33/19 Cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights - Report of the Secretary-General
Document Type: Final Report
Date: 2016 Aug
Session: 33rd Regular Session (2016 Sep)
Agenda Item: Item5: Human rights bodies and mechanisms
GE.16-14150(E)
Human Rights Council Thirty-third session
Agenda items 2 and 5
Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the
High Commissioner and the Secretary-General
Human rights bodies and mechanisms
Cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights*
Report of the Secretary-General
Summary
The present report is submitted pursuant to resolution 12/2 of the Human Rights
Council. The Secretary-General highlights recent developments that have taken place
within the United Nations system and beyond in relation to the issue of reprisals. The
report also contains information gathered between 1 June 2015 and 31 May 2016 on
alleged cases of intimidation and reprisal against those seeking to cooperate,
cooperating or having cooperated with the United Nations, its representatives and
mechanisms in the field of human rights, including in follow-up to cases included in the
previous two reports (A/HRC/27/38 and A/HRC/30/29). It concludes with
recommendations aimed at addressing and preventing all such cases.
* The present report was submitted after the deadline in order to reflect the most recent developments.
ope6
Contents
Page
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
II. Developments in response to acts of intimidation and reprisal ........................................................ 3
III. Ensuring access to the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field
of human rights ................................................................................................................................ 5
IV. Information received on cases of intimidation and reprisal for cooperation with the
United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights ........................... 6
A. Methodological framework ...................................................................................................... 6
B. Summary of cases .................................................................................................................... 7
C. Follow-up information on cases included in previous reports ................................................. 13
V. Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................................. 15
I. Introduction
1. In its resolution 12/2, the Human Rights Council expressed its concern at the
continued reports of intimidation and reprisals against individuals and groups who seek to
cooperate or have cooperated with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms
in the field of human rights and its deep concern at the seriousness of reported reprisals.
The Council condemned all acts of intimidation or reprisal by Governments and non-State
actors and invited me to submit a report to the Council at its fourteenth session and
annually thereafter, containing a compilation and analysis of any available information,
from all appropriate sources, on alleged reprisals as well as recommendations on how to
address the issue. The present report is my seventh based on that resolution.
2. In my previous reports, I have stressed the absolute unacceptability of any act of
intimidation or reprisal, no matter how seemingly subtle or explicit, against individuals or
groups, their family members, legal representation or anyone else with professional or
personal ties to them, for seeking to cooperate, cooperating or having cooperated with the
United Nations in the field of human rights. I reiterate once again that all such acts, which
run contrary to the principle of human dignity and violate numerous human rights, show
complete contempt and disregard for the United Nations system as a whole. Without
exception, all acts of intimidation and reprisal must be halted immediately and
unconditionally, effective remedies provided and preventive measures adopted and
implemented to prevent reoccurrence. I call in particular on States to take immediate action.
II. Developments in response to acts of intimidation and reprisal
3. During the reporting period, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights addressed the issue of reprisals on several occasions. On 14 September 2015, in his
opening statement to the Human Rights Council at its thirtieth session, he mentioned that
some Member States had sought to prevent civil society actors from working with the
United Nations human rights mechanisms, including the Council: “Session after session,
they attempt to bar from accreditation — based on spurious allegations of terrorist or
criminal activity — groups that strive to expose problems and propose remedies”. On
3 May 2016, speaking at an informal gathering on the 2021 implementation agenda for the
Council, the High Commissioner recalled that “it is absolutely essential that victims,
defenders, activists and other civil society groups be empowered to cooperate with and
contribute to the Council’s work without obstruction and fear of reprisals”. He indicated
that the Council’s responses to all such allegations should be strengthened so as to ensure
that they were effectively pursued and addressed.1
4. Over the past year, the President of the Human Rights Council has continued to
draw attention to the issue of reprisals and reiterated the need to ensure safe participation
and involvement of all stakeholders in the work of the Council. The President has
consistently raised cases during Bureau meetings and contacted Member States concerned.
On 16 November 2015, in his statements to the General Assembly and its Third Committee,
the President mentioned that over the course of the year he had been seized of alleged and
verified cases of intimidation and reprisals, and had followed up with concerned States
when required. He stressed the need to implement resolution 24/24, in which the Council
requested the Secretary-General to designate a senior focal point to promote the prevention
1 OHCHR, “Turning international norms into local reality: the 2021 implementation agenda for the
Human Rights Council”, 3 May 2016.
of, protection against and accountability for reprisals and intimidation related to
cooperation with the United Nations in the field of human rights, and added that he was
pleased to note that States from all regions had now expressed their support for the prompt
implementation of the resolution.
5. In his concluding statement at the end of the thirtieth session of the Human Rights
Council, after the appointment of three new special procedure mandate holders, the
President of the Council once again reminded States that individuals and groups should be
encouraged to cooperate with the special procedures mechanism and that reprisals against
those who did so were unacceptable. Furthermore, on 7 December 2015, during the
Council’s organizational session, he expressed his conviction that “it was, is and will
continue to be in our common interest to promote a culture of non-reprisals”.
6. In his closing remarks to the thirty-first session of the Human Rights Council, on
26 March 2016, the President stated that during the session he had received allegations of
intimidation and reprisals and that all such acts were unacceptable and must end.
