39/41 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: 2018 Aug
Session: 39th Regular Session (2018 Sep)
Agenda Item: Item2: Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General, Item5: Human rights bodies and mechanisms
GE.18-13325(E)
Human Rights Council Thirty-ninth session
10–28 September 2018
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 within the United Nations
system and beyond to address intimidation and reprisals against those seeking to cooperate
or having cooperated with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the
field of human rights. It presents the activities of the Assistant Secretary-General for
Human Rights as the senior official leading the efforts of the United Nations in this area.
The report contains information on alleged acts of intimidation and reprisals, including in
follow-up to cases included in the previous report (A/HRC/36/31) and prior to that. Owing
to the word limit, more information on selected cases is set out in annex I. Information on
follow-up to cases included in previous reports is provided in annex II. The report
concludes with a summary of trends and recommendations to address and prevent acts of
intimidation and reprisals.
* The annexes to the present report are reproduced as received.
A/HRC/39/41
Contents
Page
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
II. Developments in response to acts of intimidation and reprisal ........................................................ 3
III. Information on policy and best practices ......................................................................................... 5
IV. Ensuring access to the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field
of human rights ................................................................................................................................ 6
V. Information received on cases of intimidation and reprisal for cooperation with the
United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights ........................... 7
A. General comment ..................................................................................................................... 7
B. Summary of cases .................................................................................................................... 7
VI. Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................................. 14
Annexes
I. Comprehensive information on alleged cases of reprisals and intimidation for cooperation
with the United Nations on human rights ......................................................................................... 17
II. Information on alleged cases included in follow-up to previous reports .......................................... 40
I. Introduction
1. The Human Rights Council, in resolution 12/2, expressed concern over continued
reports of intimidation and reprisals against individuals and groups seeking to cooperate or
having cooperated with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field
of human rights. The Council further condemned all acts of intimidation and reprisal
committed 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 and
recommendations on how to address the issue. The present report is the ninth report based
on resolution 12/2.1
II. Developments in response to acts of intimidation and reprisal
2. Addressing reprisals and intimidation against those cooperating with the United
Nations in the field of human rights continues to be a priority and a core responsibility of
the Organization as a whole. During the reporting period I continued to receive reports of
alarming trends of reprisals, forms of retaliation for past cooperation and measures of
intimidation, designed to discourage future participation or cooperation with the United
Nations.
3. Intimidation and reprisals were discussed at and in relation to cooperation with the
General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Human Rights Council and the
Security Council. Within the United Nations system, including in the Secretariat and its
field offices and peace missions, at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
the International Labour Organization (ILO), the United Nations Conference of States
Parties to the Convention Against Corruption, the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund, multiple actors have continued to address cases with concerned
Governments and taken initiatives to raise awareness of the severity of the issue.
4. On 24 December 2017, at its seventy-second session, the General Assembly adopted
by consensus resolution 72/247 to mark the twentieth anniversary and promotion of the
implementation of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups
and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (Declaration on Human Rights Defenders). The General Assembly
condemned all acts of intimidation and reprisal by State and non-State actors, including
against human rights defenders and their legal representatives, associates and family
members, and strongly called upon all States to give effect to the right of everyone,
individually and in association with others, to unhindered access to and communication
with the United Nations. It expressed grave concern at the “considerable and increasing
number of allegations and communications of a serious nature received by special
procedures” related to intimidation and reprisals.
5. On 29 September 2017, at its thirty-sixth session, the Human Rights Council adopted
resolution 36/21 on “Cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and
mechanisms in the field of human rights,” in which it reaffirmed “the right of everyone,
individually and in association with others, to unhindered access to and communication
with … the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms”. In the resolution, the
Council urged all States to prevent and refrain from all acts of intimidation or reprisal and
to take measures to ensure accountability for reprisals. It noted the designation of the
Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights and decided that the presentation of the
present report at the thirty-ninth session would be followed by an interactive dialogue. At
the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh and thirty-eighth sessions of the Council, States and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) also delivered statements on the issue of reprisals.
1 A/HRC/14/19, A/HRC/18/19, A/HRC/21/18, A/HRC/24/29 and Corr. 1, A/HRC/27/38,
A/HRC/30/29, A/HRC/33/19 and A/HRC/36/31.
6. During the reporting period, successive Presidents of the Human Rights Council used
their good offices through bilateral meetings or in writing in 2017 and 2018 to handle eight
cases of reprisals related to participation in sessions of the Council. Those cases included
travel bans, detention and confiscation of a passport, arrest, interrogation and imprisonment
in the home country following participation in Council sessions and intimidation during
parallel side events of the Council by representatives of a State.
7. The High Commissioner for Human Rights addressed in strong terms the issue of
reprisals brought to bear by State officials on several occasions, in particular in his opening
statement to the thirty-sixth session of the Human Rights Council on 11 September 20172
and on 18 June 2018 to its thirty-eighth session.3 On numerous occasions, he has drawn
attention to new and evolving policies and legislation that aim to restrict the operations of
civil society, including those that selectively place obstacles in the way of international
advocacy efforts by NGOs on particular issues. They include those that would limit or deny
the foreign funding that organizations use to submit research and travel to United Nations
meetings.
8. The Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, the senior official designated to
lead efforts within the United Nations system to address intimidation and reprisals, has
continued his high-level engagement with States, in particular on patterns and concerning
urgent cases, and has undertaken activities to consult directly with victims and civil society
organizations on the work of the United Nations in addressing reprisals. Apart from
meetings in New York and Geneva, he engaged with participants from around the world at
the 2017 Dublin Platform for Human Rights Defenders hosted by Front Line Defenders,4
with Asian defenders from 16 countries at a regional consultation in Bangkok organized by
the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in May
2018 5 and at a human rights defender security platform for Central Asia in Bishkek.6
9. The Assistant Secretary-General addressed specific situations and individual cases
with Member States in intergovernmental forums and through quiet diplomacy with
concerned Governments, including with Permanent Representatives to the United Nations
and during field missions. He engaged with the President of the Human Rights Council, the
Chair of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, special procedures mandate
holders, including their Coordination Committee, treaty bodies, Special Representatives of
the Secretary-General and Resident Coordinators, representatives of the World Bank, heads
of human rights field presences and focal points in various United Nations organizations at
Headquarters and in the field. He has also engaged with the Global Alliance of National
Human Rights Institutions on the specific targeting of national institutions in relation to
their work with the United Nations.
10. On 18 April 2018, at the seventeenth session of the United Nations Permanent Forum
on Indigenous Issues, the Assistant Secretary-General emphasized the widespread
intimidation of and reprisals taken against indigenous peoples, including those who
cooperated with the United Nations. 7 The Permanent Forum requested the Secretary-
General, through the Assistant Secretary-General and in consultation with other relevant
United Nations mechanisms, to report to the Forum at its eighteenth session in 2019 on
trends related to intimidation and reprisals against indigenous peoples who seek to engage
with the United Nations (see E/2018/43-E/C.19/2018/11, para. 14).
11. In the report on the twenty-fourth annual meeting of special rapporteurs/
representatives, independent experts and chairs of working groups of the special procedures
of the Human Rights Council, the special procedures mandate holders noted various
measures taken to respond to intimidation and reprisals, which were observed to have
2 Available from www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22041.
3 Available from www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?
NewsID=23206&LangID=E.
4 See ww.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?LangID=E&NewsID=22251.
5 See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23106&LangID=E.
6 See www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23109&LangID=E.
7 See www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22955&LangID=E.
become increasingly severe in nature. They also stressed the need for a trends analysis and
comprehensive assessment, and for strengthened coordination with other parts of the United
Nations system, including the Assistant Secretary-General (see A/HRC/37/37, paras. 66–67).8
12. In a statement on 1 June 2018 to mark the twentieth anniversary of the Declaration
on Human Rights Defenders, experts reaffirmed that all individuals should be able to
engage with the treaty bodies free from all forms of interference, intimidation, abuse, threat,
violence, reprisal, or undue restriction.9
13. UNDP, OHCHR and the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions
continue to support the implementation of their guidelines on reprisals and other acts of
intimidation against national human rights institutions, their members and staff. That
includes documenting cases and responding to them promptly, as well as collectively
supporting targeted national human rights institutions.
14. To ensure the visibility and accessibility of the work on intimidation and reprisals
and the activities of the United Nations human rights mechanisms, the website launched in
June 2017 is being translated into the six official languages and informational materials,
including an animated video and a one-page document for civil society on how to submit
information, are available online.10 Special procedures mandate holders11 and some treaty
bodies also have dedicated webpages.
III. Information on policy and best practices
15. There were developments in the working methods and practices of the treaty bodies,
including in the implementation of the Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (the San
José Guidelines, HRI/MC/2015/6) adopted at their meeting in 2015. During their thirtieth
annual meeting, the Chairs of the treaty bodies encouraged rapporteurs or focal points of
different committees to work together between sessions, as needed, to address cases, to
make information available about reprisals on the website, and for the Secretariat to prepare
a document for 2019 on the role of rapporteurs and focal points, including good practices
(A/73/140).
16. At its ninety-fifth session, the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination started the practice of sending letters to States parties on alleged cases and
of making them publicly available on its webpage. The Focal Point for Reprisals of the
Committee was tasked with developing guidelines on reprisals.
17. In the development context, the World Bank Group has made progress in developing
guidance on addressing reprisals reported in relation to complaints involving its projects. In
October 2017, the Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman published reprisals
guidelines.12 These followed the publication in March 2016 of the World Bank Inspection
Panel anti-retaliation guidelines, which were the first published by an independent
accountability mechanism of an international financial institution. 13 Initial dialogue
between the Assistant Secretary-General and those offices has been initiated to share
information and best practices.
18. The UNDP public accountability mechanism, the Social and Environmental
Compliance Unit of the Office of Audit and Investigations, reports cases of harassment,
intimidation and violence against persons who seek to cooperate or have cooperated with
UNDP-aided projects and is developing a “retaliation toolkit” for use by the international
8 See also www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22828&LangID=E.
9 See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23154&LangID=E. 10 See www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Reprisals/Pages/ReprisalsIndex.aspx.
11 See www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Actsofintimidationandreprisal.aspx.
12 See Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman, “CAO approach to responding to concerns of
threats and incidents of reprisals in CAO operations”, available at www.cao-
ombudsman.org/documents/CAO-Reprisals-web.pdf 2017.
13 See World Bank, “Inspection panel guidelines to reduce retaliation risks and respond to retaliation
during the panel process”.
accountability mechanisms, in cooperation with the Inter-American Development Bank.
The Unit is completing compliance reviews and monitoring several cases of intimidation
and reprisals for engagement with UNDP, including in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Malawi,
Panama and Uganda.14
19. In the context of protection of civilians, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations
has reinforced a policy commitment to the principle of “do no harm” in its cooperation with
communities and civil society. The force commanders, in cooperation with civilian
components, must ensure that threat assessments and situational awareness are informed by
regular engagement with communities and civil society groups, such as youth and women’s
groups, which affirms their accountability for ensuring that such engagement does not
expose any persons to harm.
IV. Ensuring access to the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights
20. Civil society organizations make an indispensable contribution to the work and
purposes of the United Nations, which would be impossible without their having access to
international meetings at United Nations premises and the ability to engage directly with
the human rights mechanisms. Indeed, the Economic and Social Council acknowledges the
breadth of their expertise and their capacity to support the work of the United Nations (see
resolution 1996/31).
21. The Assistant Secretary-General has addressed concerns about the use of
accreditation and security procedures to hinder people from speaking out in a number of
United Nations forums at Headquarters. There have been attempts by some diplomats to
block the participation of certain civil society representatives in United Nations events,
meetings or conferences, including attempts to thwart the accreditation of NGOs, especially
those doing human rights work, through various manoeuvres. Further, OHCHR has
repeatedly received reports indicating that individuals at United Nations meetings have
been unwillingly filmed or photographed, or that their statements in closed sessions were
secretly recorded, creating a climate of intimidation that may deter members of civil society
from participating in proceedings.
22. According to the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, which provides
secretariat support to the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, which considers
applications for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, in 2018 over
4,800 organizations had consultative status and the demand for that status remained high,
with new applications increasing by 19 per cent in 2017 (see A/HRC/38/18, para. 19). At its
resumed session in May 2018, the Committee had before it 472 applications, of which 244
were deferred from previous sessions. They recommended 209 for consultative status and
deferred 233. Another 27 applications were closed owing to the failure of the applicants to
answer questions
23. Consultative status confers access to the United Nations and many of its
mechanisms, and several stakeholders have raised concerns about the large number of
deferrals and perceived lack of transparency in decisions on consultative status. Continuous
deferral of applications has in some cases amounted to de facto rejections and has targeted
civil society organizations that work on human rights-related issues (see A/HRC/38/18,
para. 20).
24. In my previous report I addressed the role of the Committee on Non-Governmental
Organizations and welcomed the positive efforts of the Committee to increase transparency,
which have made some of its deliberations available via webcast. I also note the first
consultation held between members of the Committee and NGOs in consultative status with
the Economic and Social Council in June 2018 on the contribution of NGOs to the work of
the Council and its subsidiary bodies, including on improving the access of NGOs to the
United Nations. I again call on the Committee to apply the criteria for assessing
14 See https://info.undp.org/sites/registry/secu/SECUPages/SECUSummary.aspx.
organizations in a fair and transparent manner. At a time when space for civil society is
shrinking in various spheres, it is essential that the United Nations encourage engagement
with civil society.
V. Information received on cases of intimidation and reprisal for cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights
A. General comment
25. The present report includes cases based on information gathered from 1 June 2017 to
31 May 2018 and, in accordance with Human Rights Council resolutions 12/2 and 24/24,
contains information on acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who:
(a) 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;
(b) 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;
(c) Submit or have submitted communications under procedures established by
United Nations human rights instruments and all those who have provided legal or other
assistance to them for that purpose;
(d) Are relatives of victims of human rights violations or of those who have
provided legal or other assistance to victims.
26. The information received has been verified and corroborated by primary and other
sources to the extent possible. Reference is made to various United Nations publications if
the cases included in the present report have been made public. Responses provided by
Governments by 31 July 2018 to actions taken by various United Nations actors on cases
are also included. Efforts have also been made to follow up on cases included in previous
reports when there were new developments in the reporting period (see annex II).
27. The present report and annexes do not attempt to provide an exhaustive list of cases.
In preparing it, the principle of “do no harm” and the consent of the alleged victims to be
named were strictly adhered to and a risk assessment made for each case received and
deemed credible. As a result, it was decided not to include cases where the risk to the
security and well-being of the individuals concerned, or their family members, was deemed
too high. Furthermore, a number of cases brought to my attention have been addressed
confidentially and may not figure in the report.
28. Further information about the following situations and cases is available at annex I.
Where there are new developments during the reporting period on ongoing cases mentioned
in previous reports, the information is found at annex II. “Special procedures mandate
holders” refers to the special procedures mandate holders of the Human Rights Council. All
special procedures communications referred to in the present report can be now found
online by conducting a search using the case reference numbers that are provided in
parentheses throughout the report. 15 Government replies to special procedures
communications may also be found using this method.
15 See www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/CommunicationsreportsSP.aspx.
B. Summary of cases
Bahrain
29. Various United Nations actors have expressed grave concern about an ongoing trend
of harassment and intimidation against Bahraini civil society representatives seeking to
cooperate with the United Nations, the sweeping imposition of travel bans on around
20 individuals and the arrest, detention, sexual assault and torture and other forms of ill-
treatment of targeted individuals (BHR 8/2017, BHR 9/2017 and BHR 13/2017).16 Long-
standing travel bans remained in effect during successive sessions of the Human Rights
Council, preventing many civil society representatives from participating between June
2017 and June 2018. A number of individuals have also reported threats of violence and
psychological intimidation because of their past engagement with the Council, including
threats of physical violence, public defamation and rape, to discourage them from speaking
out again. The present report notes that various human rights defenders have reportedly
faced criminal and terrorism-related charges, including family members of Mr. Sayed
Ahmed Al-Wadaei, Ms. Ebtesam Al-Alsaegh, and Mr. Nabeel Rajab (see annexes I and II).
30. The Assistant Secretary-General addressed those allegations in writing on 15 July
2017 and 29 May 2018. On 25 June 2018 the Government responded.
Cameroon
31. On 26 October 2017, special procedures mandate holders expressed concern about
the increasingly threatening nature of the physical attacks on and intimidation and
harassment of Ms. Maximilienne Ngo Mbe, of Central Africa Human Rights Defenders
Network and Ms. Alice Nkom also of the Network and of an association for the rights of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, following their participation in the
review of Cameroon by the Human Rights Committee in Geneva (CMR 5/2017). On 17
July 2018 the Government responded to the allegations.
China
32. On 18 June 2018, in his opening statement to the thirty-eighth session of the Human
Rights Council, the High Commissioner for Human Rights highlighted the continuing
efforts of China to prevent independent members of civil society from engaging with
United Nations human rights mechanisms, including treaty body reviews, the universal
periodic review of the Human Rights Council and many special procedures mandate
holders, and encouraged the authorities to enable all actors to contribute to all the
international human rights mechanisms. The present report notes that various activists,
human rights defenders and lawyers have reportedly been subjected to travel bans,
surveillance, detention, including being held incommunicado, ill-treatment and torture for
their efforts to engage with the United Nations (see annexes I and II). On 31 July 2018 the
Government responded to the allegations.
Colombia
33. On 1 February 2018, special procedures mandate holders addressed allegations of
death threats by paramilitary groups against Mr. Germán Graciano Posso, a member of the
Peace Community of San José de Apartadó following his participation in the United
Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights in Geneva in 2017 (COL 1/2018).
Cuba
34. On 11 May 2018, the spokesperson for the High Commissioner for Human Rights
stated that OHCHR had received worrying reports that officials in Cuba had prevented
human rights defenders and civil society representatives from boarding flights to travel to
meetings abroad, including United Nations meetings, on the pretext of requiring more
16 See also OHCHR, “Bahrain must end worsening human rights clampdown, UN experts say”
(16 June 2017).
detailed identity checks. They included 14 direct cases of Cubans informed by officials that
the computer system required extra screening. Those measures have resulted in passengers
missing their flights and therefore the meetings. Special procedures mandate holders have
raised individual cases (CUB 1/2018). On 4 April 2018, the Government responded to the
allegations.
35. The Assistant Secretary-General addressed the allegations referred to above in
writing on 11 April 2018. On 10 May 2018, the Government responded to the allegations.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
36. The United Nations Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
reported multiple incidents of intimidation and reprisals for cooperation with the Mission,
especially the team of joint human rights officers, in relation to incidents perpetrated by the
Agence nationale de renseignements, the Forces armées de la République Démocratique du
Congo, local police and others.
Djibouti
37. It was reported to OHCHR that Mr. Kadar Abdi Ibrahim, a human rights defender,
was unable to participate in the review of Djibouti by the Working Group on the universal
periodic review, held on 10 May 2018. Four Member States expressed their concern to the
Government of Djibouti during the session (see A/HRC/39/10, paras. 54, 64, 84 and 104).
