply of 21 December 2015 (RUS 6/2015). He
would appreciate additional information about any investigations or inquiries conducted in
relation to the criminal prosecutions against Jehovah’s Witnesses or their associations in
these cases, as well as information on developments in ongoing cases. He calls on the
Government to ensure that the relevant laws governing religious organisations comply with
international human rights law on freedom of association.
553. He recalls that the term “association” denotes “any groups of individuals or any
legal entities brought together in order to collectively act, express, promote, pursue or
defend a field of common interests” and that the term refers to, among others, “civil society
organizations, clubs, cooperatives, NGOs, religious associations, political parties, trade
unions, foundations or even online associations” (A/HRC/20/27, paras. 51 and 52). He
urges the Government to recognize that the rights to both freedom of peaceful assembly and
association play a significant role in the development and survival of meaningful
democratic systems since they allow for an environment where minority or dissenting
views or beliefs are respected and enable dialogue, pluralism, tolerance and
broadmindedness.
554. The Special Rapporteur takes this opportunity to remind the Government of the
Russian Federation of its positive obligation to ensure to promote a safe and enabling
environment for individuals and groups to exercise their rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly, of expression and of association, recalls that all States have the responsibility in
all circumstances, to promote, respect and protect human rights and to prevent human rights
violations, including extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, arbitrary arrest and
detention, enforced disappearances, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment, and sexual violence (A/HRC/RES/31/37, para. 1).
Country visit
555. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending requests to visit the
country, as indicated by his letter sent in 2011, 2012 and 2013. He trusts that such a visit
would allow him to examine first-hand issues related to his mandate, identify good
practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks
forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that
Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which
renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call upon States to consider
favourably his requests for visits.
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
556. JUA 20/05/2015. Case no. MKD 2/2015. State reply: 30/07/2015; 18/09/2015.
Alleged arbitrary detention and prosecution of a large number of individuals in the context
of peaceful protests in the city of Skopje.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
81
Observations
Response to communication
557. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Macedonia for responding to the
communication sent during this reporting period.
558. Regarding the large number of protestors detained and prosecuted in Skopje, the
Special Rapporteur thanks the Government’s for its detailed responses of 30 July 2015 and
18 September 2015 (MKD 2/2015). However, he expresses concern about the excessive use
of force by police used to disperse the protestors and their subsequent arrest, detention and
the charges issued against them.
559. The Special Rapporteur takes this opportunity to remind the Government of
Macedonia that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly is held by each individual
participating in an assembly and acts of sporadic violence or offences by some should not
be attributed to others whose intentions and behaviour remain peaceful in nature. In this
regard, he refers the Government to his recent report on the proper management of
assemblies (A/HRC/31/66) and stands ready to provide technical assistance to ensure that
the State’s norms comply with international human rights norms and standards governing
the right to freedom of assembly.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
560. JAL 22/12/2015. Case no. GBR 4/2015. State reply: 17/02/2016; 10/03/2016.
Allegedly a number of provisions contained in a draft bill, namely the draft “Investigatory
Powers Bill”, may unduly interfere with the right to privacy, freedom of opinion and
expression, and freedom of peaceful assembly and association, both within and outside the
United Kingdom.
561. PR 11/01/2016. “UK: UN experts urge review of surveillance bill threatening
freedom of expression”
Observations
Response to communication
562. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of the United Kingdom for
responding to the communication sent during this reporting period, in particular the detailed
response of 10 March 2016.
Investigatory Powers Bill
563. In relation to the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill, the draft Bill aims to protect
privacy and security by improving transparency and changing the way investigatory powers
are authorised and overseen. The Special Rapporteur highlighted concerns about overly
broad definitions and disproportionate procedures to authorize surveillance and data
retention in the draft Bill (PR 11/01/2016), as explained in his submission to the Joint
Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill, he notes with appreciation of the
consideration of his submission by the Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers
Bill in its subsequent Report.5
5 UK Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill, Draft Investigatory Powers Bill Report,
(2015-16, HL 93, HC 651).
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
82
564. A number of amendments have subsequently been made to the draft Bill, and the
Investigatory Powers Bill (the Bill) is now before the Parliament. The Special Rapporteur
emphasizes his ongoing concern for the potential impact of the Bill on the right to freedom
of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, and calls on the Government to ensure
that the surveillance and privacy measures in the Bill protect these fundamental rights. In
particular, he expresses concern for the collection of data, in particular of peaceful
protestors and individuals associating online, and how this information may be used. He
calls on the Government to ensure a human rights based approach in the Bill and to increase
the accountability of intelligence services (A/HRC/23/39/Add.1).