7. On 13 June 2016, during the opening of the thirty-second session of the Human
Rights Council, the President of the Council stated that acts of intimidation and reprisal
were taking different shapes and that social media, including Twitter, which were widely
used by participants of the Council, may also be misused. In that regard, he referred to
allegations that during the thirty-first session of the Council, a member of a national
delegation had misused social media “to deliver a message that can be construed as a
serious threat against an NGO representative attending the session”. The President had
discussed the matter with the relevant Permanent Representative, who, after conducting a
prompt investigation, acknowledged that the act had been committed by a representative of
the State, albeit not in a professional capacity, and reported that an administrative
reprimand had been issued. The President reiterated that such acts were completely
unacceptable and should be denounced in the strongest terms. He called on everyone to be
extremely vigilant in all cases of potential reprisals and stressed that “social media should
be used to promote and protect human rights and not the opposite”.
8. Several States and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also delivered
statements on the issue of reprisals, during the general debate on human rights bodies and
mechanisms (agenda item 5) at the thirtieth session of the Human Rights Council, during
which they condemned all such acts and asked for a coordinated response. Ghana, speaking
on behalf of a group of 65 States, expressed deep concern at continued reprisals and urged
all States to prevent and refrain from committing such acts. The group welcomed the
increased attention devoted to the issue and stressed that it was high time for the Secretary-
General to appoint the United Nations focal point on reprisals. Ghana also welcomed the
fact that the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights had extended the scope of
the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders in Africa to include
reprisals, and encouraged other regional human rights bodies to take a similar approach.
During the same debate, a representative of the Council of Europe mentioned that acts of
reprisal for cooperating with that body had also been reported and that one of the suggested
actions put forward by stakeholders would be for the Council of Europe to establish an alert
mechanism to address cases of reprisal.
9. As at June 2016, eight out of the ten human rights treaty bodies had adopted the
Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals, known as the “San José Guidelines”. The
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee on the Elimination
of Discrimination against Women had not yet adopted the Guidelines. In September 2015,
in addition to adopting the San José Guidelines, the Committee against Torture had adopted
its own policy on the receipt and handling of allegations of reprisals (CAT/C/55/2). In
November 2015, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment had decided to revise its policy on reprisals in the light
of the adoption of the San José Guidelines. Each of the treaty bodies had also designated a
focal point or rapporteur on reprisals. In the case of the Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women, its bureau serves as the focal point.
10. As part of their enhanced response on reprisals, adopted during their twenty-second
annual meeting, the special procedure mandate holders appointed a focal point on the
matter from among the members of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures. In
addition, the annual report on special procedures presented to the Human Rights Council at
its thirty-first session, for the first time included a separate section on intimidation and
reprisals (A/HRC/31/39, sect. IV). It indicated that the mandate holders had used
communications, public statements, press releases, official reports and meetings with
various stakeholders to express their grave concern at all such acts, which seemed to have
become increasingly severe in nature. Moreover, the Chair of the Coordination Committee,
in introducing the report to the Council on 15 March 2016, stated that acts of intimidation
and reprisal remained undoubtedly of the most serious concern to mandate holders and that
such acts should be seen as not only aimed at preventing or stopping anyone from
cooperating with them, but as an attack against the special procedures system as a whole.
The Chair urged the United Nations to appoint a focal point on reprisals as soon as possible
in order to develop a much needed system-wide and coordinated response.
11. In my previous reports I have stressed that the issue of reprisals needs a consistent
and integral approach. In that context, I welcome the increased cooperation between
international and regional human rights mechanisms, including the issuance of joint press
releases and participation in general debates on the issue of reprisals during the sessions of
the Human Rights Council. The focal point on reprisals for the African Commission on
Human and Peoples’ Rights recently organized a regional consultation with civil society
and experts, which resulted in the development of a road map and a guidance note on the
communications procedure of the focal point on cases of reprisals.2 In the report on its
157th session, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights stated that those who had
participated in the session had been subject to reprisals upon returning to their countries,
adding that “this situation had already come up in the past in some countries, and the fact
that it is happening again is disturbing”.3 It reminded States of article 63 of its rules of
procedure, which provides that States may not carry out reprisals against individuals
cooperating with the Inter-American Commission or their family members. I encourage the
United Nations human rights mechanisms and their regional counterparts to continue to
develop and use existing avenues for cooperation, thereby reinforcing each other’s
messages.
III. Ensuring access to the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights
12. In my previous two reports, I referred to the Committee on Non-Governmental
Organizations, which considers applications for consultative status with the Economic and
Social Council. I would like to highlight again the important role it plays in ensuring that
those organizations can fully participate in the work of the United Nations, including in the
field of human rights (see A/HRC/27/38, para. 8, and A/HRC/30/29, para. 9).
13. On 20 May 2016, in follow-up to concerns expressed earlier over the large number
of deferrals of applications (see A/69/365, paras. 73-74 and 88 (a)), the Special Rapporteur
2 See the intersession report of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders in Africa and Focal
Point on Reprisals to the 57th Ordinary session, 4-18 November 2015.
3 OAS, “IACHR wraps up its 157th session”, 15 April 2016.
on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association sent a letter to the Chair of
the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations in which he raised the case of the Dalit
International Solidarity Network. He expressed concern about the working methods of the
Committee and recommended that it commence a reform process, which should be guided
by the principle that the United Nations functions best when it is accessible to the greatest
diversity of voices possible (see A/HRC/33/32, OTH 16/2016). By letter of 23 May 2016,
the Chair of the Committee expressed his appreciation for the concerns raised by the
Special Rapporteur and his commitment to ensuring that the rules of procedure were
applied in a manner that allowed the body to achieve the purposes for which it has been
created. He indicated that the Special Rapporteur’s letter would be brought to the attention
of all Committee members during its forthcoming session (ibid.).