Egypt
38. Various United Nations actors took action on the initial disappearance and later
detention of Mr. Ebrahim Abdelmonem Metwally Hegazy of the Association of the
Families of the Disappeared, who was on his way to meet the Working Group on Enforced
and Involuntary Disappearances in Geneva in September 2017. The case was addressed
multiple times by special procedures mandate holders (EGY 14/2017,
A/HRC/WGEID/109/1, para. 35, and see also A/HRC/WGEID/114/1, para. 56)17 and the
Assistant Secretary-General.18
39. Several special procedures mandate holders addressed the prolonged pretrial
detention of Ms. Hanane Baderraddine Abdalhafez Othman of the Association of the
Families of the Disappeared, who had documented cases for the Working Group on
Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances over nine months and allegations of her being
denied medical attention while in prison (EGY 4/2018 and A/HRC/WGAD/2017/78, paras.
89–93). On 31 July 2018 the Government responded to the allegations.
Guatemala
40. On 30 November 2017, special procedures mandate holders raised concerns
regarding allegations of criminal charges against Mr. Jerson Xitumul Morales, a journalist
who had collaborated with OHCHR in Guatemala, providing information on the human
rights situation in Izabal (GTM 6/2017). On 15 January 2018, the Government responded.
41. The High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed support for the national human
rights institution (Procurador de Derechos Humanos).19 This followed alleged attempts by
the Government to undermine the independence of the institution because of its support for
the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala. The Ombudsman,
Mr. Augusto Jordán Rodas Andrade, has faced smear campaigns and threats to his family.
17 OHCHR, “UN rights experts dismayed by arrest of Egyptian lawyer Ebrahim Metwally en route to
meet them” (15 September 2017).
18 OHCHR, “Report highlights rising reprisals against human rights defenders cooperating with the UN”
(20 September 2017).
19 Statement by the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the end of his mission to Guatemala
(19 November 2017).
Guyana
42. On 18 October 2017, the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent
expressed concern about alleged reprisals by prison authorities and guards against an
individual (name withheld by the Working Group) incarcerated at Lusignan Prison, whom
they had interviewed during their visit to Guyana in October 2017. They subsequently
received information that the individual had been verbally threatened by the prison
authorities and guards for having cooperated with them (GUY 1/2017).
Honduras
43. Following his official visit to Honduras on 12 May 2018, the Special Rapporteur on
the situation of human rights defenders, said that he was “extremely concerned with the
increasing number of acts of intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders in
connection with their engagement with the United Nations…These reprisals take the form
of smear campaigns, harassment, intimidation, threats, physical attacks and killings.”
44. On 7 June 2017, special procedures mandate holders expressed concern about
allegations of death threats, attacks and reprisals against Ms. Hedme Castro, of the
Asociación para una Ciudanía Participativa (HND 3/2017) in relation to cooperation with
OHCHR and the Human Rights Council. On 29 June 2017 the Government responded.
45. On 24 July 2017, the Human Rights Committee raised concern about reports of
disparaging statements made by senior government officials in the media about individuals
and civil society organizations who had submitted information for the second periodic
report of Honduras (see CCPR/C/HND/CO/2, para. 42), including in relation to the murder
of Ms. Berta Cáceres (see A/HRC/36/31, annex II, paras. 1–3). On 18 July 2018 the Chair
of the Committee met with the Government.
46. The Assistant Secretary-General visited Honduras in July 2017 and raised a number
of allegations of reprisals with the Government.
Hungary
47. On 21 June 2017, special procedures mandate holders addressed the targeting of
Budapest-based international disability rights NGO Validity (formerly Mental Disability
Advocacy Centre) following the release of a report on allegations of human rights
violations at the Topház social care institution (HUN 3/2017), which were addressed by the
Human Rights Committee in March 2018 (see CCPR/C/HUN/CO/6, para. 21, and
CCPR/C/SR. 3464 and 3465). Validity are of the view that their targeting is related in large
part to their advocacy with the United Nations human rights mechanisms.
48. It was reported that among objections by Member States to NGO participation in the
Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption in
Vienna in November 2017 was an attempt to block the participation of K-Monitor, a
Hungarian anti-corruption NGO, in an effort to place obstacles in the way of participation
by organizations raising corruption pertaining to the authorities. The Bureau voted against
the objection of the State (see CAC/COSP/2017/14, para. 25) and K-Monitor was able to
resume its participation.
49. Two organizations that participated in the review of Hungary by the Human Rights
Committee in March 2018, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and Amnesty International
Hungary, have been targeted, at least in part, for their advocacy on migrants’ rights at the
United Nations. On 3 August 2018 the Government responded to the allegations.
India
50. On 9 November 2017, special procedures mandate holders expressed concern at the
use of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 to restrict the work of NGOs
cooperating with the United Nations, for example by a refusal to renew or grant licences,
including for Mr. Henri Tiphagne of the Centre for Promotion of Social Concerns (OTH
2/2017 and IND 14/2018). Related issues concerning Mr. Nobokishore Urikhimbam of the
Centre for Social Development have also been reported.
51. On 20 June 2017, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders
expressed concern about reports of reprisals against a member of the Jammu and Kashmir
Coalition of Civil Society, Mr. Kartik Murukutla, for cooperating with United Nations
human rights mechanisms (IND 4/2017).
52. On 7 June 2018, the Assistant Secretary-General addressed the allegations in writing.
On 2 July 2018, the Government responded.
Israel
53. In May 2018, the Minister of the Interior in Israel did not renew the work permit of
the Director of Human Rights Watch, Omar Shakir, and ordered his deportation.20 Mr.
Shakir remains in the country, as the order is under review by a district court. The order
was based, inter alia, on allegations that Mr. Shakir would support a boycott of Israel.
Among the allegations are statements by Mr. Shakir supporting a database produced by the
United Nations of businesses that operate in Israeli settlements, pursuant to Human Rights
Council resolution 31/36.
Kyrgyzstan
54. On 25 June 2018, the Committee on Migrant Workers addressed the Government
regarding the designation as extremist material of a submission by civil society
organizations Anti-Discrimination Centre Memorial and Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan of an
alternative report to the Committee ahead of its review of Kyrgyzstan in April 2015.21 In
May 2018, during a visit to Kyrgyzstan the Assistant-Secretary General raised the
allegations with the Government.
Maldives
55. On 20 April 2018, special procedures mandate holders raised concerns about the
launching of investigations against Shahindha Ismail of the Maldivian Democracy
Network, for the use of Twitter and for having participated in a side event at the June 2017
session of the Human Rights Council (MDV 3/2018). Ms. Ismail continues to receive
online threats and online gender-based violence, including rape threats. On 23 July 2018 the
Government responded to the allegations.
Mali
56. According to the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission
in Mali (MINUSMA), there have been cases of reprisals perpetrated by State actors and
non-State armed groups against individuals who collaborate with the Mission, including the
Human Rights and Protection Division.22 Intimidation and death threats are strategies that
have been used by terrorist and extremist armed groups to threaten populations for any
collaboration with national and international forces, including MINUSMA.
Morocco
57. In a decision of 15 November 2016, the Committee against Torture found that
Morocco was responsible for violations of the Convention in the case of Naâma Asfari v.
Morocco, in which Mr. Asfari, a Sahrawi human rights defender currently in detention, was
the petitioner (CAT/C/59/D/606/2014). Since the decision by the Committee, Mr. Asfari’s
treatment in detention has reportedly deteriorated. His wife has been denied entry into
Morocco on four occasions. On 13 February 2018, Mr. Asfari was placed in solitary
20 OHCHR, “UN experts urge Israel not to deport Human Rights Watch official Omar Shakir”
(18 May 2018).
21 See submissions of civil society organizations to the twenty-second session of the Committee on
Migrant Workers.
22 MINUSMA and OHCHR “Droits de l’homme et processus de paix au Mali (janvier 2016–juin 2017)”
(February 2018), available from https://minusma.unmissions.org/malgr%C3%A9-la-mise-en-
%C5%93uvre-de-l%E2%80%99accord-pour-la-paix-la-situation-des-droits-de-
l%E2%80%99homme-demeure.
confinement until 13 March 2018. On 13 July 2018, the Committee’s Rapporteur on
Reprisals and on Follow-up wrote to the Government.
Myanmar
58. During a briefing by members of the Security Council on their mission to Myanmar,
it was reported that Myanmar security forces had threatened Rohingya villagers with
reprisals if they talked to members of the delegation during the visit and had told the
villagers that those who had done so were being sought. A Security Council member noted
that it was unacceptable that anyone should feel intimidated about speaking with members
of the Council (see S/PV.8255, p. 6).
59. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar reported to the
Human Rights Council in March 2018 that she had received information about violent
reprisals taken by the armed forces against civilians with whom she had met following her
visit to Rakhine State in January 2017 (see A/HRC/37/70, para. 63).
60. The Governing Body of ILO reported on 7 February 2018 that it remained concerned
about two cases of apparent reprisal against complainants in forced labour cases, Mr. Aung
Ko Htwe and Mr. Khaing Myo Htun (see GB.332/INS/8, paras. 15–16),23 which were also
raised by the Special Rapporteur in her report to the Human Rights Council in March 2018
(see A/HRC/37/70, para. 15). The Assistant Secretary-General addressed the allegations in
writing on 2 July 2018.
Philippines
61. On 2 October 2017, special procedures mandate holders expressed concern about the
defamatory and intimidating public statements directed at the Commission on Human
Rights of the Philippines, its members and its Chair, Mr. Chito Gascon, (PHL 12/2017), in
part because of its cooperation with the United Nations. The former Chair of the
Commission, Ms. Leila M. de Lima, has been in prison since February 2018 on allegations
of drug-related charges, deemed “politically motivated” by several mandate holders (PHL
5/2017).
62. Multiple United Nations actors have addressed reprisals against human rights
defenders and representatives of indigenous peoples who were de facto listed as terrorists in
February 2018. A number of those individuals have been long-standing partners of the
United Nations and have reported that they believe their inclusion on the list is in part
because of their cooperation with its mechanisms. The Assistant Secretary-General
addressed the allegations in writing on 4 May 2018 and publicly on 18 May 2018.24 On 8
June 2018, special procedures mandate holders raised concerns with the Government (PHL
5/2018).
Russian Federation
63. On 10 May 2018, the Chair and the Focal Point for Reprisals of the Committee on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination wrote to the Government about allegations of
harassment, threats, and intimidation by authorities against Ms. Yana Tannagasheva and
Mr. Vladislav Tannagashev and their families, two human rights defenders who had
engaged with the Committee in August 2017 to advocate for the rights of the Shor
indigenous people of southern Siberia.25
Rwanda
64. On 20 October 2017, the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture announced
publicly that it had suspended its visit to Rwanda owing to obstruction regarding access to
23 ILO, Follow-up to the resolution concerning remaining measures on the subject of Myanmar adopted
by the Conference at its 102nd Session (2013), 7 February 2018.
24 OHCHR, “Human rights advocates in Asia under attack,” (18 May 2018).
25 See https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/RUS/
INT_CERD_RLE_RUS_8683_E.pdf.
some places of detention, the confidentiality of interviews and concerns about potential
reprisals. In February 2018, the the Subcommittee announced its intention to resume the
visit to Rwanda. 26 On 1 June 2018, the Assistant Secretary-General wrote to the
Government about the lack of assurances given to the Subcommittee that those interviewed
or contacted during the visit would not face intimidation and reprisals. On 18 June 2018,
the High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern at the suspension of the visit.
During the Subcommittee’s confidential session held in Geneva from 18-22 June 2018, it
decided it would terminate the visit due to the lack of cooperation of the authorities in the
resumption of the visit. 27 On 27 June 2018, the Government responded to the allegations.
Saudi Arabia
65. On 28 February 2018, Mr. Essa Al Nukheifi, a human rights defender consulted in
December 2016 on the preparations for the mission of the Special Rapporteur on extreme
poverty and human rights to Saudi Arabia in January 2017 and the subject of a
communication by special procedures mandate holders (SAU 2/2017), was sentenced to six
years in prison and banned from travelling and using social media for an equivalent amount
of time after his release.
66. On 1 June 2017, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued an opinion about
the arbitrary detention of Salim Abdullah Hussain Abu Abdullah, who was arrested in
December 2014 without a warrant and not provided with a reason for his arrest (see
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/10, paras. 31–33). Since the opinion was issued, it has been reported
that as an act of reprisal for having his case considered by the Working Group, Mr. Abu
Abdullah has repeatedly been placed in solitary confinement for prolonged periods of time
and been denied regular contact with his family (see A/HRC/39/45, para. 28). On 24 July
2018, the Government responded to the allegations.
South Sudan
67. In a report in February 2018, the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS)
and OHCHR noted restrictions imposed by national authorities against individuals whose
opinions were perceived as critical of the Government or the reputation of the country and
who cooperated with the United Nations by attending meetings, sharing information on
human rights violations and facilitating access for UNMISS to affected populations (see
S/2017/505, S/2017/784, S/2017/1011 and S/2018/163).
68. In follow up to his visit to South Sudan in February 2017,28 the Assistant Secretary-
General addressed allegations on 21 July 2017 to the Government of intimidation and
threats against individuals for having cooperated with UNMISS and other United Nations
entities outside South Sudan, including cases of individuals who were forced to leave the
country.
Thailand
69. On 30 June 2017, special procedures mandate holders raised concerns over the
harassment of and death threats made against Mr. Maitree Chamroensuksakul, a Lahu
indigenous rights defender, following a meeting with the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights defenders during his visit to Thailand in May 2017 (THA
4/2017).
70. In August 2017, Ms. Sirikan Charoensiri of Thai Lawyers for Human Rights was
charged with giving false information regarding a criminal offence, which may be directly
linked to her cooperation with the United Nations human rights mechanisms. She had been
previously charged with sedition (THA 2/2017).
26 OHCHR, “UN torture prevention experts announce resuming visit to Rwanda,” 28 February 2018.
27 OHCHR, “UN torture prevention body to visit Burundi, Costa Rica, Senegal and Switzerland; terminates Rwanda visit”, 4 July 2018.
28 See OHCHR, “South Sudan: Senior UN human rights official condemns deplorable rights situation,
calls for perpetrators to be held to account” (17 February 2017).
71. During his visit to Thailand in March 2018, the Assistant Secretary-General
addressed allegations to the Government and followed up with a letter on 27 April 2018.
Trinidad and Tobago
72. On 21 July 2017, special procedures mandate holders raised concerns about the
deprivation of liberty of Zaheer Seepersad in St. Ann’s Psychiatric Hospital and other
individuals living with a psychosocial disability (TTO 2/2017). They expressed serious
concern about the persistent harassment, intimidation and threats to which Mr. Seepersad
had been subjected for bringing his claims to the attention of the Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention (see A/HRC/WGAD/2017/68, para. 34–35).
Turkey
73. Information was received that on 20 August 2017, the web pages administered by the
Housing and Land Rights Network - Habitat International Coalition had suffered a series of
alleged cyberattacks, which were repeated in September 2017 and April 2018, which the
Network believed were a reprisal following publicity relating to their report to the United
Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III).
74. Kursat Çevik, a Turkish police superintendent, was the subject of an opinion adopted
on 16 June 2017 by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, following which the
Turkish pro-Government media circulated information distorting the opinion of the
Working Group and containing various accusations against Mr. Çevik, who also reportedly
faced reprisals in his place of detention (see A/HRC/39/45, para. 28). On 31 July 2018, the
Government responded to the allegations.
Turkmenistan
75. On 18 May 2018 during a regional meeting in Kyrgyzstan, the Assistant Secretary-
General engaged with human rights defenders from four countries of Central Asia, but said
he regretted that the United Nations had not felt able to invite representatives from
Turkmenistan to that meeting for fear that they might face intimidation or reprisals from
their Government for cooperation with the Organization.29
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
76. According to information received, representatives of the Government of Venezuela
allegedly threatened and harassed civil society representatives serving as panellists at a side
event during the thirty-fifth session of the Human Rights Council on 6 June 2017.
77. On 19 January 2018, the Assistant Secretary-General addressed allegations in
writing to the Government.
VI. Conclusions and recommendations
78. When I addressed the Human Rights Council in February 2018, I affirmed that
we should all be deeply shocked and angered by the extent to which civil society actors
suffer reprisals, intimidation and attack because of their work, including when they
engage with the United Nations system (SG/SM/18912-HRC/26). As demonstrated by
the number of allegations contained in the present report, reported acts of
intimidation and reprisal against those seeking to cooperate or having cooperated
with the United Nations on human rights continue to occur and remain of grave
concern. At the same time, the Organization is aware that the cases of intimidation
and reprisals included in the report are but a fraction of those that regularly occur. A
number of cases have been omitted for security reasons and a concern for the
individual or organization involved, and it is believed that many incidents go
unreported.
29 See www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23109&LangID=E.
79. Intimidation and reprisals affect not only the individuals and groups directly
impacted, but are alarming also for the message they send to other actors and
individuals, whether from government or civil society, who wish to engage with the
United Nations and express their views freely. The United Nations is regrettably
seeing evidence of self-censorship in all regions with regard to engagement with its
institutions at the local, national, regional and international levels. The impact of fear
of reprisals is not only visible in the field, where United Nations personnel often
encounter people too afraid to speak with them, but also at headquarters in New York
and Geneva.
80. Field presences have also reported disturbing trends in acts of intimidation and
reprisals that inhibit their work. In conflict settings, a fear of reprisals poses an
obstacle for the United Nations to fulfil its mandate to deliver humanitarian assistance
and protect civilians. For example, at the community level, colleagues have reported
arriving at a location only to find the local population either unwilling to speak or
having absented themselves from the scheduled meeting so as not to be seen to be
providing information to the United Nations. It is not only community members who
are being targeted, but also their legal representatives, intermediaries, witnesses and
interpreters. In the development context, a hostile environment for community
members in many countries who engage on land and resource-related projects is
frequently reported. Indigenous peoples, in particular, continue to face reprisals as
they seek to participate in development processes.
81. It is also observable from cases that have been reported to the United Nations
that women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons are exposed
to gender- or sexual orientation-specific barriers, threats and violence. Women
cooperating with the United Nations have reported threats of rape and being
subjected to online smear campaigns. At least one case of sexual assault in detention
was reported in the last year. Women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and
intersex persons have also reported being subjected to physical searches and
humiliating and degrading treatment. The United Nations is aware that such incidents
are underreported owing to gender-specific barriers to coming forward. Many women
and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons facing reprisals for their
advocacy report being ostracized in their communities and their families threatened.
The United Nations must do more to ensure that their experiences are documented,
disaggregated and properly analysed, with a view to ensuring that they are not
exposed to additional risks.
82. The range of intimidation and reprisals continues to be broad and often
disguised in legal, political and administrative hurdles. Beyond measures such as
travel bans, arbitrary arrest and detention, surveillance and defamation campaigns,
initiatives such as budget cuts and selectively applied laws or new legislation that
restrict the operations of organizations that are likely to cooperate with the United
Nations are being seen. Measures undermining the legal legitimacy of organizations or
the ability to acquire and maintain funding, especially funding from foreign donors,
undermine their capacity to engage with the United Nations. Such measures can also
deter organizations from engaging with the United Nations and contribute to the
shrinking of civic space.
83. There is a disturbing trend in the use of national security arguments and
counter-terrorism strategies by States as justification for blocking access by
communities and civil society organizations to the United Nations. In the last year, a
number of NGOs and human rights defenders, activists and experts have been
labelled as “terrorists” by their Governments. Reported cases include individuals or
organizations being officially charged with terrorism, blamed for cooperation with
foreign entities, or accused of damaging the reputation or security of the State.