Country visit
565. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of the United Kingdom
for inviting him to undertake a follow-up mission, from 18 to 21 April 2016, subsequent
to the country visit he conducted from 14 to 23 January 2013. A full
report on his findings will be presented at the 35th session of the Human Rights Council.
His end-of-visit statement can be found here:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=19854&LangID
=E
Uzbekistan
566. JAL 10/12/2015. Case no. UZB 3/2015. State reply: 12/02/2016. Allegations of
arrest, beatings, judicial investigation and harassment against human rights defender,
allegedly for his legitimate human rights work.
567. JUA 22/12/2015. Case no. UZB 4/2015. State reply: 21/01/2016. Alleged arbitrary
arrest, incommunicado detention and charging of a human rights defender and journalist for
his legitimate human rights work.
Observations
Responses to communications
568. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of the Uzbekistan for responding to
the communications sent during this reporting period.
569. In the case of Mr. Dmitry Tikhonov, a member of the Human Rights Defenders
Alliance of Uzbekistan, the Special Rapporteur reiterates his concern about Mr. Tikhonov’s
arrest, sentencing and detention, including his treatment during detention (UZB 3/2015).
The Special Rapporteur would be grateful for more information concerning the legal
grounds for the detention and sentencing of Mr. Tikhonov and how these measures are
compatible with international human rights norms on the right to freedom of association,
including, inter alia, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He would
also appreciate detailed information regarding the action taken in response to unlawful
actions of officials against Mr. Tikhonov mentioned in the State reply received on 12
February 2016.
570. The Special Rapporteur notes the State reply of 21 January 2016, in the case of Mr.
Uktam Pardayev, chairperson of the Independent Human Rights Society in Uzbekistan. He
restates his concern regarding the arrest, detention and charges against Mr. Pardayev, and
their compatibility with international human rights norms on the right to freedom of
association. He would appreciate further information regarding any investigations or
inquiries conducted in regard to Mr. Pardayev’s trial.
A/HRC/32/36/Add.3
83
571. The Special Rapporteur reminds the authorities of the request from his last
Observations Report (A/HRC/29/25/Add.3, para. 97) and seeks additional information
about the measures taken to ensure everyone in Uzbekistan can exercise the right to
freedom of association and can carry out their peaceful and legitimate human rights
activities without fear of restrictions or criminalization of any sort.
572. In this regard, he reminds the Government of Uzbekistan of its positive obligation to
ensure that civil society, including human rights defenders, can carry out their legitimate
work free in a safe and enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of intimidation
or harassment of any sort.
Country visit
573. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending requests to visit the
country, as indicated by his letter sent in 2011 and 2013. He trusts that such a visit would
allow him to examine first-hand issues related to his mandate, identify good practices and
formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks forward to
receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that Human
Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which renewed it
for an additional period of three years, both call upon States to consider favourably his
requests for visits.
VIII. Other
574. OL 07/12/2015. OTH 10/2015. Reply: None. Alleged stigmatization and criminal
proceedings against a civil society association and its members.
575. OL 23/02/2015. OTH 4/2016. Reply: 23/03/2016. Letter expressing concerns about
Financial Action Task Force’s Recommendation 8 on combating the abuse of non-profit
organizations.
576. PR 13/05/2015. “Discriminated and made vulnerable: Young LGBT and intersex
people need recognition and protection of their rights International Day against
Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia”
577. PR 18/05/2015. “A central role for a civil society is the only way to guarantee
inclusive post-2015 development goals”
578. PR 18/06/2015. “Natural resources sector: UN expert calls for binding human rights
treaty for corporations”
579. PR 22/10/2015. “Statement by United Nations experts on the ECLAC’s negotiation
of a regional instrument on environmental democracy”
580. PR 22/10/2015. “UN experts urge Latin America and the Caribbean to adopt trend-
setting agreement on environmental democracy”
581. PR 27/10/2015. “UN expert: Promote civil society by elevating its treatment to the
same level as business”
582. PR 09/12/2015. “As the Covenants turn 50, it is time to turn norms into action – UN
experts”
583. PR 09/03/2016. “UN experts provide a roadmap to avoid human rights violations
during protests”