14. On 30 May 2016, I publicly raised another case in relation to the Committee on
Non-Governmental Organizations, namely that of the Committee to Protect Journalists, and
expressed my deep disappointment that Member States on the Committee had denied it
consultative status. In that regard, I called on Member States to stop restricting NGO
engagement.4 The next day, the High Commissioner echoed my concerns and stated that
“we believe the decision not to allow this well-established NGO to take part in UN
meetings, including those of the Human Rights Council here in Geneva, is unwise, unfair
and arbitrary”, adding that the case was “emblematic of this unfortunate and very negative
trend”.5
15. I would once again like to call on the Committee on Non-Governmental
Organizations to apply the criteria for assessing organizations in a fair and transparent
manner, as they provide an indispensable contribution to the work and very purposes of the
United Nations, in particular to the promotion and protection of human rights.
IV. Information received on cases of intimidation or reprisal for cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights
A. Methodological framework
16. The present report includes information on cases that was gathered from 1 June 2015
to 31 May 2016 and, in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 12/2, contains
information on acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who:
• Seek to cooperate, or have cooperated with, the United Nations, its representatives
and mechanisms in the field of human rights, or who have provided testimony or
information to them
• Avail or have availed themselves of procedures established under the auspices of the
United Nations for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and all
those who have provided legal or other assistance to them for that purpose
• Submit or have submitted communications under procedures established by human
rights instruments, and all those who have provided legal or other assistance to them
for that purpose
4 United Nations “Youth must assume greater responsibility in creating better world for all, says
Secretary-General in remarks to DPI/NGO conference”, 30 May 2016.
5 OHCHR, “Press briefing notes on flogging in Iran, unfair restrictions on NGO access to the UN and
executions in Gaza”, 31 May 2016.
• Are relatives of victims of human rights violations or of those who have provided
legal or other assistance to victims.
17. Information about cases of alleged acts of intimidation and reprisal has been
received in relation to the cooperation of individuals and groups with the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), including its field
presences, the Human Rights Council, the universal periodic review mechanism, the human
rights treaty bodies, the special procedures, the commission of inquiry on human rights in
Eritrea, the United Nations Independent Investigation on Burundi and the International
Labour Organization (ILO).
18. The information received was verified and corroborated by primary and other
sources, and, where available, reference is made to the United Nations documentation and
other United Nations public sources in which the cases included in the present report were
first made public. Responses provided by Governments by the time of finalization of the
present report, whether in writing or orally during sessions of United Nations human rights
mechanisms, are also included. Efforts have been made to follow up on the cases included
in my previous two reports and any additional available information on those cases has
been included within the present report.
19. I would like to stress that the report does not provide an exhaustive list of cases. In
preparing it, the principle of “do no harm” was strictly adhered to and a risk assessment
made for each case received and deemed credible. As a result, it was decided not to include
those cases in which the risk to the safety and well-being of the individuals concerned, or
their family members, was deemed too high.
B. Summary of cases
1. Australia
20. On 25 September 2015, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants,
following a series of discussions with the Government, announced the postponement of his
official visit to Australia owing to protection concerns, as he had not received a written
guarantee that no one cooperating with his mandate would be at risk of intimidation or
reprisal in the form of sanctions under the 2015 Border Force Act, which stipulates that
detention centre service providers who disclose protected information can be sentenced to
two years in prison. The Special Rapporteur stressed that the perceived threat of reprisals
against persons who would want to cooperate with him in relation to his official visit would
be unacceptable.6 Following the postponement of the country visit, the Special Rapporteur
and the Government of Australia continued to engage in dialogue, which resulted in written
assurances provided to the Special Rapporteur in December 2015 and the agreement to
conduct the visit to Australia in November 2016.
2. Burundi
21. During their visit to Burundi, in March 2016, the independent experts of the United
Nations Independent Investigation on Burundi received allegations of intimidation and
reprisals by the National Intelligence Services against members of NGOs with whom they
had met. Feeling threatened, several human rights defenders fled the country and afterwards
reported that they remained concerned for the safety of their family members remaining in
the country (see A/HRC/33/32, BDI 5/2016). In their oral update to Human Rights Council
6 OHCHR “Migrants/human rights: Official visit to Australia postponed due to protection concerns”,
25 September 2015.
at its thirty-first session, on 22 March 2016, the independent experts stated that the reports
were disconcerting and that the Government should undertake to exercise due diligence to
ensure that those who engage with the mission as well as other observers are not subjected
to reprisals. At the time of finalization of the present report, no response had been received
from the Government.
3. China
22. In its concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of China, the Committee
against Torture expressed concerns at allegations of intimidation and reprisals against
several human rights defenders for their engagement with the Committee. Reportedly,
seven Chinese human rights defenders, who had intended to travel to Geneva to attend the
Committee’s consideration of the report of China, had been threatened by the Chinese
authorities with negative professional consequences. Moreover, those who had defied the
authorities’ orders had reportedly been detained on the ground that their participation could
“endanger national security” (see CAT/C/SR.1368, para. 92, and CAT/C/CHN/CO/5,
paras. 38-39). The Committee called on the State party to investigate those allegations and
report back to it. At the time of finalization of the present report, no response had been
received from the Government.