84. States have frequently invoked counter-terrorism as the reason an organization
or individual should be denied access to participation at the United Nations. The real
global threat of terrorism notwithstanding, this issue must be tackled without
compromising respect for human rights, as human rights and national sovereignty go
hand in hand, without contradiction. As I have emphasized before, terrorism is
fundamentally the denial and destruction of human rights and the fight against
terrorism will never succeed by perpetuating the same denial and destruction. When
we protect human rights, we are tackling the root causes of terrorism.30 Counter-
terrorism strategies cannot legitimize the blocking of access to the United Nations for
certain individuals and organizations, purely on the basis of allegations of links to
terrorism.
85. The majority of cases described in the present report demonstrate that acts of
intimidation and reprisal are usually perpetrated by State officials, or at the very least
are condoned by the State. At the same time, violations by non-State actors must be
taken seriously. I reiterate that States must end such acts, investigate all allegations,
provide effective remedies and adopt and implement measures to prevent
reoccurrence. I call on all States to follow up on the cases included in the present and
previous reports and provide substantive responses where they remain outstanding.
Private citizens, corporate actors and non-State groups must be held accountable as
well.
86. The United Nations is making efforts to improve its system-wide response, but
more needs to be done. I call on all United Nations entities to be vigilant in the
blocking of access to their partners and to report such cases immediately. The United
Nations must strengthen the collection of information on acts of intimidation and
reprisal by encouraging all parts of the system to share information more regularly on
such cases and to take appropriate measures. Further, I encourage all stakeholders to
report allegations of intimidation and reprisals for cooperating with the United
Nations on human rights, as they occur, to ensure follow-up and action. Such actions
in all parts of the system help bring further attention to such cases and encourage
positive action by Governments.
87. As I stressed in my previous report (A/HRC/36/31), any act of intimidation or
reprisal against individuals or groups seeking to cooperate or having cooperated with
the United Nations in the field of human rights is absolutely unacceptable. Such acts
run contrary to the very principles of the United Nations and must end. The world
owes it to those brave people standing up for human rights, who have responded to
requests to provide information to and engage with the United Nations, to ensure their
right to participate is respected. Punishing individuals for cooperating with the United
Nations is a shameful practice that everyone must do more to stamp out.
30 See speech given by the Secretary-General at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University
of London, on “Counter-terrorism and human rights: winning the fight while upholding our values”
(16 November 2017).
Annex I
Comprehensive information on alleged cases of reprisals
and intimidation for cooperation with the United Nations
on human rights
1. Bahrain
1. Ten special procedure mandate holders expressed grave concern about an ongoing
trend of harassment and intimidation against Bahraini civil society representatives seeking
to cooperate with the United Nations. Reprisals have taken the form of sweeping travel
bans for at least 20 selected individuals, and the arrest, detention, sexual assault and torture
and other forms of ill-treatment of other targeted individuals (see 4 July 2017, BHR 8/2017
(the Government responded on 2 August 2017); 13 July 2017, BHR 9/2017 (the
Government responded on 2 August 2017); and 13 December BHR 13/2017 (at the time of
writing the Government had not responded).1
2. Long-standing travel bans remained in effect for many civil society representatives
during successive sessions of the Human Rights Council, preventing them from
participating between June 2017 and June 2018. 2 A number of individuals have also
reported the use of intimidation because of their past engagement with the Council to
discourage them from speaking out again, including threats of physical violence, public
defamation and rape.
3. Three family members of Mr. Sayed Ahmed Al-Wadaei, of the Bahrain Institute for
Rights and Democracy who has engaged with the Human Rights Council, were sentenced
on terrorism-related charges on 30 October 2017. In March 2017, while Mr. Al-Wadaei was
attending the 34th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Mr. Al-Wadaei’s brother-in-law Mr. Sayed Nazar Al-Wadaei, cousin by marriage, Mr. Mahmoud Marzooq
Mansoor and mother-in-law Ms. Hajar Mansoor Hassan were arrested in Bahrain, subjected
to different forms of ill-treatment and torture, and faced terrorism-related charges. Bahraini
authorities also reportedly targeted Mr. Al-Wadaei’s wife, Ms. Duaa Al-Wadaei in March 2018 when she was sentenced in absentia to two months prison for “insulting a police officer.” It was reported that Ms. Hajar Mansoor Hassan faced further reprisals in her place of detention, the Isa Town Prison Center, based on the raising of her and her family’s case and conditions in the Prison Center by civil society at the Human Rights Council on 2 July
2018 and at the review of Bahrain by the Human Rights Committee from 2 to 4 July 2018.
4. The Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights addressed allegations in writing
to the Government of Bahrain on 25 July 2017 and 29 May 2018. On 25 June 2018 the
Government responded to the allegations of travel bans that freedom of movement in
Bahrain is guaranteed by law, and that Ms. Ebtesam Al-Alsaegh, Mr. Nabeel Rajab, Ms.
Neda Al-Salman (see Annex II of the present report), and the family members of Mr. Al-
Wadaei’s were not subject to reprisals for cooperation with the United Nations but rather responsible for criminal offenses.
5. With regard to Mr. Sayed Ahmed Al-Wadaei’s family members (Mr.Nazar Al- Wadaei, Mr. Mahmoud Marzooq Mansoor, and Ms. Hajar Mansoor Hassan), the
Government stated they were faced reprisals for committing criminal offences and not
because of Mr. Al-Wadaei’s cooperation with the United Nations. Regarding Mr. Nazar Al- Wadaei, according to the Government, two persons who investigated in relation to a 30-
person attack on a public order patrol on 3 January 2017 confessed that Mr. Nazar Al-
1 OHCHR, “Bahrain must end worsening human rights clampdown, UN experts say,” 16 June 2017.
2 Individuals included in the travel ban include: Mr. Mohamed al Tajer, Ms. Enas Oun, Mr. Ahmed al-
Saffar, Ms. Fatima al-Mutawa, Ms. Rula al-Saffar, Ms. Jalila al-Salman, Ms. Nidal al-Salman,
Mr. Radhi al-Musawi, Ms. Fatima al-Halwachi, Mr. Ebrahim Sharif, Mr. Ahmed Radhi,
Mr. Mohamed Jawad, Dr. Taha al-Durazi, Mr. Faisal Hayat, Mr. Munthur al-Khour, Ms. Masooma
al-Sayed, Ms. Rihanna al-Musawi, Sayed Talal al-Musawi and Mr. Ali al-Ghadeer, among others.
Wadaei was involved. The Office of the Prosecutor referred the case to the court, and Mr.
Al- Wadaei was sentenced to seven years in prison. The decision is awaiting appeal at the
Supreme Appeal Court, to resume on 5 June 2018.
6. Regarding Mr. Nazar Al-Wadaei, Mr. Mahmoud Marzooq Mansoor and Ms. Hajar
Mansoor Hassan, according to the Government they were arrested for planting explosives
in public places on 28 January 2017 and confessed to committing the act. Regarding Mr.
Nazar Al-Wadaei and Mr. Younes Abdel Aziz, they were arrested for planting explosives in
public places on 8 March 2017. According to the Government, Mr. Nazar confessed that he
was instructed by Mr. Younes to commit the act. On 29 November 2017, Mr. Al-Wadaei
and Mr. Abdel Aziz received a three-year prison sentence. On 8 February 2018, the Appeal
Court accepted the case on a procedural basis, and the session took place on 13 June 2018.
Regarding Ms. Duaa Al-Wadaei, the Government stated that she was not arrested because
of her husband’s activities, but arrested and charged with insulting a public servant. According to the Government, when Ms. Al-Wadaei was leaving the country, when the
passport officer asked for her boarding pass she threw her boarding pass in a provocative
manner and spoke to the officer in a demeaning manner. On 21 March 2018, the Court
sentenced Ms. Al-Wadaei in absentia to two months of imprisonment.
2. Cameroon
7. On 26 October 2017, five special procedures mandate holders expressed concern
about allegations of physical attacks, intimidation, and harassment against Ms.
Maximilienne Ngo Mbe and Ms. Alice Nkom, following their participation in the review of
Cameroon by the Human Rights Committee (CMR 5/2017). Ms. Ngo Mbe is the Executive
Director of a coalition of Central Africa Human Rights Defenders – Network, and Ms. Nkom, is President of a Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) persons
association, and also a member of the Network. It is alleged that both women are being
targeted for their human rights advocacy - Ms. Ngo Mbe in relation to her efforts to bring
attention to human rights violations committed in the English-speaking areas of southwest
and northwest Cameroon, and Ms. Nkom for her advocacy against the criminalization of
homosexuality in Cameroon. Both women human rights defenders have been the subject of
previous communications by the special procedures, on 8 April 2010 an urgent appeal
concerning Ms. Ngo Mbe (CMR 1/2010), on 5 August 2011 an urgent appeal concerning
Ms. Ngo Mbe (CMR 1/2011), on 5 November 2012 an urgent appeal concerning Ms. Nkom
(CMR 5/2012), on 13 August 2013 an urgent appeal concerning Ms. Ngo Mbe and Ms.
Nkom (CMR 3/2013), and on 27 April 2015 an urgent appeal concerning Ms. Ngo Mbe and
Ms. Nkom (CMR 1/2015). At time of writing, the Government has not responded to the
special procedures’ urgent appeals.
8. Both women had contributed to a joint alternative report on Cameroon for its review
to the Human Rights Committee, and the special procedures expressed serious concerns
about the increasingly threatening nature of the physical attacks, acts of intimidation and
harassment against them, and the further risk of reprisals as a result of their meetings with
the Committee.. On 11 July 2018, the Government responded to the special procedures’ communication of 26 October 2017, stating that the complainants should provide detailed
evidence justifying the allegations, in order to allow and facilitate action by Cameroon. The
Government emphasized that Cameroon is a state of law and not a police state, with regard
to measures aimed at ensuring the full enjoyment of their freedom of association, including
protective measures against any form of reprisal for their cooperation with the human rights
mechanisms. According to the Minister of External Relations neither the gendarmerie nor
by the police have ever been questioned Ms. Ngo Mbe and Ms. Nkom in relation to their
human rights activities or their cooperation with human rights mechanisms. According to
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it is a priority of Cameroon to ensure the protection of all
persons and all individuals living on its national territory in accordance with the principle
of equality of before the law, therefore it is the Government’s view that neither Ms. Ngo Mbe and Ms. Nkom can benefit from sui generis protection. During the universal period
review of Cameroon on 16 May 2018, one Member State recommended that the
Government take all necessary measures to enable human rights defenders and civil society
to conduct their legitimate activities without fear of reprisal (see A/HRC/39/1, para.
121.125)..
3. China
9. On 18 June 2018, in his opening statement to the thirty-eighth session of the Human
Rights Council, the High Commissioner for Human Rights highlighted the continuing
efforts of China to prevent independent members of civil society from engaging with
United Nations human rights mechanisms, including treaty body reviews, the universal
periodic review, and many special procedures mandate holders. The High Commissioner
encouraged the authorities to enable all actors to contribute to all the international human
rights mechanisms and to cooperate with them in a spirit of open and mutual partnership.3
10. In July 2017, police officially lifted bail conditions on Ms. Wang Yu, a Chinese
lawyer working in defense of the rights of Chinese citizens, including high profile human
rights defenders cooperating or seeking cooperate with the United Nations. Ms. Wang had
reportedly been targeted for her legal representation on several sensitive cases, including
her role in the case of Ms. Cao Shunli, a human rights defender who died in custody in
2014 following engagement with the second universal periodic review cycle of China (see
A/HRC/33/19, para. 39; A/HRC/27/38, paras. 17-19; and A/HRC/30/29, Annex, para. 1).4
11. In July 2015, Ms. Wang was at the centre of the “709” incidents concerning human rights lawyers, legal assistants and law firm staff, and activists across the country, named
for the date on which it took place (9 July 2015) and her situation was addressed in a prior
communication by four special procedures mandate holders (CHN 6/2015) and in a
statement by the High Commissioner for Human Rights.5 Upon her arrest Ms. Wang at first
disappeared, then was subsequently charged with inciting “subversion of state power.” In the early hours of 9 July 2015, police reportedly abducted Ms. Wang from her home in
Beijing and, in January 2016, following six months of incommunicado detention in
“residential surveillance at a police-designated location,” Ms. Wang’s family received a notice stating she had been formally arrested and was being held at Tianjin No. 1 Detention
Center. Ms. Wang was reportedly tortured in custody and forced to confess to criminal
behaviour. According to Ms. Wang, a police officer referenced the situation of Ms. Shunli’s death during her own interrogation, noting that if she died in custody, she would become
“another Cao Shunli.”
12. After a video was released on 1 August 2016 where Ms. Wang gave a reportedly
coerced televised confession, she and her family were held under house arrest in an
apartment in Inner Mongolia, with 24-hour police guards and escorts if they left the
residence. She was subsequently released on bail. In July 2017, police officially lifted bail
conditions on Ms. Wang and her husband, but the family reportedly continues to live under
surveillance.
13. According to information received, on 11 May 2018 Mr. Qin Yongmin, democracy
activist and dissident, was prosecuted in part for his advocacy of the use of United Nations
human rights mechanisms amongst civil society in China, including the Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention, and for promotion of the implementation of United Nations human
rights treaties to which China is a party. Mr. Qin had also appealed to the special
procedures to intervene on behalf of his wife, Ms. Zhao Suli, who has been held
incommunicado while under “residential surveillance” (de facto house arrest) since February 2018, following over three years of enforced disappearance in police custody.
Like Mr. Qin, Ms. Zhao has been in State custody since January 9, 2015, when they were
both disappeared by police in Wuhan.
14. The Wuhan City Intermediate People’s Court in Hubei Province charged Mr. Qin for “subversion of state power” (Criminal Law, Article 105(1)), and on 11 July 2018 sentenced him to 13 years in prison. The criminal indictment against Qin, which was issued by Wuhan
City People’s Procurorate on 17 June 2016, states that Qin was being prosecuted due to his promotion of engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, and that his
3 OHCHR, “Opening statement and global update of human rights concerns by UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein at 38th session of the Human Rights
Council,” 18 June 2018.
4 OHCHR, “Deadly reprisals: UN experts deplore the events leading to the death of Chinese human
rights defender Cao Shunli, and ask for full investigation,” 18 March 2014.
5 OHCHR, “UN Human Rights Chief deeply concerned by China clampdown on lawyers and activists,
16 February 2016.
“fundamental method of his [advocacy] work is based on using the Constitution and various UN human rights treaties, leading those around him to strive for human rights protections,
organizing them in accordance with the law, uniting various spontaneously created
organizations, and coordinating the work on various fronts,” as a way to allegedly form a “powerful political opposition group.”
15. According to information received, Guizhou activist Mr. Mi Chongbiao and his
wife, Ms. Li Kezhen have been forcibly disappeared since April 2018. They were detained
incommunicado by State agents in May 2012 in Guiyang City, Guizhou Province, after Mr.
Mi posted online a complaint that he had submitted to the United Nations Human Rights
Council about rights violations that his family has suffered. Officers from Guizhou Public
Security Bureau have mainly held the elderly couple (Mr. Mi is currently 78 and Ms. Li is
around 67) in “black jails,” makeshift facilities used to illegally detain dissidents, activists, and petitioners. Mr. Mi has reportedly been subjected to ill-treatment and torture. Ms. Li
has not been involved in human rights advocacy and is being persecuted solely on the basis
of her relationship to Mr. Mi.
16. On 31 July 2018 the Government responded to the allegations. Regarding the case of
Ms. Wang, the Government stated that in July of 2015, she was “lawfully subjected to criminal detention on suspicion of troublemaking and inciting the subversion of State
power, and was subsequently put under residential surveillance in accordance with the
law.” Regarding the case of Mr. Mi Chongbiao, the Government stated that in May of 2012, he was “lawfully subjected to criminal detention on suspicion of troublemaking, which was subsequently changed to residential surveillance that was lifted in August 2012. The
Government further noted that allegations of “disappearances” or “arbitrary detentions” are at odds with the facts.
17. Pertaining to Mr. Qin, the Government stated that in March of 2015, he was
“lawfully subjected to criminal detention on suspicion of subverting State power; his arrest was approved by the procuratorial authorities in May of 2015, and [his case] was referred
for prosecution in June of 2016.” The Government noted that the Wuhan Municipal Intermediate People’s Court held an open trial on 11 July 2018, which held that Mr. Qin had committed the crime of subverting State power and lawfully sentenced him to 13 years’ fixed-term imprisonment and three years’ deprivation of political rights. The Government stated that, “following his release on the completion of his term of imprisonment [for that crime], and motivated by his dissatisfaction with State power and the socialist system, he
continued to engage in activities subversive of State power, advocating his ideas on
subverting State power and proposing the goal, strategies and methods of subverting it
through written essays, published books and the use the Internet and foreign media.” The Government stated that to “achieve the goal of subverting State power, Mr. Qin sought out members, drafted regulations and established the structure of an unlawful organization that
he set up with himself as its head, and raised funds by levying membership fees, soliciting
donations and accepting financial subsidies, to be used for undertaking activities subversive
of State power.” The Government did not address the allegation of reprisals.
4. Colombia
18. On 1 February 2018, five special procedures mandate holders addressed allegations
of death threats by paramilitary groups to Mr. Germán Graciano Posso, a member of the
Peace Community of San José del Apartadó, following his participation in the United
Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights in Geneva in 2017 (COL 1/2018). On 27
and 28 November 2017, Mr. Graciano Posso gave two speeches as a panellist at the Forum,
where he denounced the incursions, aggressions, and repeated death threats from
paramilitary groups against members of the Peace Community, because of their work
highlighting the illicit financing of Chiquita Brands by paramilitary groups. On 29
December 2017, five paramilitaries broke into a warehouse with the intention of
assassinating him. Three of the attackers managed to flee, and two were captured and
handed over by the community to government authorities who reportedly released them 24
hours after the event, whereby they continued to threaten the community in retaliation for
the events that took place. At the time of writing the Government had not responded to the
special procedures’ urgent appeal.
5. Cuba
19. On 11 May 2018, the spokesperson for the High Commissioner for Human Rights
stated that OHCHR had received worrying reports that officials in Cuba have prevented a
number of human rights defenders and civil society representatives from boarding flights to
travel to meetings abroad on the pretext of requiring more detailed identity checks. Those
measures have resulted in passengers missing their flights, and therefore the meetings,
which in many cases, were organized by a United Nations entity. At the time of writing
OHCHR had received direct information relating to 14 cases of Cuban human rights
defenders who were told by officials that the computer system required extra screening.
20. There have also been reports that dozens of other people may have been stopped in
this way from travelling, allegedly with no explanation by the Cuban authorities as to why
they were held up nor on whose orders. Civil society organizations reported that the
numbers of such instances have increased since 2016 and some human rights organizations
were even informed that they would be banned from travelling outside Cuba until June
2018.
21. The spokesperson called on the Cuban authorities to respect everyone’s right to freedom of expression and to freedom of movement, and to ensure that human rights
defenders and civil society representatives are not unjustifiably prevented from travelling,
including those planning to attend United Nations meetings, in particular its universal
periodic review on 16 May 2018 in Geneva.