4. Iraq
23. On 29 September 2015, the Rapporteur on reprisals of the Committee on Enforced
Disappearances raised allegations with the Iraqi authorities of intimidation of Salam
al-Hashimi, an Iraqi national, who had sought to provide information to the Committee
during its ninth session in relation to the review of the report submitted by Iraq (see
A/71/56). On 7 September 2015, Mr. Al-Hashimi was prevented from passing a checkpoint
that provides access to the Green Zone, where he was expected by staff of the United
Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, in order to communicate by video link with the
Committee. On 10 September 2015, Mr. Al-Hashimi was intimidated by two individuals
who stated that they belonged to the Presidential Regiment. On 28 January 2016, the
Rapporteur raised additional allegations with the Iraqi authorities according to which, on
22 December 2015, the Director of the Counter-Terrorism Forces had issued an arrest
warrant against Mr. Al-Hashimi on terrorism charges, reportedly related to his engagement
with the Committee (ibid.). On 29 January 2016, the Iraqi authorities requested additional
information on the identity of Mr. Al-Hashimi, in particular a copy of his identity
documents and the full name of his mother, in order to complete their inquiries. That
information was provided by the Committee on 10 March 2016, with the consent of the
persons involved (ibid.). At the time of finalization of the present report, no further
response had been received from the Government.
24. On 13 April 2016, a group of mandate holders raised concerns over allegations of
reprisals against Imad Amara and Faisal al-Tamimi, two human rights defenders working
for the Al Wissam Humanitarian Assembly, an NGO that documents cases of enforced
disappearances in Iraq and submits them to the United Nations human rights mechanisms
(see A/HRC/33/32, IRQ 1/2016). On 6 March 2016, Iraqi military forces stopped and
searched Mr. Amara and Mr. Al-Tamimi’s car while the two men were on their way to
meet families of disappeared persons. Both men were informed that a warrant had been
issued for their arrest, before being handcuffed, blindfolded and taken to an unknown
location. Mr. Amara and Mr. Al-Tamimi were severely beaten, insulted and threatened
while being interrogated about their work for around two hours, before being released.
Mandate holders also raised concerns over reports that other employees of Al Wissam had
previously been subjected to intimidation and reprisals relating to the submission of cases
to the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, and some had left the country out of fear for
their security (ibid.). At the time of finalization of the present report, no response had been
received from the Government.
5. Japan
25. On 30 May 2016, three mandate holders raised allegations of intimidation and
reprisals against Kazuko Ito, the Secretary General of Human Rights Now, for facilitating
contact between the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to
freedom of opinion and expression and civil society during his visit to Japan, from 12 to
19 April 2016 (see A/HRC/33/32, JPN 4/2016). On 20 May 2016, FACTA magazine
published information received through a leaked memorandum, according to which the
Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary “ordered intelligence community members, such as the
Cabinet’s information research section”, to surveil Ms. Ito’s movements ahead of the
Special Rapporteur’s visit. The memorandum reportedly also mentioned that Ms. Ito had
asked the Special Rapporteur to visit the country in December 2015 and that she met the
Special Rapporteur on 11 April 2016, the day he arrived in Tokyo. After learning about the
existence of the memorandum, Ms. Ito contacted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requesting
information on her alleged surveillance, however, no formal response was provided at that
time (ibid.). By letter of 16 June 2016, the Government of Japan denied the validity of the
allegations stating that they were based on groundless rumours as FACTA magazine had
not requested interviews nor confirmation of the allegations from the offices or individuals
mentioned in their publication. Moreover, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had requested the
relevant ministries and agencies to conduct an investigation into the allegations, which had
confirmed that no instructions for surveillance of Ms. Ito had been issued. The Government
also informed mandate holders that a response was sent to Ms. Ito on 1 June 2016 (ibid.).
6. Morocco
26. On 22 March 2016, a group of mandate holders raised concerns with the Moroccan
authorities over allegations of reprisals against El Ghalia Djimi, an employee of the
Ministry of Agriculture and Maritime Fishing of Morocco and Vice-President of the
Sahrawi Association of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations, for seeking to engage
with the Human Rights Council (see A/HRC/33/32, MAR 1/2016). In February 2016,
Ms. Djimi had requested annual leave to be able to travel to Geneva to participate in the
thirty-first session of the Council, which was denied by the Provincial Directorate of
Agriculture of Laayoune, which is linked to the Ministry of Agriculture and Maritime
Fishing. The refusal was justified by a drought in the region that required the mobilization
of all local government staff. However, Ms. Djimi was not required to participate in any
mission in that regard and it is alleged that her leave request was in fact denied in order to
prevent her from engaging with the Council. At the time of finalization of the present
report, no further response had been received from the Government.
7. Somalia
27. On 3 May 2016, a group of mandate holders raised allegations of reprisals against
Omar Faruk Osman, Secretary General of the Federation of Somali Trade Unions and of the
National Union of Somali Journalists, for his cooperation with ILO (see A/HRC/33/32,
SOM 2/2016). On 23 April 2016, Mr. Osman had been summoned to the Office of the
Attorney General where he was informed that, on 29 February 2016, the Attorney General
had submitted a complaint against him to the National Prosecutor General. The Attorney
General had asked the Prosecutor to bring a criminal case against Mr. Osman for, inter alia,
harming relations between the Government and the international organizations and
spreading issues that would harm the reputation of the Government, and to prevent
Mr. Osman from travelling and confiscating his passport for the duration of the
investigation. It is alleged that the request was directly linked to a letter sent by ILO to the
Government of Somalia on 22 February 2016, as it was based on a complaint submitted to
it by the above-mentioned unions. In its letter, ILO urged the Government to respect its
international obligations regarding the rights to freedom of assembly and association (ibid.).
At the time of finalization of the present report, no response had been received from the
Government.
8. Sudan
28. On 28 December 2015, a group of mandate holders raised allegations with the
Government of the Sudan of acts of intimidation and reprisal against three members of the
Darfuri Student Association, two men and one woman, and a woman human rights defender
in connection with the official visit to the country of the Special Rapporteur on violence
against women, its causes and consequences, from 13 to 24 May 2015 (see A/HRC/32/53,
SDN 7/2015). On 16 May 2015, the four individuals were meeting in a hotel lobby with a
United Nations staff member, when they noticed that they were being monitored by several
members of the National Intelligence and Security Services. Owing to their presence, the
group felt unsafe and decided to cut the meeting short. When they were leaving the hotel,
the State agents threatened the two women and forcibly placed the two men in a pickup
truck, after which they were taken to a police station and detained for about seven hours
before being released after the Special Rapporteur, who had witnessed the events, had
contacted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. After the Special Rapporteur had left the country,
the four individuals continued to be threatened by State agents. In one case, death threats
were made and family members of the individual concerned were visited by State agents.
By letter of 11 April 2016, the Government responded that the above-mentioned incident
had taken place for security reasons in order to protect the hotel and its guests, and had
been carried out by tourism police (see A/HRC/33/32, SOM 2/2016). That was reiterated by
the Government in its comments in reponse to the country visit report of the Special
Rapporteur (see A/HRC/32/42/Add.4, paras. 5-6).
29. In her country visit report, the Special Rapporteur highlighted, in addition to the
above-mentioned case, that fear of reprisals by women’s rights activists and organizations
had resulted in many of them choosing not to meet with her and that, despite having raised
concerns with the authorities, allegations of reprisals against interlocutors with whom she
met and who attempted to meet with her continued to be received after she had left the
country (see A/HRC/32/42/Add.1, paras. 5-8). The Government responded that those
claims sounded “strange and confusing” and instead referred to United Nations
Development Programme staff who had not allowed members of women’s rights
organizations to enter their building to meet with the Special Rapporteur for procedural
reasons (see A/HRC/32/34/Add.4, paras. 5-6).
30. On 9 May 2016, two mandate holders jointly raised allegations of reprisals against
two human rights defenders who intended to participate in meetings in Geneva relating to
the universal periodic review of the Sudan, scheduled for May 2016 (see A/HRC/33/32,
SDN 4/2016). On 23 March 2016, Sawsan Hassan and Muawia Shaddad, both members of
Our Rights Group, a coalition of Sudanese civil society organizations that submitted a
report on the situation of human rights in the country to the universal periodic review
process, were prevented from boarding their flights from Khartoum to Geneva by officers
from the National Intelligence Security Services. After their passports were confiscated,
both individuals were informed that a travel ban had been issued against them and they
were told to report to the headquarters of the Security Services in Khartoum the following
day. Their passports were eventually returned to them in mid-April 2016. At the time of
finalization of the present report, no response had been received from the Government.
9. Uganda
31. On 21 April 2016, a group of mandate holders raised allegations of reprisals against
Douglas Bulongo, the Executive Director of the United Association for Peace and
Development, for his participation in a submission by the Lutheran World Federation to the
universal periodic review of Uganda, scheduled for November 2016 (see A/HRC/33/32,
UGA 2/2016). On 1 March 2016, after having returned home from a workshop in
preparation of the submission to the review of Uganda, a group of armed men broke into
Mr. Bulongo’s home and led all his family members into one room. They left only after
Mr. Bulongo had handed over all the workshop documents on the review process of
Uganda. Mr. Bulongo reported the incident to the police, along with five subsequent
incidents, which involved attacks by armed people, but he did not receive any assistance.
On the night of 19 March, Mr. Bulongo, after having heard noises, stepped outside his
home to find an unconscious man lying on his driveway. He took the injured man to the
local police station where the man reportedly later died. In the early morning of 20 March,
Mr. Bulongo was arrested and detained by police officers. On 1 April, Mr. Bulongo
appeared before Makindye Court, where he was informed that a charge of manslaughter
had been filed against him, before being transferred to Luzira prison pending trial. At the
time of finalization of the present report, no response had been received from the
Government.
10. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
32. In its concluding observations on the third periodic report of the Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed concern
about information received regarding the lack of cooperation between the State party’s
authorities and civil society organizations working in the field of human rights, which had,
in some cases, resulted in their reputation being seriously undermined. The Committee
urged the State “to put an end to defamatory statements against some of those who publicly
participate in the dialogues that the Committee, in accordance with its working methods,
holds with civil society organizations” (see E/C.12/VEN/CO/3, para. 14).