22. On 9 February 2018, two special procedures mandate holders expressed their
concern to the Government about allegations of interrogation, threats and unofficial travel
bans in individual cases, including Mr. José Ernesto Morales Estrada of Consejería Jurídica
e Instrucción Cívica (CUB 1/2018). Mr. Morales Estrada has collaborated with the United
Nations on different occasions, mainly the Human Rights Council and treaty bodies.
Mr. Morales Estrada travelled to Geneva at the end of November 2017 to take part in the
94th session of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the 10th
session of the United Nations Forum on Minority Issues.
23. On 18 December 2017, Mr. Morales Estrada received a summons to appear before
the local police in Pinar del Río. During his interrogation, he was allegedly threatened and
informed that from that day he would be prohibited from traveling outside of Cuba due to
his human rights advocacy with the United Nations. The official-in-charge is alleged to
have said that his participation in United Nations forums had negative effects for Cuba at
the international level. In a letter dated 6 April 2018, the Government categorically rejected
the allegations, stating that Cuba does not detain, threaten or harass people for peacefully
exercising their rights and that Mr. Morales Estrada is free to leave the country.
24. According to information received on 18 February 2018, Ms. Dora L. Mesa, of
Asociación Cubana para el Desarrollo de la ducación Infantil (ACDEI), was advised at the
passport office (Oficinas de la Dirección de Inmigración y Extranjería) that an indefinite
travel ban had been imposed on her due to ‘public interest.’ Ms. Mesa has no past criminal or judicial charge pending, and there is concern that this de facto travel ban has been
imposed as a reprisal in relation to her previous engagement with United Nations human
rights mechanisms and to prevent her from engaging with the universal periodic review.
She has reportedly been subject to surveillance and harassment at her home.
25. Ms. Mesa, Mr. Juan Antonio Madrazo Luna and Ms. Marthadela Tamayo González,
had planned to participate in pre-meetings related to the universal periodic review. On 7
April 2018, Mr. Madrazo Luna and Ms. Tamayo González both members of the Comité
Ciudadanos por la Integración Racial (CIR), were subject to intense scrutiny at the airport
by customs and immigration officials, and were prevented from being able to board the
plane to travel to Geneva. On 12 May 2018, Mr. Madrazo Luna was traveling to attend the
universal periodic review session and intercepted at Havana airport and detained by the
police for two hours for a “verification of (his) documents” which ensured he missed his flight to Geneva (via Madrid). It was also reported that the taxi driver driving Mr. Madrazo
Luna to the airport was fined by the police, detained and driven to a police station where he
was interrogated. During the universal periodic review of Cuba in May 2018, a Member
State recommended that Cuba allow human rights defenders and civil society to engage
with the United Nations and its mechanisms (see A/HRC/39/16, para. 24.158).
26. The Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights addressed these allegations in
writing to the Government of Cuba on 11 April 2018. On 10 May 2018 the Government
responded that the individuals mentioned in the letter do not merit the categorization of
‘human rights defender’ because of the large monetary sums received for their work from undue foreign influence intent on regime change. The Government stated that these
individuals should be more appropriately called ‘foreign agents,’ and rejected categorically the allegations of reprisals.
6. Democratic Republic of the Congo
27. The United Nations Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(MONUSCO), reported that on 25 September 2017, in Lubumbashi, Haut-Katanga
province, a human rights defender who had sent a letter alleging human rights violations
committed in Kambove territory, became a victim of threats and harassment by an Agence
Nationale de Renseignement (ANR) provincial agent. It is alleged that the agents formally
reprimanded the human rights defender for sending such a letter to MONUSCO.
28. On 28 October 2017, in Luebo, Kasai province, a United Nations team of joint
human rights officers, accompanied by their MONUSCO military escort, was threatened by
soldiers of the Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du Congo (FARDC)
soldiers. FARDC soldiers and Police Nationale Congolaise agents were posted outside the
hotel where the United Nations team stayed, presumably to monitor the team’s movement and to identify persons coming to visit the team. It is alleged that two persons who wanted
to speak with the United Nations team were arrested by FARDC soldiers and released the
following day. A note verbale was sent by MONUSCO to the Congolese authorities
addressing this particular incident.
29. On 20 December 2017, in Nyiragongo, North Kivu province, a representative of a
local development NGO was abducted by unknown individuals who mistreated and hit him
while asking questions. He managed to flee after nine days in captivity. This incident is
allegedly linked to a World Bank visit in early 2017 when the NGO representative
denounced the embezzlement of World Bank funds by the NGO’s coordinator and agents of the Fonds Social de la République, an institution attached to the Presidency of the Republic
in charge of managing funds for development projects brought by international partners
such as the World Bank. Since the World Bank’s visit, the NGO representative has been receiving threats through anonymous calls and text messages. In a meeting in March 2017
with the Antenna (sub-office) of the Fonds Social de la République in North Kivu, the
coordinator of the NGO and his collaborators allegedly threatened the NGO representative
if he continued to denounce their misbehaviour, and fired him.
30. On 24 April 2018, in Kimpese, Kongo central province, a human rights defender
was allegedly threatened by a police commissioner following his advocacy for the release
of six detainees, including one child. The police commissioner, who was armed, allegedly
intimidated him publicly for sharing reports on allegations of human rights violations with
MONUSCO.
7. Djibouti
31. In April 2018, Mr. Kadar Abdi Ibrahim, a professor, journalist and human rights
defender, conducted advocacy activities in Geneva, and presented a joint NGO submission
prior to the universal periodic review of Djibouti. On 15 April 2018, two days after
returning from Geneva, it was reported that he was briefly detained and had his passport
confiscated by Secret Service agents who raided his home. The Secret Service agents gave
no reason for his arrest and confiscation of his passport. Mr. Ibrahim has since been unable
to leave the country. As a result, he was unable to participate in the review of Djibouti by
the Working Group on the universal periodic review held on 10 May 2018. Four Member
States expressed their concern to the Government of Djibouti during its examination by the
universal periodic review in May 2018.6
6 Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Djibouti (see A/HRC/39/10,
paras. 54 (Croatia), 64 (Germany), 84 (Ireland) and 104 (The Netherlands)).
8. Egypt
32. Various United Nations actors addressed the situation of Mr. Ebrahim Abdel
Moneim Metwally Hagazy, one of the founders of the Association of the Families of the
Disappeared. Mr. Metwally was traveling on 10 September 2017 from Cairo to Geneva to
attend a meeting with the United Nations Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary
Disappearances on 15 September 2017.7 Mr. Metwally had submitted a complaint on 3
April 2016 to the Working Group on behalf of his son, Mr. Amr Ibrahim Abdel Moneim
Metwally, who was arrested on 7 August 2013 in Kafr El-Sheikh Governorate by police
and army security forces and who has been reported as disappeared (see
A/HRC/WGEID/109/1, para. 35). The Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights
addressed this case in writing to the Government on 15 September 2017 and to the Human
Rights Council on 20 September 2017.8 On 3 October 2017, seven special procedures
mandate holders expressed concern about his arrest and incommunicado detention (EGY
14/2017). The Government of Egypt replied to the Working Group (see below) and
addressed the Human Rights Council on 20 September 2017.
33. Mr. Metwally was charged with founding and leading an illegal terrorist
organisation, conspiracy with foreign entities or organizations to harm state security, and
spreading false information. He was detained in Aqrab Prison for 15 days, pending the
investigation, and reportedly subjected to ill-treatment and torture in detention. The
Government responded to the special procedures on 8 November 2017, available online,
but information has been received that he is still being held in solitary confinement in pre-
trial detention and cannot exercise his right to habeas corpus.
34. The Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances expressed its
continued concern that the cases and charges against Mr. Metwally may relate to his
documentation of cases of enforced disappearance in Egypt, including for submission to the
Working Group, and requested an update from the Government on outstanding questions
raised, including whether an OHCHR letter confirming a meeting with the Working Group
is part of the criminal file of Mr. Metwally and is being used as evidence against him (see
A/HRC/WGEID/114/1, para. 56). The Government replied that it was not yet possible to
confirm whether Mr. Hegazy had been holding a letter from OHCHR as the items found in
his possession at the time of his arrest were still being inspected, and the Working Group on
Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances has subsequently requested an update on this
matter.
35. On 31 July 2018 the Government provided an update to OHCHR, reiterating its
previous communications with the Working Group, including its response to special
procedures (EGY 14/2017) on 8 November 2017. The Government noted that Mr.
Metwally was charged with leading a terrorist group (in association with the Muslim
Brotherhood) and spreading false news, statements and rumours abroad about the internal
situation in the country. It noted the case is still being investigated as Mr. Metwally is still
being interrogated and his seized assets are being examined. The examination report of Mr.
Metwally’s e-mail, phone, and CDs is still pending. The officer who conducted the investigation and who was responsible for his arrest and search still needs to be
interviewed. The Government noted that Mr. Metwally was presented upon his request
more than once to the prison hospital, where he was subjected to medical examination and
care, was allowed to telephone his family and was given clothes, food, and medicine in his
cell. The Government did not address the allegations of reprisals.
36. On 21 February 2018, five special procedures mandate holders addressed the
prolonged nine-month pre-trial detention of Ms. Hanane Baderraddine Abdalhafez Othman,
of the Families of the Forcibly Disappeared Association, as well as allegations of her being
denied medical attention while in prison (EGY 4/2018; and see A/HRC/WGAD/2017/78,
paras 89-93). Ms. Othman began to advocate for justice for victims of enforced
disappearance and their families after her husband, Mr. Khaled Mohamed Hafez Mohamed
Azzedine, disappeared on 27 July 2013 following his arrest by state security forces during a
7 OHCHR, “UN rights experts dismayed by arrest of Egyptian lawyer Ebrahim Metwally en route to
meet them,” 15 September 2017.
8 OHCHR, “Report highlights rising reprisals against human rights defenders cooperating with the
UN,” 20 September 2017.
demonstration in Nasr City, Cairo district. She has documented cases of enforced
disappearances for submission to the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary
Disappearances.
37. Ms. Othman was the subject of a previous communication by four special
procedures mandate holders on 6 July 2017 (EGY 9/2017) that concerned her arrest on 6
May 2017 at the Al Qanater Al Khayriyah Prison in the Governorate of Qalyubiya, where
she went to enquire about the fate and whereabouts of her husband. Following her arrest,
she was brought to the Public Prosecutor of Shubra El Kheima in the Governorate of
Qalyubiya, and charged with “belonging to a banned group” and “forming a women’s organization.” She is currently held at the Al Qanater Al Khayriyah Prison for women in reportedly inhuman conditions. The Government responded to the special procedures’ communication of 6 July 2017 on 30 October 2017. However, nearly six months after being
detained, Ms. Othman remains in pre-trial detention, without being charged. There is
concern that her detention may be an act of reprisal for her cooperation with the Working
Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances.
38. During its eightieth session in November 2017, the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention rendered its opinion that the detention of Ms. Othman and other individuals was
arbitrary, and requested the Government of Egypt to immediately release her and others and
accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations. The Working
Group also referred the case to the Coordinating Committee of special procedures and the
Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights (see A/HRC/WGAD/2017/78, paras. 89-93).
There has been no Government response to the communication of the special procedures of
21 February 2018.
39. In an update to OHCHR on 31 July 2018, the Government noted that the
investigations indicated that the accused is involved in a number of women’s groups, which aim to monitor officers and individuals, as well as the cars they use for transportation for
the purpose of targeting them through terrorist operations. The Government confirmed that
the accused is currently in Qanatar prison for women and is charged with joining a terrorist
organisation in case number 5163 of 2017, Administrative Qanatar Khayreya Police
Station. She has been provided with medical treatment. The Government did not address
the allegations of reprisals.
9. Guatemala
40. On 30 November 2017, five special procedures mandate holders raised concerns
regarding allegations of criminal charges against Mr. Jerson Xitumul Morales, a journalist
who regularly collaborated with OHCHR Guatemala by providing information on the
human rights situation in Izabal (GTM 6/2017). On 11 November 2017, Mr. Xitumul
Morales was arrested in the city of El Estor, and accused of threats, instigation to commit a
crime, illicit association, illicit meetings and demonstrations, damages and illegal detention.
These accusations were related to demonstrations in May 2017 organized by fishermen
from El Estor to protest against the alleged pollution of Lake Izabal by the mining activities
of the Guatemalan Nickel Company (CGN). The participation of Mr. Xitumul Morales in
the protests was limited to covering the events in his capacity as a journalist, narrating the
facts and denouncing alleged excessive use of force.
41. The arrest of Mr. Xitumul Morales took place four days after personnel from the
OHCHR office in Guatemala met with the mayor of El Estor to discuss the problems of the
protests against mining activity in the region. During the meeting, the mayor reportedly
accused Mr. Xitumul Morales, another journalist and seven fishermen of being part of
organized crime.
42. At the end of his visit to Guatemala on 12 November 2017, the High Commissioner
expressed support for the national human rights institution (Procuraduría de Derechos
Humanos). 9 The statement followed reprisals faced by the human rights Ombudsman
(Procurador de los derechos humanos), Mr. Augusto Jordán Rodas Andrade, allegedly due
to his support to the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). In
9 OHCHR, Statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein at the end
of his mission to Guatemala, 12 November 2017.
particular, following the President’s declaration of the head of the Commission as persona non grata in August 2017, Mr. Rodas Andrade filed an injunction order to prevent his
removal from the country. Subsequently, Mr. Rodas Andrade became the victim of smear
campaigns, including by authorities in the executive and legislative branches, and there
have been attempts to remove him from his position. Mr. Rodas Andrade and his family
have received threats and on 27 October 2017 they were granted precautionary measures by
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Commission concluded that they
are in a serious and urgent situation, with their rights to life and personal integrity at risk.
10. Guyana
43. On 18 October 2017, the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent
sent an urgent appeal to the Government of Guyana concerning alleged reprisals by prison
authorities and guards against an individual [name withheld by the Working Group]
incarcerated at Lusignan Prison (GUY 1/2017). The Working Group had interviewed the
individual on 4 October 2017, and heard allegations that he was verbally threatened by
prison authorities and guards for having cooperated with them during their official visit to
Guyana from 2 to 6 October 2017. The Working Group expressed serious concern at the
safety and well-being of the individual and requested the Government, as a matter of
urgency, to investigate the allegations and ensure that no detainees would be subjected to
harm, threats, harassment or punishment for being in contact with the Working Group. At
the time of writing the Government had not responded to the Working Group’s urgent appeal.
11. Honduras
44. Following the end of his official visit to Honduras on 12 May 2018, Mr. Michel
Forst, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, was “extremely concerned with the increasing number of acts of intimidation and reprisals against human
rights defenders in connection with their engagement with the United Nations and its
human rights mechanisms or with regional human rights organizations. These reprisals take
the form of smear campaigns, harassment, intimidation, threats, physical attacks and
killings.”10
45. On 7 June 2017 four special procedures mandate holders sent a joint communication
to the Government concerning allegations of death threats, attacks and reprisals against Ms.
Hedme Castro (HND 3/2017), of the Asociación para una Ciudanía Participativa (ACI-
PARTICIPA). The allegations related to surveillance and interference with her online
correspondence, and her being held on 2 March 2017 at Toncontin international airport in
Tegucigalpa, which prevented her from being able to board a plane to Geneva for a Human
Rights Council side-event. Airport security allegedly conducted a “random” inspection of her luggage and interrogated her as to the purpose of her visit to Geneva, as well as to why
she was carrying information regarding the situation of human rights in the country.
46. On 21 April 2017, a car without plates and with tinted windows was allegedly
parked outside the office of ACI-PARTICIPA. On 1 May 2017, Ms. Castro and other
members of ACI-PARTICIPA were reported to have been verbally and physically attacked
during a demonstration by members of a company that operates in a region where ACI-
PARTICIPA is helping the local indigenous community who are opposing actions by the
company.
47. On 29 June 2017, the Government responded to the special procedures’ communication of 7 June 2017, noting that no request was found by the Department of
Human Rights in the Ministry of Security to implement protection measures for Ms. Castro
or other members of ACI-PARTICIPA, but the Human Rights Defenders section, Special
Attorney for Human Rights is investigating her and others’ concerns regarding the airport security forces. The Government said it was impossible to contact Ms. Castro because she
had left the country, therefore no risk assessment could be made on her behalf.
10 OHCHR, End of mission statement by Michel Forst, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights defenders said at the end of his visit to Honduras, 12 May 2018.
48. On 24 July 2017, the Human Rights Committee raised concern about reports that
senior government officials made disparaging statements in the media about individuals and
civil society organizations who had submitted information for the second periodic report of
Honduras (see CCPR/C/HND/CO/2, para. 42). In July 2017 Honduran defenders from
Coalición contra la impunidad travelled to Geneva to take part in the review of Honduras
by the Human Rights Committee. The defenders provided information to the Committee
regarding the murder of well-known environmental and human rights defender, Ms. Berta
Cáceres in March 2016. In response the head of the Honduran delegation discredited the
information and later made public statements, including to Honduran media outlets, that the
information provided by civil society to the Human Rights Committee on the death of
Ms. Cáceres was false and misleading.
49. On 6 July 2017, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice read a public
statement on behalf of the Government, whereby it accused 50 civil society organizations11
of having delivered false information to experts of the Human Rights Committee on the
progress in the investigation of Ms. Cáceres’ murder, and that it does not accept, “that bad Hondurans and national and foreign organizations…bring false or misrepresented information to damage the country with dangerous interests.” The same communication was delivered by the Ministry of the Presidency in Honduras on 6 July 2017. On 18 July
2018 the Chair of the Committee met with the Government, who assured the Chair that no
reprisals would occur.
50. The Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights visited Honduras in July 2017
and raised allegations of reprisals with the Government.
12. Hungary
51. On 21 June 2017, three special procedures mandate holders addressed the alleged
targeting of Budapest-based international disability rights non-governmental organisation
Validity (formerly Mental Disability Advocacy Centre) following the release of a public
report in May 2017 on allegations of human rights violations at the Topház social care
institution (HUN 372017). Validity also brought these issues to the attention of OHCHR
and to the Human Rights Committee when it considered the sixth periodic report of
Hungary held in March 2018 (see CCPR/C/HUN/CO/6 para. 21 and CCPR/C/SR.3464 and
3465. Since the release of the report, the Government has reportedly tried to delegitimize
the work conducted by Validity, threatening the organization that it would open criminal
proceedings as well as intimidating its staff members. On 17 July 2017 a Validity
representative was reportedly summoned by police in connection with the investigation.
Validity are of the view that their targeting is related in large part to their advocacy with the
United Nations human rights mechanisms.
52. Further, it was reported that among objections by Member States to non-
governmental organisations participation in the Conference of States Parties to the United
Nations Convention against Corruption in Vienna in November 2017, was an attempt to
block the participation of K-Monitor, a Hungarian anti-corruption non-governmental
organisation. There were reported efforts to place obstacles in the way of the participation
by the conference of organizations working on issues related to corruption by authorities.
The Bureau of States Parties of the Conference, voted against the objection of the State and
applied rule 17 paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Conference in relation to the
11 Coalición Contra la Impunidad integrated by: Asociación Arcoiris - Asociación de Jueces por la
Democracia (AJD) - Asociación Intermunicipal de Desarrollo y Vigilancia Social de Honduras
(AIDEVISH) - Asociación por una Ciudadanía Participativa (ACI-PARTICIPA) - Centro de
Derechos de Mujeres (CDM) - Centro de Estudios de la Mujer Honduras (CEM-H) - Centro de
Investigación y Promoción de Derechos Humanos (CIPRODEH) Colectivo Gemas - Colectivo
Unidad Color Rosa - Comité de Familiares de Detenidos Desaparecidos de Honduras (COFADEH) -
Comité por la Libre Expresión C-Libre - Comunidad Gay Sampedrana para la Salud Integral -
Convergencia por los Derechos Humanos de la Zona Nor Occidental Crisálidas de Villanueva -
Equipo de Reflexión, Investigación y Comunicación (ERIC) - Feministas Universitarias Frente
Amplio del COPEMH - Foro de Mujeres por la Vida - Foro Social de la Deuda Externa y Desarrollo
de Honduras (FOSDEH) - Movimiento Amplio por la Dignidad y la Justicia (MADJ) - Movimiento
de Mujeres por la Paz Visitación Padilla - Red de Mujeres Jóvenes de Cortés Red de Mujeres Unidas
de Colonia Ramón Amaya Amador - Red Nacional de Defensoras - Tribuna de Mujeres contra los
Femicidios.
participation of non-governmental organizations (see CAC/COSP/2017/14, para. 25). While
K-Monitor was able to resume their participation, there are concerns that the objection
seemed to be a reprisal for cooperation with the United Nations in regard to its anti-
corruption advocacy.
53. It was reported that two organizations that participated in the review of Hungary by
the Human Rights Committee during the consideration of the Government’s periodic report in March 2018, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and Amnesty International Hungary,
have been targeted, at least in part, for their advocacy on migrants’ rights at the United Nations.
54. It was reported that the Governing Fidesz party have used language such as calling
for “cleaning out [the country]” with reference to civil society. In 2018, there has been a targeted campaign of putting stickers on the doors of NGOs reading ‘organization supporting illegal migration,’ reportedly carried out by coalition partner KDNP (Christian Democrats) or Fidelitas (the youth wing of Fidesz). The Hungarian Helsinki Committee
received a sticker on their door on 27 June 2018, while Amnesty International received
such a sticker on 12 June 2018.
55. Further, on 12 April 2018, Figyelő, a publication in Hungary, published more than 200 names of people part of a group regarded by Prime Minister Orbán as “mercenaries paid by George Soros to topple the Government.” The list included members of human rights and anti-corruption organizations, refugee advocates, investigative journalists and
faculty and officials from the Central European University, a number of which have
cooperated with the United Nations and have been publicly intimidated for reporting to or
about the United Nations. A number of media outlets have accused some of the names on
this list of making complaints to the United Nations against the Government. The campaign
by the ruling party Fidesz prior to the April 2018 elections featured hostile rhetoric and
billboards against civil society and the United Nations, in particular with regard to the
ongoing consultations around the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.
56. On 3 August 2018 the Government responded to the allegations. It noted that the
Mental Disability Advocacy Centre (Validity) was not authorized to prepare and publish
the documentation they made at the unit of Pest County Social Institution (Topház) without
the guardians’ permission. As several photographs of the report were published on the internet, the “Pest County Police Headquarters launched an investigation procedure on account of the criminal report of the state authority responsible for the maintenance of the
Institution,” which the Government should not be regarded as a form of retaliation in connection with any monitoring activity. The Government referred to its detailed position
on the subject matter in response to the 21 June 2017 communication by special procedures
(HUN 372017), available online.
57. Pertaining to the participation of K-Monitor in the 2017 Conference of States Parties
to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, the Government stated that the
objection was related to the organization’s non-compliance with Hungarian legislation, and that making objections in compliance with the provisions of the Conference’s Rules of Procedure are legitimate and should not be considered a reprisal.
58. Regarding the targeting of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and Amnesty
International Hungary, the Government notes it is of the position that “putting stickers on the doors of NGOs does not in any way prevent organizations from availing themselves of
UN procedures in the field of human rights.” Further, the Government notes that in the review of the Human Rights Committee, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of
Hungary only remarked that “serious debates on this issue [migration] were taking place with non-governmental organizations, which exerted their voices in the international space” and that this should not be interpreted as a “call for cleaning out the country” with reference to civil society.
59. With regard to the allegations attributed to the publication Figyelő, the Government affirms that the “impugned acts are not attributable to the Government” given that Figyelő is not a publication of the Government, and that it “does not see how reporting about the activity of an NGO by the independent press would prove that the Figyelő publication is a result of the complaints filed with the UN.” Further, the Government notes that the domestic courts are available for redress in the case of infringements by media outlets.
Regarding the Government’s rhetoric in the election campaign, in particular the ongoing
consultations around the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, the
Government notes that its “rhetoric did not target any organization or individual for cooperating with the UN, but took a position and shared its view on the draft of a UN
document related to migration.”
13. India
60. On 9 November 2017 two special procedures mandate holders expressed concern at
the use of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act of 2010 to restrict the work of non-
governmental organizations who seek to cooperate with the United Nations, for example,
by refusing to renew or grant licenses (OTH 27/2017).
61. They drew attention to the revocation of the license of the Centre for Promotion of
Social Concern (also known as People’s Watch) under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, which was also addressed by three special procedures mandate holders on 31 May
2018 (IND 14/2018). On 29 October 2016 the Ministry of Home Affairs reportedly refused
to renew the organization’s license to receive foreign funding under Article 6 of the FCRA and CPSC’s bank accounts were frozen. The refusal was subsequently upheld by the High Court of New Delhi in January 2017. The case is still pending before the court following a
13 April 2018 hearing, and has been adjourned to 31 August 2018.
62. The Executive Director of the Centre for Promotion of Social Concern, Mr. Henri
Tiphagne was accused of using foreign contributions in his international advocacy “to the detriment of India’s image,” including in his engagement with United Nations special rapporteurs to whom he submitted information “portraying India’s human rights record in negative light.” Mr. Tiphagne has also made recommendations to the universal periodic review. The special procedures mandate holders noted that the non-renewal of CPSC’s license is a clear case of reprisal for his cooperation with the United Nations (IND
14/2018).
63. Additionally, on 1 January 2018, it was reported that the Centre for Social
Development, which promotes the land and resource rights of indigenous peoples in
Manipur, received a six months suspension. According to reports, the suspension was based
on claims that the Centre for Social Development violated the Foreign Contribution
Regulation Act by using foreign funding for purposes other than intended by the law,
including drawing attention to Uranium mining in Meghalaya at “several global platforms.” The Centre for Social Development submitted a report in October 2017 to the United
Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights and to the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination which included inquiries related to uranium mining
and cement factories in Meghalaya. According to the Centre for Social Development, it has
submitted nine reports to the United Nations since 2006 concerning violations of the rights
of indigenous peoples in northeast India in relation to large-scale development projects,
mining operations, and implementation of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. They
have requested the Committee’s action under its early warning procedure.
64. It is alleged that the Centre for Social Development has been targeted by Indian
authorities since August 2017, when surveillance of its premises and staff’s movements began. The offices of the organization were reportedly visited by the Central Reserve
Policy Force and others to question the staff about their work, and staff have been harassed.
One staff member was physically attacked on 18 August 2017. In November 2017, one
staff member and two volunteers of the organization were called in for questioning by the
police.
65. The Secretary of the Centre for Social Development, Mr. Nobokishore Urikhimbam,
has been surveyed by military intelligence officials from the State of Manipur as well as
those outside of the state at his office premises and at his home in Imphal, Manipur. When
he travelled to Shillong, State of Meghalaya in January 2018, the Intelligence Department
of Meghalaya contacted the hotel and interrogated its staff about his actions and contacts.
The hotel staff was asked to provide detailed information on his activities, including a list
of the people he interacted with. These incidents were reportedly brought to the attention of
the Superintendent of Police, Imphal East District and Patsoi Policy Station, Imphal West
District, to no avail.
66. On 20 June 2017, Mr. Michel Forst, the Special Rapporteur on human rights
defenders expressed his concern about reports of reprisals against a member of the Jammu
and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, Mr. Kartik Murukutla (IND 4/2017). Mr.
Murukutla represents victims of human rights violations before local courts and engages
with United Nations human rights mechanisms, particularly the universal periodic review
and the special procedures. In September 2016, while traveling to Geneva, Mr. Murukutla
was informed that he was subject to a “Look Out Circular,” a measure taken where a case has been registered against an individual by a police authority in order to verify whether a
travelling person is wanted by the police. They are used by the police authorities to prevent
and monitor the entry or exit of persons who may be required by law enforcement agencies,
and there is concern that this measure was taken against Mr. Murukutla as a reprisal for his
cooperation with United Nations human rights mechanisms in Geneva. It was reported in
May 2018 Mr. Murukutla was not subject to restrictions during his most recent travels, but
he had not been informed about the status of the Look Out Circular nor its implications for
his future travel.
67. On 7 June 2018 the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights addressed the
allegations of intimidation and reprisals to the Government of India. On 2 July 2018 the
Government responded that the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act of 2010 prohibits
acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution for activities detrimental to national
interest. It noted that the revocation of the license for the Centre for Promotion of Social
Concern before the Delhi High Court, is adjourned until 31 August 2018, and that the
Centre for Social Development “needs to conform to the legal framework and the requirements under FCRA.” The Government noted that Mr. Khurram Parvez’s detention is well grounded according to the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act
(1978) based on his activities prejudicial to public order. At the time of writing, the
Government had not responded to the communications by special procedures of 9
November 2017 (OTH 2/2017), 20 June 2017 (IND 4/2017), or 31 May 2018 (IND
14/2018).
14. Israel
68. In May 2018, the Minister of the Interior in Israel did not renew the work permit of
the Director of Human Rights Watch, Mr. Omar Shakir, and ordered his deportation. Mr
Shakir remains in the country, as the order is under review by a district court. According to
information received, the revocation was based on a dossier compiled by the Ministry of
Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy alleging that Mr. Shakir supports a boycott of
Israel. Among the allegations cited are statements by Mr. Shakir supporting the creation of
a database of businesses that operate in Israeli settlements, pursuant to Human Rights
Council resolution 31/36. The Government highlighted this allegation in its 77-page
response to a lawsuit filed by Mr. Shakir and Human Rights Watch challenging the
deportation decision. An amicus brief filed by the group NGO Monitor and accepted by the
court also points to social media posts highlighting Human Rights Watch’s support for the database and their more general advocacy at the United Nations Human Rights Council.
The allegations were discussed at a first court hearing in June 2018.
15. Kyrgyzstan
69. On 25 June 2018 the Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW) addressed the
Government regarding the designation as extremist material of a submission by civil
society organizations Anti-Discrimination Centre Memorial and Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan. The
decision came from the Oktyabrsky District Court in Bishkek following their submission of
an alternative report to the Committee ahead of its review of Kyrgyzstan in April 2015. The
report addressed the obligations of the Government to protect the rights of Kyrgyz migrant
workers.
70. In May 2018 during a visit to Kyrgystan the Assistant-Secretary General raised the
allegations with the Government.
16. Maldives
71. On 20 April 2018, four special procedures mandate holders raised concerns about
the launching of investigations against Ms. Shahindha Ismail, of the Maldivian Democracy
Network, for the legitimate exercise of her freedom of expression on Twitter and for having
participated in a side event at the 35th session of the Human Rights Council in June 2017
(MDV 3/2018). On 2 April 2018, the police summoned Ms. Ismail to question her for
criticising Islam “with the intention to cause disregard for Islam” under Section 617 (a) 1 and 2 of the Penal Code, which prescribes up to four months and 24 days of imprisonment
for first time offenders. She was also accused by the police of attempting to “disrupt the religious unity and create religious discord in the Maldives” through Twitter. Ms. Ismail has categorically denied the accusation. Ms. Ismail has been, and continues to be, subject to
online threats and online gender-based violence, including rape threats. A Twitter account
has repeatedly tweeted to Ms Ismail saying that they would rape her and violently harm her
if they saw her on the road. The special procedures expressed concern that the
investigations launched against her may constitute acts of reprisals for her cooperation with
the Human Rights Council, and for her human rights work through the exercise of her right
to freedom of expression.
72. . The Government addressed the allegations on 23 July 2018 and confirmed that the
Maldives police service launched a criminal investigation against Ms Ismail for allegations
of attempting to disrupt the religious unit of the citizens of Maldives and conversing and
acting in a manner likely to cause religious segregation amongst the people. After
completing the investigation, the police forwarded the case to the Prosecutor General’s office where the Office determined that they could not find enough grounds to pursue a
criminal charge against Ms Ismail or to have the charge proven in a court of law. The case
has since been filed by the police. With regard to the allegations of death threats and
intimidation through social media, a police investigation is ongoing and the case is being
treated as serious, but the investigation is facing difficulties in obtaining the information
because the Facebook and Twitter accounts were fake. The Government also reported that
Ms Ismail is no longer being provided with personal security services by the Internal
Security Command of the Maldives Police Service pursuant to her request in writing of 11
March 2018.
17. Mali
73. According to the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission
in Mali (MINUSMA), there have been cases of reprisals perpetrated by state actors as well
as non-state armed groups against individuals who collaborate with the United Nations.12
Intimidation and death threats are strategies that have been used by terrorist and extremist
armed groups to threaten populations for any collaboration with national and international
forces as well as State actors, including MINUSMA.
74. On 26 October 2017, the chief of Boulkessi village (close to the Burkina Faso
border, Mondoro commune, Douentza cercle, Mopti region) who is a source of information
for the MINUSMA Human Rights and Protection Division, reported that he had received
threats relating directly to his cooperation with them regarding an investigation into
allegations of extra-judicial executions committed by Forces Armées Maliennes (FAMa). It
is alleged that he received three threatening phone calls from unknown callers whose voices
were disguised, and who referred to his collaboration with the investigation. The chief had
reported the location of a mass grave containing bodies of four individuals killed by armed
forces in an extrajudicial execution then he began to receive these threats.
75. On 2 December 2017, six unidentified armed elements shot and killed the Secretary-
General of the Mayor of Dioungani commune (Koro cercle, Mopti region), and it is
believed that the victim may have been targeted for being an informer to the armed forces
and/or international forces, including MINUSMA. At the time of writing an investigation
was ongoing.
76. Between 9 and 11 April 2018, MINUSMA conducted a special mission to Ménaka
to meet with representatives of civil society and victims of human rights abuses during
“counter-terrorism operations” conducted by elements of the Mouvement pour le Salut de
12 MINUSMA, “Malgré la mise en œuvre de l’Accord pour la paix, la situation des droits de l’homme demeure préoccupante au Mali, Bamako, le 1er février 2018”.
l’Azawad (MSA) and the Groupe autodéfense touareg Imghad et alliés (GATIA), in the region since June 2017. The village chief of Akabar who met with the MINUSMA team
reported that on 13 April 2018 he was contacted by the MSA Chief of Staff and was
questioned and intimidated because of his cooperation with MINUSMA.
18. Morocco
77. In a decision of 15 November 2016 (CAT/C/59/D/606/2014) the Committee against
Torture found that Morocco was responsible for violations of Art. 1 and 12 to 16 of the
Convention against Torture in the case of Naâma Asfari v. Morocco, in which Mr. Ennaâma
Asfari, a Sahrawi human rights defender currently in detention, was the petitioner. Since
the decision by the Committee Mr. Asfari’s treatment in detention has reportedly deteriorated. His wife has been denied entry into Morocco on four occasions. On 13
February 2018, Mr. Asfari was placed in solitary confinement until 13 March 2018. On 13
July 2018 the Committee’s Rapporteur on Reprisals and Follow-up wrote to the Government emphasizing the need to refrain from reprisals (G/S0 229/3MAR(8)
606/2014). On 31 July 2018 the Government responded, and the Committee decided to
keep the follow-up dialogue on this case open, emphasizing the need for the full
implementation of remedies requested. Another meeting was suggested during the
Committee’s session from 12 November to 7 December 2018.
19. Myanmar
78. During a briefing by members of the Security Council on their mission to Myanmar,
it was reported that Myanmar security forces had threatened Rohingya villages with
reprisals if they talked with the Security Council delegation during the visit and told the
villagers that those who had done so were being looked for. A Security Council member
noted that it was unacceptable that anyone should feel intimidated about speaking with the
Council (see S/PV.8255, page 6).13 Reports indicate that Rohingya villagers from Pan Taw
Pyin, Rakhine State who met with the delegation on 1 May 2018, have been forced into
hiding after being targeted by Myanmar’s security agencies. Tatmadaw, including members of Military Security Affairs, reportedly requested local authorities to submit a list of all the
villagers who had spoken with the delegation. While young villagers were interacting with
the delegation, members of the military reportedly took video footage of the youth and then
chased them and scolded them after the interviews. Villagers who participated in the
meeting reportedly fear intimidation, harassment, and arrests. Furthermore, before the
Security Council delegation visited Rakhine, authorities in Maungdaw township had
reportedly warned the Rohingya in the surrounding villages against telling members of the
Security Council anything adverse about the government or security forces.
79. Ms. Yanghee Lee, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
rights in Myanmar, reported to the Human Rights Council in March 2018 that she had
received information about violent reprisals committed by the armed forces against
civilians who she had met with following her visit to Rakhine State in January 2017 (see
A/HRC/37/70, para. 63). These include a killing, beatings, and rape. The Special
Rapporteur received credible information that the armed forces attacked a village in
Rakhine a couple of days after her 2017 visit as a reprisal against those in the community
who spoke to her. The armed forces reportedly gathered the village men and women
together, and subjected them to severe mistreatment, beatings and assaults, and in another
village, one man was killed.
80. The Governing Body of the ILO reported on 7 February 2018 that it remained
concerned about two cases of apparent reprisal against complainants in forced labour cases
(see GB.332/INS/8, para. 15).14 The two cases were also raised by the Special Rapporteur
on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, in her March 2018 report to the Human
Rights Council (see A/HRC/37/70, para. 15).
13 UN Security Council, Briefing by Security Council mission to Bangladesh and Myanmar (28 April to
2 May 2018), 8255th meeting, S/PV.8255m 14 May 2018.
14 ILO, Follow-up to the resolution concerning remaining measures on the subject of Myanmar adopted
by the Conference at its 102nd Session (2013), 7 February 2018.
81. The ILO expressed concern about the detention on 18 August 2017 of Mr. Aung Ko
Htwe, who had been forcibly recruited into the army in 2005 at age 14 (see GB.332/INS/8,
para. 16). He receives continued protection according to the 2007 agreement between the
ILO and Myanmar that gives victims the right to lodge complaints alleging the use of
forced labour and to seek redress without “retaliatory action.”15 In 2009, Mr. Htwe’s family filed a complaint about his underage recruitment with the ILO and, under its agreement of
Supplementary Understanding, is entitled to continued protection from reprisals related to
his forced recruitment complaint. At the time he was serving a commuted 10-year prison
sentence for allegedly being implicated in a murder with two other child soldiers when he
was attempting to flee the army in 2007, a case that had been addressed by the ILO to no
avail.