33. On 26 June 2015, three mandate holders raised allegations of reprisals against
several human rights organizations and defenders, including Rafael Uzcátegui, for their
participation in the fifty-fifth session of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (see A/HRC/31/79, VEN 7/2015). On 2 and 3 June 2015, several Venezuelan
organizations participated in the review of the third periodic report of the country by the
Committee. In his press statement at the end of the review, the Chair of the Venezuelan
delegation reportedly questioned the participation of certain organizations in the review,
accusing them of drawing financial benefit from their participation in international human
rights forums. On 3 and 4 June, the President of the National Assembly, in his television
programme “Con el Mazo Dando”, reportedly criticized and disclosed personal information
about several organizations and human rights defenders, including Mr. Uzcátegui,
concerning their engagement with the Committee. By letter of 29 September 2015, the
Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela requested an extension of the
deadline for its response. At the time of finalization of the present report, no further
response had been received from the Government.
34. On 20 July 2015, two mandate holders raised allegations of reprisals against
Fransisco Valencia, President of the Coalition of Organizations for the Right to Life and
Health, for his cooperation with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(see A/HRC/31/79, VEN 10/2015). In June 2015, Mr. Valencia received a telephone call
from the Venezuelan Minister of Health accusing him of having cooperated with the
Committee during its fifty-fifth session regarding its consideration of the State party’s third
periodic report. Mr. Valencia also received a telephone call from a member of the
Department of Social Security, who questioned him about the reasons behind his recent
activities. By letter of 29 September 2015, the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela requested an extension of the deadline for its response. By letter of 9 December
2015, the Government indicated that Mr. Valencia had not lodged a complaint, but that the
national coordination body for the protection of victims, witnesses and other parties to
judicial proceedings stood ready to process any complaint that was forthcoming (ibid.).
35. The Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations on the fourth periodic
report of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, also raised concerns over reports received
that some persons who had cooperated with the Committee regarding the review of the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela were subsequently “the target of disparaging statements
made by the President of the National Assembly in the television programme ‘Con el Mazo
Dando’” and that “those statements were made shortly after the Committee had drawn the
delegation’s attention to previous statements by the same person regarding the contribution
of civil society organizations to the work of other international human rights mechanisms”
(see CCPR/C/VEN/CO/4, para. 18). The Committee called on the State party to take all
necessary steps to protect those who had contributed to its work and to ensure that public
officials ceased to make disparaging statements about them (ibid.).
36. In that regard, on 20 July 2015, three mandate holders raised allegations of reprisals
against eight human rights defenders for their cooperation with the Human Rights
Committee and for organizing a workshop on how to submit human rights cases to
international organizations (see A/HRC/31/79, VEN 9/2015). On 1 July 2015, the President
of the National Assembly, in his television programme “Con el Mazo Dando”, mentioned
the participation of Ligia Bolíviar, Carlos Correa, Humberto Prado Sifontes, Alfredo
Romero, Rocío San Manuel and Tamara Sujú in the session of the Human Rights
Committee on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, held in June 2015, stating that they
“conspire and defend dark interests”. In addition, he showed the photographs of Ms. Sujú
and Mr. Romero, stating they were involved in presenting “false reports against the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela” to the United Nations. Moreover, he reportedly referred
to Mr. Romero, Feliciano Reyna and Mr. Uzcátegui (see para. 33 above) in connection with
a workshop they held in December 2014 on how to submit human rights cases to
international organizations. At the time of finalization of the present report, no response had
been received from the Government.
37. On 22 July 2015, due to the seriousness of the allegations mentioned above, a group
of mandate holders together with Inter-American human rights experts, issued a press
release in which they deplored the “clear pattern” of discrediting and intimidating human
rights defenders on the country’s State-controlled television in reprisal for their cooperation
with the United Nations and regional bodies in the field of human rights. The experts
recalled that the United Nations and Inter-American human rights bodies were charged with
monitoring the implementation by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of its international
and regional human rights obligations and as such, the Government was bound to respect
and defend the participation of rights activists in those proceedings. The experts called on
the Venezuelan authorities to immediately cease the targeting of individuals for their
cooperation with the United Nations or regional bodies in the field of human rights.7
11. Viet Nam
38. On 30 October 2015, a group of mandate holders raised allegations of intimidation
and reprisals against Do Thi Mai, the mother of a child who died in prison reportedly as a
result of torture (see A/HRC/31/79, VNM 1/2015). Following the death of her son in early
7 OAS, “IACHR wraps up its 157th session”, 15 April 2016.
October 2015, Ms. Do submitted a complaint to the United Nations human rights
mechanisms. On 29 October 2015, she was summoned to the local police station where
police officers intimidated her and attempted to persuade her to withdraw her complaint to
the United Nations. It is reported that after she refused, police officers continued to threaten
her and her family. At the time of finalization of the present report, no response had been
received from the Government.