82. A month after his release in July 2017, Mr. Htwe was re-arrested by Myanmar
security forces after he gave an interview to Radio Free Asia detailing his forced
recruitment into the army as a child, and charged under section 505(b) of the Penal Code
for speaking publicly about his experience. The ILO appealed for the charges to be dropped
and noted that in the past several years, other underage recruits have spoken publicly about
their experience without facing such reprisals, which has helped to reinforce the
Government’s policy to end underage recruitment and forced labour. On 9 October 2017, the Government responded to the ILO indicating that it had previously responded to ILO in
2010 that it had taken measures to close the case. However, on 28 March 2018, the Dagon
Seikkan Township Court sentenced Mr. Aung Ko Htwe to two years in prison with hard
labor, despite his status as a complainant with ILO.
83. Human Rights Council resolution of 18 March 2018 (see A/HRC/RES/37/32, para.
22) expressed serious concern about reported cases of reprisal for cooperation with the
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, and emphasized that no
one should face reprisals, monitoring, surveillance, threats, harassment or intimidation for
cooperating or speaking with the special procedures of the Human Rights Council,
including the Special Rapporteur, the independent international fact-finding mission or the
United Nations. The Human Rights Council called on the Government of Myanmar to take
appropriate measures to prevent such acts and to combat impunity by investigating
promptly and effectively all allegations of intimidation and reprisal in order to bring
perpetrators to justice and to provide victims with appropriate remedies.
20. Philippines
84. On 2 October 2017, five special procedures mandate holders expressed concern
about the defamatory and intimidating public statements directed at the Commission on
Human Rights of the Philippines (Commission), its members and its Chairperson Mr. Chito
Gascon (PHL 12/2017), because of its human rights monitoring work and cooperation with
the United Nations. The Commission submitted information to the universal periodic
review of the Philippines in 2017 (see A/HRC/WG.6/27/PHL/3, paras. 2-9), 2012 (see
A/HRC/WG.6/13/PHL/3, paras. 1-13) and 2008 (see A/HRC/WG.6/1/PHL/3, paras. 1-18).
The Commission has received threats of being defunded or abolished and has been vilified
in the media as a hindrance to the implementation of government policies. When
commissioners travel for work purposes they are reportedly monitored, which has affected
their engagement with the United Nations. There has been no Government response to the
communication of the special procedures of 2 October 2017.
85. The Commissioner’s former Chairperson, Ms. Leila M. de Lima, has been in prison since February 2017 on allegations of drug-related charges. In March 2018 it was reported
that Ms. De Lima had not been arraigned in any of the three most serious drug-related cases
for which she was charged. On 27 March 2017, six special procedures mandate holders
raised concerns that her arrest may be “politically motivated” (PHL 5/2017). In addition to her arrest and detention, Ms. De Lima has been subject to intimidation, threats and judicial
harassment in connection with her criticism of government policies surrounding the war on
drugs, such as the extrajudicial killings of suspected criminals and drug users and President
Duterte’s proposal to reinstate the death penalty, including when she was Chair of the Commission.
15 ILO, Supplementary Understanding between the Government of Myanmar and ILO, 2007.
86. Multiple actors have expressed concern at the February 2018 petition of the
Department of Justice to a Manila court in February 2018, seeking to declare the
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New People’s Army (NPA) as “terrorist” organizations under the Republic Act 9372 or the Human Security Act 2007 (the anti-terrorism law). The petition includes a list of over 600 individuals who are labelled as
de facto “terrorists.” It is reported that among these are least 80 recognized human rights defenders, indigenous peoples’ representatives, and representatives of community-based organizations. This is the first time the Human Security Act of 2007 has been used against
numerous activists.
87. A number of these individuals have been long-standing partners of the United
Nations who believe their inclusion on this list is in part due to their international advocacy
with the United Nations, including the Human Rights Council, the universal periodic
review, the treaty bodies, and the special procedures. Among this list are past and current
human rights defenders of the Karapatan Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights, which includes a national alliance of human rights organizations, institutions and
individuals in the Philippines,16 which was the subject of a joint communication by three
special procedures, regarding vilifying and threatening public statements made by President
Rodrigo Duterte (PHL 4/2018).
88. Several indigenous peoples’ representatives and human rights defenders advocating for the rights of indigenous peoples in the Philippines are on this list. In addition to the
above-mentioned United Nations human rights mechanisms, several of these individuals
have engaged with the former United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations,
the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, and the United
Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights.17
89. In a letter to the Government on 4 May 2018, the Assistant Secretary-General for
Human Rights expressed concerned that placing these individuals on a “terrorist” list may constitute a reprisal for their engagement with the United Nations human rights system, and
he also addressed the matter publicly on 18 May 2018.18 On 8 May 2018 during its 95th
session, the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, under its early
warning and urgent action procedures, urged the Government to remove indigenous leaders
and human rights defenders, including incumbent and former United Nations special
procedures mandate holders from the petition list, and recommended that the Government
adopt effective measures to prevent acts of violence against indigenous peoples, defenders
16 These include Ms. Elisa Tita Lubi, member at large of the Karapatan National Executive
Committee and former interim Regional Coordinator of the Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and
Development (APWLD); Mr. Arnold Evangelista and Erlindo Baes, officers of the Batangas Human
Rights Alliance -Karapatan chapter, QRT; Ms. Zara Alvarez, Research and Advocacy
Officer of the Negros Island Health Integrated Program (NIHIP) and former Campaign and
Education Director of Karapatan-Negros chapter; and Mr. Sherwin de Vera, Regional
Coordinator of DEFEND Ilocos, member of the Save The Abra River Movement (STARM) and
former Secretary General of the Ilocos Human Rights Alliance-Karapatan.
17 These include representatives associated with the Cordillera People’s Alliance, an independent federation of organizations promoting indigenous communities’ rights in the Cordillera Region, Philippines: Ms. Joan Carling, an indigenous leader from the Kankanaey Igorot people of the
Cordillera Region, current Member and Co-Convenor of the Indigenous Peoples Major Group for the
Sustainable Development Goals, former Secretary-General of the Asian Indigenous Peoples’ Pact (AIPP), former member of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, former Chairperson of the
Cordillera Peoples Alliance and current member of the CPA Advisory Council; Ms. Beverly Longid,
an indigenous leader from the Kankanaey Igorot people of the Cordillera Region, current global
coordinator of the International Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self-Determination and Liberation
(IPMSDL), and former CPA Chair and current Advisory Council member; Mr. Jose Molintas, an
Ibaloi human rights lawyer, former Asia representative to the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) and former CPA Chair and current Advisory Council member; Ms.
Joanna Cariño, an Ibaloi member of the CPA Advisory Council and Co-Chair of the SANDUGO
Movement of Moro and Indigenous Peoples for Self Determination; Mr. Windel Bolinget, a
Kankanaey-Bontok who is the current Chairperson of the CPA and National Co-convenor of
KATRIBU national alliance of indigenous peoples; and Ms. Jeanette Ribaya-Cawiding, a Kankana-
ey, former Chairperson of CPA-Tongtongan ti Umili and current Regional Coordinator of the
Alliance of Concerned Teachers – Cordillera. 18 OHCHR, “Human rights advocates in Asia under attack,” Andrew Gilmour, 18 May 2018.
of the rights of indigenous peoples and other human rights defenders. It requested the
Philippines to provide information no later than 16 July 2018 (see CERD Decision 1/95).
On 8 June 2018, five special procedures mandate holders raised their concerns (PHL
5/2018). At the time of writing there had been no response from the Government.
21. Russian Federation
90. On 10 May 2018, the Chair and the Focal Point for Reprisals for the Committee on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination wrote to the Government about allegations of
reprisals by the authorities against Ms. Yana Tannagasheva and Mr. Vladislav
Tannagashev, human rights defenders advocating for the rights of the Shor indigenous
people of southern Siberia. 19 They had engaged with the Committee in relation to the
twenty-third and thirty-fourth periodic reports of the Russian Federation in August 2017.
91. Following their collaboration with the Committee, Ms. Tannagasheva and
Mr. Tannagashev were subject to harassment and intimidation by authorities of the
Kemerovo district and representatives of Yuzhnaya coal company. They were urged by the
police to renounce their activities, and were placed under surveillance by the police and
security service, and had their phones tapped. Threats were made by security service agents
concerning their children, and their relatives and friends were summoned for questioning.
Further, Ms. Tannagasheva was dismissed from her job as a teacher at a local school and
her house was burned down in a suspected arson attack, following which no investigation
took place. As a result, both fled the country with their children out of fear for their safety.
The Committee expressed their grave concern for the allegations of reprisals against
Ms. Tannagasheva and Mr. Tannagashev, which appear to be a direct consequence of their
engagement with the Committee. At the time of writing the Government had not responded
to the Chair and the Focal Point for Reprisals of the Committee.
22. Rwanda
92. On 20 October 2017, the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture (SPT)
announced publicly that it had suspended its visit to Rwanda “due to a series of obstructions imposed by authorities, such as accessing some places of detention, confidentiality of
certain interviews and over concerns that some interviewees could face reprisals.”20 The Subcommittee reported that during its visit the experts encountered an especially difficult
environment to undertake private interviews with detainees and many detainees expressed
to them a fear of reprisals for cooperating with them. In some cases, detainees refused to be
interviewed at all for fear of subsequent retaliation against them. Before the suspension of
the visit, the Subcommittee and OHCHR Secretariat made several attempts to address the
above-mentioned concerns with the Ministry of Justice, to no avail. According to its
mandate under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT), the
Subcommittee can make unannounced visits at any place where people are or might be
deprived of their liberty in countries which are a party to the Protocol, including prisons,
police stations, detention centers for migrants, juveniles’ detention centers, interrogation facilities, and psychiatric hospitals.
93. At its thirty-fourth session in February 2018, the the Subcommittee announced its
intention to resume the visit to Rwanda.21 However, due to the lack of cooperation of the
authorities in the resumption of the visit, at its thirty-fifth session in June 2018, the
Subcommittee decided to terminate the visit as there was no prospect of the visit being
successfully resumed or concluded. It is the first time in 11 years and more that 60 country
visits that the Subcommittee had to terminate a visit before its completion.22
19 See http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/RUS/
INT_CERD_RLE_RUS_8683_E.pdf.
20 OHCHR, “Prevention of Torture: UN human rights body suspends Rwanda visit citing obstructions,”
20 October 2017.
21 OHCHR, “UN torture prevention experts announce resuming visit to Rwanda,” 28 February 2018. 22 OHCHR, “UN torture prevention body to visit Burundi, Costa Rica, Senegal and Switzerland; terminates Rwanda
visit”, 4 July 2018
94. On 1 June 2018 the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights wrote to the
Government expressing concern about the lack of assurances given to the SPT that those
interviewed or contacted during the visit would not face intimidation and reprisals for
cooperating with the SPT members and OHCHR Secretariat, and requesting information on
the welfare of the detainees involved in the visit. On 18 June 2018 the High Commissioner
for Human Rights expressed concern by the suspension of the visit, and called on Rwanda
to provide full cooperation so that the Subcommittee can fulfil its mandate.23 On 27 June
2018 the Government responded to the Assistant Secretary-General that the SPT had “full and unimpeded access to places of detention and detainees” and has put in place “prevention and investigatory measures to respond to allegations of reprisals.” The Government noted that it had underwent its own investigation into the conditions that led to
the suspension of the visit, including the allegations of reprisals, and found them without
base. The Government further referred to its letter of 23 October 2017 to the SPT which
noted that technical issues that arose during the five-day visit were resolved.
23. Saudi Arabia
95. It was reported that on 28 February 2018, Mr. Essa Al Nukheifi was sentenced to six
years in prison by the Specialized Criminal Court. Mr. Al Nukheifi is a human rights
defender with whom Mr. Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and
human rights consulted in December 2016 during the preparations of his mission to Saudi
Arabia in January 2017. Mr. Al Nukheifi was also banned from travelling and using social
media for an equivalent amount of time after his release. He had been the subject of a
previous communication by four special procedures (SAU 2/2017) and there is concern that
his current detention is related to his cooperation with the Special Rapporteur and that he
expressed his willingness to meet with the mandate’s team. On 20 April 2017 the Government replied that Mr. Al Nukheifi was arrested in December 2016 on criminal
charges and was afforded due process.
96. In August 2017 Mr. Al Nukheifi was charged with “seeking to destabilise the social fabric and national cohesion” (Royal Decree 16820 see para. 8), “communicating with, and receiving money from foreign groups considered to be enemies of the state” (Royal Decrees 16820 and A/44) and “using a personal phone and the internet to store and transfer information considered harmful to the public order” (article 6 of the Anti-Cyber Crime Law, Royal Decree M/17). On 30 December 2016 Mr. Al Nukheifi had been transferred to
Mecca General Prison where he remains in detention. It is alleged that he does not have a
bed to sleep on and must sleep on the cold floor without any blanket, that he has been
repeatedly threatened with torture, and that he is not allowed to receive visits from his
family.
97. On 1 June 2017 the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued an opinion about
Mr. Salim Abdullah Hussain Abu Abdullah (A/HRC/2017/10), who was arrested on
11 December 2014 without an arrest warrant and not provided with a reason for his arrest.
He was taken to Dammam Central Prison and held incommunicado for six months and
placed in solitary confinement. He was reportedly subjected to severe psychological and
physical torture, and forced to sign a statement he was not allowed to read beforehand. In
addition, some family members of Mr. Abu Abdullah were reportedly intimidated and
threatened. The Working Group considers the detention of Mr. Abu Abdullah to be
arbitrary and requested the Government to take steps to remedy the situation (see
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/10, para. 31-33). At the time of writing, more than three years after
his initial arrest, he has not been officially charged and, no court date has been set for a
trial. Since the opinion was issued, it has been reported that Mr. Abu Abdullah has
repeatedly been placed in solitary confinement for prolonged periods of time and been
denied regular contact with his family, as an act of reprisal for having his case considered
by the Working Group (see A/HRC/39/45, para. 28).
98. On 24 July 2018 the Government responded to the allegations. Concerning the case
of Mr. Al Nukheifi, the Government stated he was arrested on 18 December 2016 and
23 OHCHR, “Opening statement and global update of human rights concerns by UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein at 38th session of the Human Rights
Council,” 18 June 2018.
charged under articles 2 and 112 of the Statute of Criminal Procedures after his wife called
the police claiming he had threatened to kill her and that he is affiliated to Daesh. s. The
Government reported that he was allowed to call a lawyer and that his family visited him on
24 February 2017 (26/5/1438 Hijri). The General Prosecutor referred his case to the
relevant court which ruled that Mr Al Nukheifi committed crimes involving national
security, spying for foreign entities, receiving financial support and cyber crimes. The court
of first instance sentenced him to six years imprisonment with a travel ban for the same
amount of time as his release. His case is still under consideration with the court.
99. Regarding the allegations about Mr. Abu Abdullah, the Government stated a warrant
for his arrest was issued pursuant to articles 35 and 103 of the Statute of Criminal
Procedures and he was accused of committing many crimes, including killing several
persons, shooting security officers, possessing arms and providing terrorists with weapons.
Mr. Abu Abdulla’s arrest was pursuant to article 2 of the Statute on Terrorism Crimes and
Funding of 2013 and his detention was extended pursuant to article 5 of the same statute,
and his case is referred to the specialized criminal court. According to the Government he
was not subjected to torture or ill-treatment nor forced to confess, and was provided
medical treatment. Additionally he was not forced to sign a confession. His case is still
pending.
24. South Sudan
100. In a report in February 2018, 24 the United Nations Mission in South Sudan
(UNMISS) and OHCHR noted instances of restrictions imposed by national authorities,
including the National Security Service and pro-government forces as well as among the
personnel of Central and State administration, against individuals whose opinions were
perceived as critical of the Government or the reputation of the country and who cooperated
with the United Nations by attending meetings, sharing information on human rights
violations, and facilitating access of UNMISS to affected populations (see S/2017/505,
S/2017/784, S/2017/1011, and S/2018/133).25
101. UNMISS received reports of at least 12 incidents which included arbitrary arrests
and detentions, restrictions of movements and acts of intimidation and harassment, mostly
targeting human rights defenders cooperating with the United Nations. Some individuals
were ordered by security officials to cease sharing information with the United Nations. In
addition, UNMISS received credible reports of intimidation against three South Sudanese
human rights defenders living in neighboring countries or travelling outside the country
who were accused of collaborating with the United Nations and being critical of the human
rights situation in South Sudan. Human rights defenders were also reportedly threatened by
government representatives after holding meetings with United Nations personnel in Upper
Nile and Equatoria regions, in September and November 2017, respectively. At least two
victims have sought refuge elsewhere in the country and abroad.
102. In follow up to his visit to South Sudan in February 2017, the Assistant Secretary-
General for Human Rights sent a letter to the Government on 21 July 2017 and stressed the
absolute need to avoid reprisals and threats against human rights defenders, including those
who have cooperated with the United Nations.26 In the letter he addressed specific cases of
intimidation and threats against individuals for having cooperated with UNMISS and other
United Nations entities outside South Sudan, including cases of individuals who were
forced to leave the country.
25. Thailand
103. On 30 June 2017, three special procedures mandate holders raised urgent concerns
about allegations of intimidation against Mr. Maitree Chamroensuksakul, a Lahu
24 UNMISS and OHCHR, “Report on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression in South Sudan since the July 2016 Crisis”, February 2018,.
25 Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan, February 2018.
26 OHCHR, “South Sudan: Senior UN human rights official condemns deplorable rights situation, calls
for perpetrators to be held to account,” 17 February 2017.
indigenous human rights defender from a hill tribe group in the border between the north of
Thailand and Myanmar (THA 4/2017). According to information received, Mr.
Chamroensuksakul was subject to harassment and death threats following a meeting he had
with Mr. Michel Forst, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders,
on 27 May 2017during his academic visit to Thailand. Mr. Chamroensuksakul had been
documenting and publicly raising concerns of human rights violations committed against
the Lahu community by law enforcement officers. In particular, he was seeking justice for
the killing of Chaiyaphum Pasae, a 17-year old Lahu youth activist who was shot dead by
military personnel on 17 March 2017 during an alleged anti-drug operation in Ban Kong
Phak Ping village. Mr. Chamroensuksakul posted a photo of himself with the Special
Rapporteur on his Facebook page.
104. On 29 May 2017, two days after Mr. Chamroensuksakul met with the Special
Rapporteur, the police from Provincial Region 5 and Chiang Mai conducted a joint large-
scale search operation of Ban Kong Phak Ping village, with a warrant issued by Chiang Mai
Provincial Court, supposedly aimed at searching for drugs. The authorities searched nine
houses, including Mr. Chamroensuksakul’s house, which they raided while he was not
home. Two of his family members were arrested and charged with drug possession, and
both were denied access to a lawyer during their interrogation by the police. At the time of
writing the Government had not responded to the special procedures’ urgent appeal of 30
June 2017.
105. It was reported that in August 2017, Ms. Sirikan Charoensiri, of Thai Lawyers for
Human Rights, was charged with the offences of giving false information regarding a
criminal offence. Four special procedures mandate holders had raised concerns on 11 April
2017 that the charges she received, sedition and gathering five or more people for political
purposes under the criminal code, may be directly linked to her cooperation with the United
Nations, particularly her participation in the thirty-third session of the Human Rights
Council in September 2016 (THA 2/2017). It is reported that, if found guilty, she could face
up to 15 years in jail and could be tried in a military court for a sedition charge.
106. Ms. Charoensiri also participated in the March 2017 session of the Human Rights
Committee, where she publicized her legal advocacy efforts. She had represented 14
student activists arrested by the Thai authorities for their alleged participation in peaceful
protests in June 2015, following the military coup in May 2014. She is also engaged in
awareness-raising on law and human rights issues related to the enforcement of martial law
and the orders of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO). In February 2016, Ms.
Charoensiri had been charged with the offences of refusing to comply with the order of an
official and concealing of evidence and, in September 2016, upon return from the Human
Rights Council, she was further charged under the National Council for Peace and Order
and with sedition. The Government responded on 10 August 2017 to the special procedures'
communication of 11 April 2017, stating that Ms. Charoensiri was not charged due to her
capacity as a lawyer or human rights defender, but on the basis of the possibility of her
being one of the principals or accomplices in committing alleged offenses under article 12
of the NCPO Order No. 3/2015 and article 16 of the Criminal Code.
107. During his visit to Thailand in March 2018, the Assistant Secretary-General for
Human Rights addressed allegations of intimidation and reprisals to the Government, and
wrote a follow up letter on 27 April 2018. At the time of writing no response had been
received from the Government.
26. Trinidad and Tobago
108. On 21 July 2017, three special procedures mandate holders raised concerns about the
deprivation of liberty of Mr. Zaheer Seepersad in St. Ann’s Psychiatric Hospital and other
patients living with a psychosocial disability (TTO 2/2017). Mr. Seepersad was born in
1987 with dystonia, a physical impairment due to a neurological movement disorder. On
20 November 2017, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued Opinion No.
68/2017 concluding that the detention and subsequent internment of Mr. Seepersad in St.
Ann’s Psychiatric Hospital on 8 January 2015 for a period of two months, and on 4 May
2016 for 16 days, were arbitrary without any legal basis justifying the deprivation of
liberty, and was made purely on the basis of his physical impairment, constituting a
violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination based on disability (see
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/68, paras. 34-35).
109. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention expressed its most serious concern at
allegations of reprisals, such as persistent harassment, intimidation and threats which
Mr. Seepersad has been subjected to, for bringing his claims to their attention. The Working
Group requested the Government to ensure that all acts of intimidation against Mr.
Seepersad cease and that an impartial and effective investigation is carried out in relation to
such acts and those responsible brought to justice. The Working Group recommended that
the Government remedy the situation and provide compensation to Mr. Seepersad, and
referred the case for further action to the focal point on reprisals of the Coordination
Committee of Special Procedures and to the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights
(see A/HRC/WGAD/2017/68, paras. 34-35, 37-39, 41).
110. On 6 September 2017, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention transmitted the
allegations to the Government under its regular communications procedure. The Working
Group did not receive a response from the Government nor request for an extension of the
time limit for its reply. It is reported that Mr. Seepersad still remains under pressure to
dissuade him from engaging with regional or United Nations mechanisms to seek a legal
remedy.
27. Turkey
111. Information was received that on 20 August 2017, the web pages administrated by
the Housing and Land Rights Network of Habitat International Coalition (HIC-HLRN),
suffered a series of alleged cyber-attacks over two weeks, which were repeated on 25
September 2017 for two days and on 16 April 2018. The attacks disabled its websites
www.hic-mena.org and www.hlrn.org for two weeks, and obliged the organization to
deploy exceptional human and financial resources for two months in order to ensure the
web pages’ security and data protection. The Network believe that the cyber-attacks were a
reprisal following the publicity of their report at the United Nations Conference on Housing
and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III), which took place in Quito, Ecuador,
October 2016.
112. In October 2016, when HIC-HLRN presented a report “Turkey: Forced Eviction and
Urban Transformation as a Tool of War” at Habitat III, it is alleged that the Turkish
delegation scolded HIC-HLRN officers. The report was also distributed to numerous
United Nations special procedures and to OHCHR.
113. The origins of the attacks are unknown. The first attack to the HIC-HLRN web page
was reportedly perpetrated by a hacking group self-identified as Yarma Security Team and
the second attack to their Middle East/North Africa website was perpetrated by an unknown
hacker. The second cyber-attack displayed a political message in the hacked frontal page
reading “Hayali Kürdistan Olanın Mekanı Kabristan Olur” (The Imaginary Place Kurdistan
becomes a Cemetery). HIC-HLRN had been monitoring the expropriations, evictions and
demolitions taking place in Diyarbakır, in the Kurdish region of southeast Turkey.
114. Mr. Kursat Çevik, a Turkish police superintendent, was the subject of an opinion
adopted on 16 June 2017 by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Mr. Çevik was
arrested, together with 15 of his colleagues, on 21 July 2016. He is allegedly suspected of
being a member of a terrorist organization (the Gülen movement) and of treason, and is
classified as an opponent to the Justice and Development Party. However, Mr. Çevik is
being held in secret, without a confirmed charge, and his lawyer does not have access to his
file. The Working Group noted in its opinion that it considered his detention to be arbitrary
as it had not received convincing information that Mr. Çevik was informed of the charges
against him after his arrest, nor was he informed promptly after the judicial order that
justified his detention, was issued (see A/HRC/WGAD/2017/38, para. 73-76).
115. Following the issuance of the opinion, Turkish pro-Government media circulated
information distorting the opinion of the Working Group containing various accusations
against Mr. Çevik. On 4 August 2017, the Turkish pro-government media accused Mr.
Çevik of having acted as an intelligence officer for the French government, and accused
“the United Nations” of requesting his release “because he had been set to leave Turkey for
holidays” on 16 July 2016. The Working Group opinion also triggered reprisals at Mr.
Çevik’s place of detention, where his cell was reportedly moved to separate him from his
friends and colleagues, and he was denied food and purchases from the prison mess
(A/HRC/39/45).
116. On 31 July 2018 the Government responded to the allegations. With regard to the
reported hacking of the websites of the Housing and Land Rights Network - Habitat
International Coalition, the Government noted that the “perpetrators and/or sponsors of the
attacks in question could be any source, based anywhere in the world” and that Turkish
authorities are not in the possession of any previous record or information about the
“Yarma Security Team.” The Government further noted that it has committed to
international efforts to identify cyber threats and build a more secure network, and will
continue to work with United Nations agencies to this effect.
117. Pertaining to the case of Mr. Kursat Çevik, the Government affirmed it had
submitted to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention information on the procedures and
remedies available, and that it rejected the conclusion that his detention was arbitrary. It
further noted that Mr. Çevik was moved from Mardin Penitentiary to Sanhurfa Penitentiary
on 17 July 2016, before the release of the report on 16 June 2017, and that subsequently
“his cell was changed three times, in accordance with administrative needs.” The
Government stated he was not subject to solitary confinement, separated from other
detainees with similar charges, or denied food or purchases from the prison mess. The
Government further noted that there is no government media outlet in Turkey other than the
Turkish Radio and Television Corporation, and any publication or broadcast by private
media outlets reflect their own opinion.
28. Turkmenistan
118. On 18 May 2018 at the end of his visit to Kyrgyzstan, the Assistant Secretary-
General for Human Rights attended the Human Rights Defender Platform Security Meeting
for Central Asia and engaged with human rights defenders from four countries, but said he
regretted that the OHCHR regional office had not felt able to invite representatives from
Turkmenistan for fear that they might face intimidation or reprisals from their Government
for cooperation with the United Nations.27
29. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
119. According to information received, representatives of the Government of Venezuela
allegedly threatened and harassed four civil society representatives at a side event of the
thirty-fifth session of the Human Rights Council on 6 June 2017. Mr. Alonso Medina Roa
(Foro Penal), Mr. Julio Henriquez (Refugee Freedom Program), Ms. Laura Louza (Acceso
a la Justicia) and Ms. Mercedes De Freitas (Transparencia Venezuela) were participating in
a panel co-sponsored by the United States of America and were reportedly threatened that
their passports would be confiscated.
120. Several civil society representatives are alleged to have been targeted by
Mr. Diosdado Cabello Rondon, then member of the National Constituent Assembly and
Vice-President of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). According to the
allegations received, Mr. Diosdado Cabello Rondon has used his programme “Con el Mazo
Dando,” a weekly broadcast on Venezuelan public television, to launch a smear campaign
against human rights defenders, including those that have cooperated with the Human
Rights Council and OHCHR.
27 OHCHR, “Kyrgyzstan: Ethnic minorities need equal treatment, says senior UN official; salutes
Central Asian rights defenders,” 18 May 2018.
Annex II
Information on alleged cases included in follow-up to previous reports
1. Algeria
1. The case of Mr. Rafik Belamrania was included in the 2017 report of the Secretary-
General (see A/HRC/36/31, para. 20 and Annex I paras 1-3). Mr. Belamrania, founding
member of the Association pour les enfants des disparus forcés en Algerie – Mish’al, is the author of communication No. 2157/2012 against Algeria to the Human Rights Committee
regarding the abduction, torture and summary execution of his father, Mr. Mohammed
Belamrania, by the Algerian army in 1995. Three special procedures mandate holders
raised concerns with the Government over alleged reprisals against Mr. Belamrania for
publishing on Facebook on 14 February 2017, the decision of the Human Rights
Committee, regarding the summary execution of his father in 1995 (A/HRC/36/25, DZA
2/2017). He was charged with “apology of terrorism,” and accused of circulating photos and expressing his support for terrorist organizations, including Daesh.
2. On 15 November 2017, Mr. Belamrania was sentenced to five years in prison for
“incitement to terrorism” and fined 100,000 Algerian dinars (860 USD). On 5 February 2018, he was sentenced on appeal to one year in prison followed by a two-year suspended
sentence, and released on 16 February 2018. He was not granted any reparation or
rehabilitation.
3. On 6 December 2018 the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights addressed
the allegations of reprisals to the Government, who responded on 12 February 2018,
reiterating their response of 29 May 2017 to special procedures that the allegations of
arbitrary detention of Mr. Belamrania were unfounded as he was indicted for the “criminal offense of apology of terrorism,” and that he benefited from all guarantees during his hearing and while in custody. The Government did not address the allegations of reprisals.
2. Bahrain
4. The case of Ms. Ebtesam Al-Alsaegh, of SALAM for Democracy and Human
Rights, was included in the 2017 report of the Secretary-General (see A/HRC/36/31,
Annex, para. 7) related to a travel ban imposed on her and others for their cooperation with
the Human Rights Council and the universal periodic review, in particular their
participation in the thirty second session in June 2016 (A/HRC/34/75, BHR 4/2016).
5. On 20 March 2017, after attending the Human Rights Council, Ms. Alsaegh was
detained for several hours at Bahrain International Airport by agents of the National
Security Agency and interrogated at length about her participation in the Council; she was
searched, threatened and had her passport subsequently confiscated. On 26 May 2017, she
was allegedly subjected to seven-hours of physical and psychological torture while she was
interrogated by officers of the National Security Agency, and sexually assaulted. On 4 July
2017, two special procedures mandate holders raised concerns regarding her alleged
arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention in an apparent reprisal for her cooperation
with United Nations human rights mechanisms (BHR 8/2017).
6. On 13 July 2017 four special procedures mandate holders raised urgent concerns
when information was received that on 4 July 2017, Ms. Al-Saegh was again detained by
security forces who raided her home (BHR 9/2017). She was reported to have been held in
solitary confinement at Isa Town women’s prison and transported daily to an unknown location where she was interrogated for up to 14 hours without access to a lawyer. There
were fears she would be tortured and sexually abused. While in detention she went on a
hunger strike on 12 July 2017. On 18 July 2017, she was charged under the anti-terrorism
law and subsequently released, although the charges have not been dropped. On 8 August
2017 the Government responded that an investigation into the activities of Ms. Al-Saegh
noted that she was associated with establishing the “Manama Human Rights Observatory” and was “hiding behind human rights activities” while supporting an operation that
impeded law enforcement activities and promoted the commission of acts of terrorism,
including colluding with the Alkarama Foundation to which she was sending false and
misleading information to bring the Kingdom of Bahrain into international disrepute. The
Government notes that Ms. Al-Saegh was arrested on 4 July 2017 in accordance with the
law and charged with “membership in an unlawful terrorist group.” The Government detailed the procedures of arrest, detention and treatment of Ms. Al-Saegh, including that
she had been sent to the prison clinic in relation to the hunger strike. The Government did
not address the allegations of reprisals.
7. On 25 June 2018 the Government, in a reply to the Assistant Secretary-General for
Human Rights, stated that Ms. Al-Alsaegh was charged with six criminal offences:
affiliation and participation in acts of terrorist organization, spying for a foreign terrorist
organization to commit terrorist acts, accepting donations from a foreign terrorist
organization for committing terrorist acts in the Kingdom, funding and donating to
organizations which knowingly commit terrorist acts, spreading false news that may harm
national security and public order, and participation in a demonstration with the intention of
assaulting security forces, public property and destabilising public security. A travel ban
was issued against her on 19 April 2017 and lifted on 13 July 2017.
8. During the thirty-eighth session of the Human Rights Council in June 2018 it was
further reported that Ms. Al-Saegh published a series of tweets highlighting a range of
human rights concerns in Bahrain. An account called @godkingcountry responded to her
tweets by making threats against her, including referencing the sexual assault that she
suffered previously during her arrest and torture and threatening further rape should she not
end her human rights work on social media and with international mechanisms. Following
the responses from @godkingcountry on Twitter, a second account (@turkialmajed7)
began sending additional threatening messages to Ms. Al-Saegh on Instagram’s direct messenger service, which was sent to a third party who was told to forward the messages to
Ms. Al-Saegh. The messages claimed responsibility in the death of Ms. Al-Saegh’s neighbor and threatened Ms. Al-Saegh that she would share his same fate. The messages
also explicitly noted to “inform Ebtesam” that they would publish videos taken of her while in security custody in May 2017 when security officers filmed her in various states of
undress during her interrogation, sexual assault, and torture.
9. Mr. Nabeel Rajab, of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, was mentioned in the
2017 report of the Secretary-General (see A/HRC/36/31, para. 23 and Annex, para. 6). On
21 June 2016, the Spokesperson of the High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed
deep concern that Mr. Rajab was arrested on 13 June 2016 for “spreading false news and rumours about the internal situation in a bid to discredit Bahrain.” He had been subject to a travel ban since at least January 2015. The High Commissioner for Human Rights
expressed concern that these and subsequent actions against Mr. Rajab were connected to
his engagement with the Human Rights Council. He was reportedly denied medical
treatment by prison administrations while he awaited the results of his appeal trial in ill-
health until a 5 June 2018 hearing which decided on an additional five-year sentence. He is
now expected to pursue a final appeal before Bahrain’s Court of Cassation. On 25 June 2018 the Government stated that freedom of movement in Bahrain is guaranteed by law,
and that Mr. Nabeel Rajab was not subject to reprisals for his cooperation with the United
Nations, but that he is responsible for criminal offenses. Regarding the claims that Mr
Rajab has not received medical care during his prison sentence, the Government stated that
the Kingdom ensures and guarantees the safety and health of all citizens.
10. On 19 December 2017, three special procedures mandate holders expressed concern
that Ms. Nedal Al-Salman, of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, was prevented from
leaving Bahrain multiple times in 2017 due to travel bans, including while on her way to
speak at meetings related to the Human Rights Council (BHR 13/2017). On 19 September
2017 Ms. Al-Salman was summoned and charged by the Public Prosecution of Bahrain for
“illegal gatherings” under charges stemming from the Anti-Terrorism Law, and placed under a formal travel ban. In August 2016, Ms. Al-Salman was prevented from travelling to
Geneva to participate in meetings during the 33rd session of the Human Rights Council,
and was the subject of an allegation letter on 25 November 2016 by three special
procedures mandate holders (BHR 7/2016). At the time of writing the Government had not
responded to the special procedures’ communications of 25 November 2016 or 19 December 2017.
11. On 25 June 2018 the Government responded to the letter of the Assistant Secretary-
General and stated that Ms. Al-Salman was banned from travel in 2016 according to the
procedure of investigations of the General Prosecutor, and that the ban was lifted
immediately once the investigations were over. On 30 August 2017, another travel ban was
issued to her, due to an investigation relating to her participation and demonstration in a
non- authorized march.
3. Burundi
12. The cases of Mr. Armel Niyongere, Mr. Dieudonné Bashirahishize, Mr. Vital
Nshimirimana, and Mr. Lambert Nigarura were included in the 2017 report of the
Secretary-General (see A/HRC/36/31, para. 24 and Annex, paras. 11-15). The four lawyers
had contributed to an alternative report submitted to the Committee against Torture for the
consideration of the special report of Burundi, and Mr. Niyongere, Mr. Bashirahishize, and
Mr. Nigarura had attended the interactive dialogue between Burundi and the Committee on
behalf of the civil society organisations they represented.. . On 29 July 2016, during the
second day of the dialogue between the Committee and the Government, the Government
suspended its participation at the session and the delegation was absent. The Committee
was immediately informed of a letter from the Attorney General of Bujumbura, dated 29
July 2016, requesting that the Bujumbura Bar Association disbar the four lawyers.
13. On 16 January 2017, the Bujumbura Court of Appeal disbarred Mr. Niyongere, Mr.
Dieudonné Bashirahishize and Mr. l Nshimirimana, and suspended Mr. Nigarura for a
period of one year and denied him participation in the Conseil du l’Ordre des Avocats for a period of five years. However the Court decision has not been communicated to the
victims, thus denying them a right of appeal and without any further recourse or remedy.
The Committee noted in a letter of 27 February 2017 that it considers the verdict of the
court as an act of reprisal for the individuals’ engagement with the Committee and the United Nations human rights system. At the time of writing no response had been received
from the Government.
4. China
14. The 2017 report of the Secretary-General (see A/HRC/36/31, Annex paras. 22-24)
referred to the disappearance of Mr. Jiang Tianyong, a prominent human rights lawyer who
had met with Mr. Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
during his visit to China in August 2016. On 2 December 2016, four special procedures
mandate holders raised concerns regarding actions taken against Mr. Jiang, including that
his disappearance may have occurred, at least in part, in reprisal for his cooperation with
the Special Rapporteur (A/HRC/34/75, CHN 13/2016).
15. On 6 September 2017 four special procedures mandate holders called on the
Government to immediately release Mr. Jiang, who was on trial for inciting subversion of
the State’s power and expressed concerns over a lack of fair trial standards. 1 They expressed concern that he had been detained and under surveillance at an unknown location
for more than nine months, without access to his family or a lawyer of his own choosing,
and that he may have been subjected to torture and ill-treatment. The special procedures
mandate holders stated that “Mr. Jiang’s ‘crime’ apparently included communications with foreign entities, which potentially include the United Nations human rights mechanisms,
giving interviews to foreign media, and receiving training on the Western constitutional
system, all of which have been carried out in the course of his work as a lawyer.”2
16. Mr. Jiang was found guilty of inciting subversion of the State’s power on 21 November 2017 by the Changsha Intermediate People’s Court and sentenced to two years jail. On 23 November 2017, four special procedures mandate holders condemned the
verdict and appealed to the Government to unconditionally release Mr. Jiang, noting that
“Mr. Jiang’s trial clearly fell short of international standards and his conviction represents an unfair and arbitrary punishment of a human rights lawyer and defender, whose only
1 OHCHR, “UN experts urge China to release lawyer Jiang Tianyong currently on trial for subversion,”
6 September 2017.
2 Ibid.
crime was to exercise his rights to free speech and to defend human rights.”3 They had previously expressed concern that his confession may have been coerced by the use of
torture. On 23 March 2018, five special procedures mandate holders issued another
statement regarding Mr. Jiang’s deteriorating health conditions while in detention and called on the authorities to give him urgent medical attention. 4 The Government in its
response to the special procedures’ communications of 2 December 2016 (CHN 13/2016) and 28 December 2016 (CHN 15/2016) respectively stated that Mr. Jiang had been charged
with illegal possession of classified State documents with the intention of illegally
transmitting State secrets abroad. It further noted that he has also received long-term
funding and support from abroad and has identified himself as a “citizen agent,” interfering in several sensitive cases. The Government noted that he fabricated and disseminated
rumours online, incited petitioners of the Government and the family members of persons
involved in the cases to oppose State authorities, interfered with the administration of
justice, and disturbed public order. The Government stated that Mr. Jiang has admitted to
committing offences. The Government did not address the allegations of reprisals.