C. Follow-up information on cases included in previous reports
1. China
39. The case of Cao Shunli was included in my previous two reports (see A/HRC/27/38,
paras. 17-19, and A/HRC/30/29, annex, para. 1). Ms. Cao had actively campaigned for
transparency and greater participation of civil society in the universal periodic review
process of China and was, reportedly as a result thereof, arrested, detained and denied
medical treatment, resulting in her death on 14 March 2014. In a right of reply exercised
during the thirtieth session of the Human Rights Council, the Chinese representative stated
that Ms. Cao was “by no means a human rights defender”, but had been placed under
investigation in September 2013 due to allegations of creating trouble. She had died of
organ failure caused by tuberculosis, even though she had received good medical care and
attempts had been made to save her. Furthermore, the case was not an issue of human rights
but rather of the rule of law and the judicial sovereignty and independence of China. The
organs of State would deal with any person engaged in criminal activities in accordance
with the law.8
2. Cyprus
40. In my previous report, reference was made to allegations of reprisals against Doros
Polykarpou, Executive Director of Action for Support, Equality and Antiracism, for having
submitted an alternative report on the situation of detained undocumented migrants to the
Committee on Torture prior to the consideration of the fourth period report of Cyprus (see
A/HRC/30/29, para. 18). On 22 September 2015, during the general debate on agenda
item 5 during the thirtieth session of the Human Rights Council, the representative of
Cyprus expressed the State’s commitment to preventing reprisals and, while referring to its
response of 5 August 2014, stressed that the case did not concern an act of reprisal against
an activist but “a lawful, proportionate consequence stipulated equally for any citizen who
has failed over a given period of time to comply with his or her statutory responsibilities
regarding outstanding fines, as imposed by a warrant issued by the Court”. The
representative expressed the hope that relevant mandate holders would agree that the work
of human rights defenders, with the greatest respect, “cannot be expected under any
circumstance to override the fundamental democratic axiom of equality before the law”.
3. Eritrea
41. My previous report made mention of the risk of reprisals against anyone cooperating
with the commission of inquiry on human rights in Eritrea as one of the main challenges the
commission had faced in the execution of its mandate (see A/HRC/30/29, para. 19). In its
report on its second term, the commission stated that the protection of victims and
witnesses remained a central concern, adding that almost everyone the commissioners had
8 http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/human-rights-council/regular-sessions/30th-session/watch/
clustered-id-wg-on-arbitrary-detention-sr-on-contemporary-forms-of-slavery-3rd-meeting-30th-
regular-session-of-human-rights-council/4484127097001.
spoken to had indicated that they feared reprisals by the Eritrean authorities, either against
themselves or their family members still residing in the country (see A/HRC/32/47,
para. 8). The Commission had worked to protect the identities of victims, witnesses and
other sources, but as its ability to physically protect witnesses was limited, it reminded
States of their primary responsibility to protect those individuals residing within their
borders who had cooperated with the Commission.9
4. Kuwait
42. Reference was made in my previous report to Nawaf al-Hendal, founder of the
Kuwait Watch Organization for Human Rights (see A/HRC/30/29, para. 29), in relation to
allegations of reprisals for his participation in the universal periodic review of Kuwait in
January 2015 and in the twenty-ninth session of the Human Rights Council, held in March
2015. By letter of 30 September 2015, the Government expressed its regret that the case
summary included in the communications report of special procedures (see A/HRC/30/27,
KWT 2/2015) made no mention of the lifting of the travel ban imposed on Mr. Al-Hendal,
and recalled that Mr. Al-Hendal had in fact been able to attend the Council session in
September 2015. The Special Rapporteurs on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly
and of association, and on the situation of human rights defenders, in their observations on
communications reports, while welcoming the release of Mr. Al-Hendal, reminded the
Government that international law provides for a right to unhindered access to and
communication with international bodies on matters of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, and urged it to refrain from reprisals against persons or organizations engaging
with the United Nations in the field of human rights (see A/HRC/32/36/Add.3, para. 445,
and A/HRC/31/55/Add.1 and Corr.1, para. 513).
5. Oman
43. The case of Said Ali Said Jadad, a human rights defender advocating for democratic
reforms in Oman, who had reportedly become the subject of intimidation and reprisals after
he had met with the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and
of association during his visit to Oman in 2014, was mentioned in my previous report (see
A/HRC/30/29, para. 34). In their observations on communications reports to the twenty-
ninth and thirty-first sessions of the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteurs on the
rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, and on the situation of human
rights defenders, respectively, regretted that no response had been received to the joint
communication dated 29 January 2015 and urged the Government to fully cooperate with
their mandates (see A/HRC/29/25/Add.3, para. 577, and A/HRC/31/55/Add.1, para. 536).
At the time of finalization of the present report, no government response had been received
to the above-mentioned communication.
6. United Arab Emirates
44. The case of Osama al-Najjar, who had reportedly become the subject of reprisals
after meeting with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
during her visit to the United Arab Emirates in 2014, was included in my previous two
reports (see A/HRC/27/38, paras. 37-38, and A/HRC/30/29, annex, para. 6). The Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, in his latest observations on
communications report, again raised concern about the reported reprisals against
Mr. Al-Najjar, who, after spending almost six months in pretrial detention, appeared before
the State Security Court at the Federal Supreme Court in Abu Dhabi, whose decisions are
9 See www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoIEritrea/A_HRC_32_CRP.1_read-only.pdf,
paras. 10-11.
not subject to appeal, and was sentenced to three years in prison (see A/HRC/31/55/Add.1,
para. 563). He reiterated that international law provides for a right to unhindered access to
and communication with international bodies on matters of human rights and fundamental
freedoms (ibid.).
7. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
45. Reference has been made in each of my previous reports since 2010 to the case of
Judge María Lourdes Afiuni Mora, who had become the subject of reprisals in the form of
arbitrary detention when she ordered the conditional release of Eligio Cedeño, after the
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in its opinion No. 10/2009, had considered his
detention arbitrary (see A/HRC/14/19, paras. 45-47, A/HRC/18/19, paras. 87-90,
A/HRC/21/18, paras. 68-69, A/HRC/24/29 and Corr.1, paras. 46-48, A/HRC/27/38,
para. 46, and A/HRC/30/29, annex, para. 7). In its concluding observations on the fourth
periodic report of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Human Rights Committee
expressed particular concern over her situation, including at claims that she was subjected
to ill-treatment and sexual assault during her detention and that those claims were not
promptly investigated (see CCPR/C/VEN/CO/4, para. 15). The High Commissioner, in his
statement of 12 November 2015 at the special meeting of the Human Rights Council on the
occasion of the visit of the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, also referred
to the case of Judge Afiuni and urged the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to comply with
the recommendations of the international human rights bodies.10 The Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention, in its 2015 annual report, also reiterated its concern over the continued
detention under house arrest of Judge Afiuni and again called upon the Government to
release her immediately and provide her with effective and adequate reparations (see
A/HRC/33/50, para. 22).
V. Conclusions and recommendations
46. Continuing intimidation and reprisals against individuals and groups who seek
to cooperate, are cooperating or have cooperated with the United Nations, its
representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights remain of grave concern.
Every such act chips away a small piece of the work accomplished by the United
Nations in the field of human rights. Such acts not only devastate the lives of the
individuals concerned, and their families, but also have a deterrent effect that may
undermine future cooperation.
47. The cases included in the present and in previous reports show that acts of
intimidation and reprisal continue to range from harassment, intimidation, arbitrary
arrest and detention, including incommunicado and solitary confinement, travel bans,
charges and sentencing, sometimes to lengthy prison terms, acts of torture and other
forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including physical attacks and
sexual abuse, denial of access to medical attention in detention, to, in extreme cases,
death.
48. Patterns emerging from those cases seem to indicate that, if initial warning
signs are ignored, acts of intimidation and reprisal are likely to become more severe
over time, not only targeting individuals or groups engaging with the United Nations
in the field of human rights directly, but also their families, legal representation,
organizations and anyone else linked to them. For that reason I reiterate that all such
10 OHCHR, “Statement by the High Commissioner at the special meeting of the Human Rights Council
on the occasion of the visit of the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela”.
acts, no matter how seemingly subtle or explicit, are without exception unacceptable
and must be halted immediately and unconditionally, effective remedies provided and
preventive measures adopted and implemented to prevent reoccurrence.
49. I reiterate the concerns expressed in my previous reports that, while it is the
primary obligation of the State to protect those who cooperate with the United
Nations in the field of human rights and to ensure that they may do so safely and
without hindrance, the cases described in my reports seem to confirm that acts of
intimidation and reprisal are often perpetrated by government officials of the State
itself. I therefore call again on every State to take all measures necessary to prevent
the occurrence of intimidation and reprisal, including by raising awareness. I urge
governments to send clear messages to all State officials that such acts will not be
condoned, and to ensure accountability if they do occur.
50. In that regard, I welcome continued efforts made by a number of Member
States to continue to provide assistance to individuals and groups subjected to acts of
intimidation and reprisals for their cooperation with the United Nations in the field of
human rights, in particular by raising their cases during sessions of the Human Rights
Council. I urge all States to follow up on the cases included in the present and
previous reports and provide substantive responses where they remain outstanding.
In that context, I recommend that the Council continue to devote sufficient time to the
discussion of the present and future reports.
51. Furthermore, responses to acts of intimidation and reprisal by the United
Nations system must be timely and coordinated in order to prevent initial warning
signs from being overlooked and preventive steps that could have been taken left
aside. In that regard, I welcome the continued efforts made by the different United
Nations human rights mechanisms and representatives towards enhancing their
response to all acts of intimidation and reprisal and the first positive outcomes
reached.
52. In addition, recent developments seem to indicate that policies and practices
that may hamper access to the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms
need to be addressed in more detail. That could be explored further in future reports.
I encourage all United Nations mechanisms and representatives in the field of human
rights to continue to follow up on cases of reprisals brought to their attention and
report on such follow-up.
53. In 2009, the Human Rights Council decided to broaden the scope of my report
to include not only cases of intimidation and reprisals related to cooperation with
human rights mechanisms, but also cooperation with the United Nations system in the
field of human rights as a whole. The information gathered in that context has
underlined the seriousness of the issue of reprisals and its impact, which affects
individuals and groups from all regions of the world. The pattern is increasingly
addressed by various stakeholders within the United Nations system, including the
President of the Council, the treaty bodies and the special procedures. Each of those
stakeholders is developing specific tools and protocols to respond to it. All those
initiatives are welcomed. However, they have also highlighted the lack of a
coordinated response to the problem.
54. In the light of the increasing number of cases of reprisals, as evident in the
present report, I intend to strengthen the collection of information on allegations of
intimidation or reprisals for cooperation with the United Nations in the field of human
rights by asking all parts of the United Nations system to report to me more regularly
on such cases. In consultation with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, I will
make use of existing staff to take up the issue within the United Nations system and
with Member States, and to advise the High Commissioner and me as appropriate.
55. I once again stress that it is crucial for the United Nations in its efforts to
promote and protect all human rights to be able to cooperate with the widest pool of
stakeholders as possible without putting anyone at risk. I therefore encourage all
relevant entities, including international and regional organizations, Member States,
national human rights institutions, civil society, academic institutions and all
individuals, to continue to make their voices heard and to contribute to the future
consideration of the issue by the Human Rights Council and the United Nations
system as a whole.