5. Egypt
17. It was reported in the 2017 report of the Secretary-General that on 3 May 2017, four
special procedures mandate holders expressed concerns about the abduction, detention,
torture and ill-treatment of Dr. Ahmed Shawky Abdelsattar Mohamed Amasha (see
A/HRC/36/31, para. 39), reportedly in retaliation for his human rights work documenting
cases of enforced disappearances for the special procedures (A/HRC/36/25, EGY 5/2017).
On 10 March 2017, Dr. Amasha was allegedly abducted by police officers in Cairo, and no
information was given about his whereabouts until 1 April 2017. He was charged on 13
April 2017 with “belonging to a banned group” under the Anti-Terrorism Law of Egypt and transferred to the Tora prison of Cairo. It was alleged that following his abduction on
10 March 2017, he was secretly detained at the Central Police station of Abbasiya in the
Cairo Governorate and subjected to torture and ill-treatment. On 27 April 2017, his
detention was prolonged. There are serious concerns that the acts committed against Dr.
Amasha constitute acts of reprisals against him for documenting cases of enforced
disappearances for the special procedures (see A/HRC/39/31, para. 39).
18. During its eightieth session in November 2017, the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention rendered its opinion that the detention of Mr. Amasha and other individuals was
arbitrary, and requested the Government of Egypt to ensure his and others’ immediate release and to take steps to remedy their situation, including, by according them an
enforceable right to compensation and other reparations. The Working Group also referred
the case to the Coordinating Committee of the Special Procedures and the Assistant
Secretary-General for Human Rights (see A/HRC/WGAD/2017/78, paras. 89-93).
19. The 2017 report of the Secretary-General addressed allegations of reprisals against
civil society members in the form of asset freezes (see A/HRC/32/52/Add.1, para. 662 and
A/HRC/36/31, para. 30). Staff members of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
(CIHRS) and members of their families are alleged to have been targeted for their
cooperation with United Nations mechanisms and their meetings with United Nations
representatives, and are being subject to asset freezes. Mr. Mohamed Zaree, who has been
banned from travelling outside Egypt in relation to this legislation (case 173/2011), was
interrogated on 24 May 2017 by a judge as part of the ongoing prosecution of the foreign
funding case, and has reportedly been accused of submitting information to the United
Nations. He had also been accused of intending to harm Egypt through his role in preparing
for the universal periodic review in 2014. Reportedly, Mr. Zaree was questioned for
allegedly receiving foreign funds for an unregistered entity (CIHRS) and using them for
unlawful activities with the intent of harming national security and interests. In May 2017
the judge pressed three charges, including two felonies, and set his bail at 30,000 Egyptian
pounds. Mr. Bahey El-Din Hassan and his family have been subject to asset freezes, and
most recently to death threats in relation to a memo sent by seven Egyptian civil society
3 OHCHR, “China: UN experts condemn jailing of human rights lawyer Jiang Tianyong,”
23 November 2017.
4 OHCHR, “China: UN experts concerned about health of jailed rights lawyer Jiang Tianyong,”
23 March 2018.
organizations to the United Nations Secretary-General regarding the presidential elections.
These death threats were reportedly made on television on 21 March 2018 and, prior, on 25
May 2017.
20. On 1 June 2017, the High Commissioner for Human Rights addressed legislation
adopted on 24 May 2017 (Law 70 of 2017 for Regulating the Work of Associations and
Other Institutions Working in the Field of Civil Work), 5 noting that the work of non-
governmental organisations has been severely hampered already through asset freezes,
travel bans, smear campaigns and prosecutions, and he expressed serious concern that the
new legislation imposes severe restrictions on civil society and impinges on the exercise of
the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association. This was addressed
previously on 23 November 2016 by three special procedures (A/HRC/34/75, EGY
14/2016). The Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights sent a letter to the
Government on 28 April 2017 where he addressed concerns about some provisions under
the then draft law that would undermine civil society’s ability to engage freely with the United Nations, including provisions that would require them to seek Government
permission before working with international organizations or experts, and that would defer
administration of such international engagement to the Government.
21. On 31 July the Government provided an update. Regarding the case of Mr. Amasha,
the Government noted that the accused is in pre-trial detention based on case number 316 of
2017 on charges of joining a group established contrary to law, calling for demonstrations
without authorization, incitement to violence and other charges. He was recommended to
undergo medical treatment and to follow up with the medical consultant in the prison’s clinic.
22. Regarding the case of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies and its staff
members, the Government noted that Decision number 325 of 2011 assigned a Judge to
investigate the legal violations of foreign funding received by associations and non-
governmental organizations operating in Egypt in violation of the provisions of the Law on
Associations and NGOs, including this organization, its founder, Mr. Hassan and its
director, Mr. Zaree. The Judge requested that the relevant individuals be prohibited from
making use of their real estate as well as movable and liquid assets in accordance with the
provisions of Article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to ensure that the court’s decision is complied, in case the court decides to impose fines or order compensation for
the charges attributed to them, which are punishable by the Penal Code and Law No. 84 of
2002 on associations and civil institutions. The Government noted that the Cairo Institute
for Human Rights Studies is not registered with the Ministry of Social Solidarity, and that
financial transfers from abroad were received illegally in violation of the provisions of Law
No. 84 of 2002, which governs the work of associations and civil institutions. Regarding
the allegations that Mr. Hassan and his family were subjected to threats, the Government
noted that they could submit a communication to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, since such a threat, if it has occurred, is unacceptable in breach of the law.
6. India
23. In the 2017 report of the Secretary-General, intimidation and reprisals against
Mr. Khurram Parvez, Chairperson of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary
Disappearances and Program Coordinator of the Central Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of
Civil Society (JKCCS), were reported in relation to his cooperation with the Human Rights
Council, the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances and the
universal periodic review. These reprisals took the form of a travel ban and arbitrary arrest
and detention, reportedly because Mr. Parvez was fomenting an “anti-India narrative,” propagating separatism, and inciting others to violence. Reprisals were apparently taken
against him for documenting and sharing information with the United Nations on human
rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, including on behalf of victims. At the time of his
preventive detention of 76 days in 2016, he was accused in four criminal cases, which were
subsequently dropped by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court who held that he had been
5 OHCHR, “Repressive new NGO law deeply damaging for human rights in Egypt – Zeid,”
1 June 2017.
detained arbitrarily. However, the police have still filed “First Information Reports,” before a court in Srinagar for three cases, for which he is awaiting hearings.
24. Mr. Parvez was a source of information collected from June 2016 to April 2018 for
an OHCHR report published in June 2018 on the human rights situation in the State of
Jammu and Kashmir6 and has reportedly suffered reprisals for his assistance. Defaming
content against the JKCCS and Mr. Parvez is reportedly being circulated by a group that
claims to have ISIS affiliation. The group has publicly incited death threats against Mr.
Parvez and his family, and used slanderous language against the work of the JKCCS.
7. Iran (Islamic Republic of)
25. The case of Ms. Raheleh Rahemipor was referred to in the 2017 report of the
Secretary-General (see A/HRC/36/31, para 37 and Annex, paras. 41-42. On 16 May 2018,
four special procedures mandate holders raised concerns over allegations of reprisals in the
form of continuous judicial harassment for her efforts in seeking the truth about the fate and
whereabouts of her brother and his infant daughter (IRN 9/2018). Ms. Rahemipor is a
65 year-old human rights defender, the sister of Mr. Hossein Rahemipor and the aunt to his
infant daughter, whose disappearances have been registered with the Working Group on
Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances since June 2016.
26. In February 2017, Ms. Rahemipor was sentenced by the Branch 15 of the
Revolutionary Court in Tehran to a year in prison “for spreading propaganda against the system.” In September 2017, she was arrested while her first case was still pending in the court of appeal. During her interrogation, she was allegedly pressured to withdraw the
complaints that stand before the Working Group and in return the prosecution against her,
would be stopped, which she refused. She was released on bail after being held in detention
for one month. Similar concerns were raised in previous communications sent by the
special procedures on 5 August 2016 (IRN 23/2016), on 22 November 2016 (IRN 29/2016),
on 26 January 2017 (IRN 3/2017) and on 18 September 2017 (IRN 27/2017). A reference
to her case was included in the February 2018 report of the Secretary-General on the
situation of human rights in Iran (see A/HRC/37/24, para.47). A response by the
Government was received on 27 October 2017 but it did not address the allegation that Ms.
Rahemipor is being judicially harassed as a form of reprisal because she registered the
disappearance of her brother and niece with the Working Group on Enforced and
Involuntary Disappearances.
27. On 5 May 2018, it was further reported that Ms. Rahemipor was tried by the Branch
28 of Tehran Revolutionary Court on the same charge as in February 2017, of “spreading propaganda against the system” for informing the Working Group about the cases of her relatives and for participating in peaceful protests with other activists, where she held a
poster reading “You killed my brother. What did you do with his child?” During the court session, the judge humiliated and verbally abused her for having communicated with
organizations outside Iran including United Nations bodies. The judge said that the
authorities made a mistake by releasing her on bail in the first case against her, and that she
should have been kept in prison. While she is awaiting the outcome of this new trial, her
other case in the appeal court is still pending.
8. Iraq
28. In the 2016 report of the Secretary-General (see A/HRC/33/19, para. 24), it was
noted that on 13 April 2016, three special procedures mandate holders raised concerns over
allegations of reprisals against Mr. Imad Amara and Mr. Faisal al-Tamimi, of 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-
6 OHCHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kashmir: Developments in the Indian State of
Jammu and Kashmir from June 2016 to April 2018, and General Human Rights Concerns in Azad
Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit – Baltistan, 14 June 2018.
Tamimi were severely beaten, insulted and threatened while being interrogated about their
work for around two hours, before being released. The special procedures 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.
29. On 10 April 2018, three special procedures mandate holders raised allegations of
death threats and attempted killing against Mr. Al Tamimi and Mr. Al Roumy in what
appears to be direct retaliation for their legitimate human rights work against enforced
disappearances in Iraq and for urging the State to join the International Criminal Court
(IRQ 2/2018). While recognising the independent judicial character of the International
Criminal Court, the Court is regarded as a related organization in the United Nations
System. The men were threatened after attending a preparation meeting for a conference
aimed at calling on Iraq to join the Court, following which three cars stopped next to them
and one of the men inside made the following threat “Iyad and Faisal, either your life or the conference.” On 5 February 2018, two days after the conference, both individuals were approached by a car near the Sheikh Maruf Square in Baghdad. One of the persons in the
car opened fire on them and shot five times. Mr. Al Tamimi was injured and was brought to
the Medical City Hospital in Baghdad, where he received medical treatment. On 4 March
2018, both Mr. Al Roumy and Mr. Al Tamimi received threats through Facebook messages.
At the time of writing no response has been received.
9. Japan
30. In the 2016 report of the Secretary-General (see A/HRC/33/19, para. 25), reference
was made to an urgent appeal to the Government by three special procedures mandate
holders on 30 May 2016 alleging the monitoring and surveillance of Ms. Kazuko Ito, of
non-governmental organisation Human Rights Now. Ms Ito had facilitated and organised
meetings for Mr. David Kaye, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of
the right to freedom of opinion and expression, with representatives of civil society during
his visit to Japan in April 2016 (see A/HRC/34/52/Add. 1, paras. 399 and 400; JPN
4/2016). These allegations stemmed from a magazine that reported information obtained
through a leaked memo allegedly produced by Japanese intelligence agency members
ordering the surveillance of Ms. Ito’s movements ahead of the Special Rapporteur’s visit to Japan. They expressed concern that the allegations of surveillance of Ms. Ito could be an
act of intimidation and reprisal for her cooperation with the United Nations. Human Rights
Now has been cooperating with the United Nations mechanisms since 2013, including the
universal periodic review and the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW).
31. The 2017 report noted the Government’s response of 16 June 2016 that, the
allegations were investigated by the Public Security Intelligence Agency and the National
Police Agency, who each confirmed that they “had neither received such instructions nor
conducted such research activities as were reported by the media” (see A/HRC/36/31,
Annex, para. 5).
32. In May 2018 it was reported that Ms. Ito and Human Rights Now continue to be
targeted due to their cooperation with the United Nations. On 9 March 2018, during a
videotaped session of the House of Representatives Committee on Cabinet, a member of
the Diet and Liberal Democratic Party addressed government representatives where she
characterized Human Rights Now as “(a)n organization that makes use of the United
Nations and other [international forums] to spread around the world the fabricated
information that the “comfort women” of the Japanese army were sex slaves, and does that
with lots of enthusiasm; that’s what Human Rights Now is.” Human Rights Now had
organised a side event on “comfort women” at the Commission on the Status of Women.
The Diet member also reportedly requested the Diet to “control NGOs’ international forms
of speech” in their collaborative activities with the United Nations and said, “it is obvious
that there are people trying to use propaganda to discredit Japan,” which was reiterated on
social media. Human Rights Now sent two letters to the Chairman of the House of
Representatives Committee on Cabinet and to the Liberal Democratic Party on 27 March
2018 regarding these allegations. The Government of Japan responded on 15 August 2018
that “it asked both the Liberal Democratic Party and the Secretariat of the House of
Representatives about the letters mentioned. The Liberal Democratic Party replied that it
cannot confirm if it received the letter because it has no information on which department
of the Party the letter was addressed to. The Secretariat of the House of Representatives
replied that the chairman has not responded to the letter from that organization.”
10. Mexico
33. As reported in the 2017 report of the Secretary-General (see A/HRC/36/31, para. 41
and Annex 47-50), on 4 August 2015 the Committee against Torture, in Ramirez et al. v.
Mexico, found a violation of articles 1, 2 (1), 12-15 and 22 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT/C/55/D/500/2012
and communication No. 500/2012). On 19 May 2016 and 19 September 2016, the
complainants submitted that they had suffered acts of intimidation and harassment by the
authorities as a result of the Committee’s decision. This allegedly took the form of a
campaign aimed at stigmatizing the complainants as criminals and re-victimizing them. On
19 September 2016, the CAT requested protective measures.
34. Given the absence of a response by the Government to the allegations of reprisals of
19 September 2016, the Chair of the Committee met with the Permanent Representative of
Mexico in Geneva on 14 May 2018 to discuss measures taken by the authorities to
implement the Committee’s decision. The Chair enquired about the outcomes, if any, of the
investigation into the acts of torture, punishment of the perpetrators, and protection of the
complainants from reprisals reported to the Committee in September 2016. The Chair
further inquired whether all four complainants in the case have been released and if they
received the remedies requested by the Committee.
35. According to an update received on 25 May 2018, two of the four victims remain in
detention and are held in extremely precarious conditions with no regard to their condition
as victims of torture and were transferred, without prior notice, to prisons with even harsher
conditions. One victim has been diagnosed with a medical condition and is need of
treatment, which he has not received. With regard to the two victims that were released,
their families continue to face harassment and stigmatization, to the extent that they were
forced to change residences.
36. During the meeting with the Chair of the Committee Against Torture on 14 May
2018, the Government committed to provide updated information from the national
authorities and to submit its response to the Committee on the measures taken to implement
the decision on the case by 14 July 2018. The Committee will meet with the Government
during the sixty-fifth session of the Committee from 12 November to 7 December 2018.
11. Morocco
37. In the 2017 report of the Secretary-General concerns were raised about the
prolongation of the detention of Mr. Abdul Rahman Alhaj Ali, which the Committee
Against Torture deemed likely to be related to the complaint to CAT on his behalf on 22
May 2015 (see A/HRC/36/31 para. 42 and Annex paras. 51-52). On 3 August 2016, the
Committee against Torture, in Abdul Rahman Alhaj Ali v. Morocco, found that the
extradition of Mr. Alhaj Ali would constitute a breach of Article 3 of the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT
C/58/D/682/2015 and communication No. 682/2015). Mr. Alhaj Ali, a Syrian national
registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and seeking asylum in
Morocco, was detained in October 2014 in Morocco on an extradition request by Saudi
Arabia for “breach of trust” based on previous business relations in Riyadh. The Committee
urged the Government to release him or to try him if charges are brought against him in
Morocco, as he had been in extradition detention for almost two years, far in excess of the
sixty-day pretrial period provided for in Morocco.
38. According to updated information received by the Committee, during his detention
in 2017 Mr. Alhaj Ali was twice summoned to the Prosecutor’s office, where he was
reportedly notified that the extension of his detention resulted from action on behalf before
the CAT. On 5 October 2017, the Committee requested the Government to provide further
information, within 2 months, on the measures taken to implement the Committee’s
decision in this case. On 28 November 2017, the Committee decided to request a meeting
with a representative of Morocco during its sixty-third Session, 23 April to 18 May 2018.
On 17 May 2018, the Committee’s Rapporteur on Reprisals, together with the rapporteur
for follow-up to decisions on individual complaints under Art. 22, met with a representative
of the Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of Morocco in Geneva to discuss, inter alia, the
implementation of the Committee’s decision in the present case (CAT/C/62/3 of 20
February 2018 and CAT/C/63/3).
39. On 6 June 2018, the Government confirmed that the complainant was released from
detention on 16 May 2018, after more than three-and-a-half years of arbitrary detention. He
is reported to be awaiting resettlement to the Netherlands where his family resides.
40. In the 2016 report of the Secretary-General (see A/HRC/33/19, para. 26), it was
reported that on 22 March 2016 three special procedures mandate holders raised concerns
with the Moroccan authorities over allegations of reprisals against Ms. El Ghalia Djimi, an
employee of the Ministry of Agriculture and Maritime Fishing of Morocco and member of
the l’association Sahraouie des victimes des graves violations des droits de l’homme
commises par l’état du Maroc, l’ASVDH (A/HRC/33/32, MAR 1/2016). In the 2017 report
of the Secretary-General (see A/HRC/36/31, Annex para. 6) it was reported that Mr. Michel
Forst, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, in his report on
observations on communications, reiterated concerns that Ms. Djimi did not receive
authorization to leave the country to travel to the thirty-first session of the Human Rights
Council in Geneva (see A/HRC/34/52/Add.1, para 722). The mandate holder further
expressed concern that the case of Ms. El Ghalia Djimi is not isolated, but is rather
representative of a larger trend of reprisals, harassment and intimidation of human rights
defenders. Information was subsequently received that Ms. El Ghalia Djimi was able to
attend the thirty-second session of the Human Rights Council.
41. It was further reported that after the participation of Ms. Djimi in a session of the
Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances on 30 April 2018 in Geneva,
she was subject to reprisals in the form of online defamation on a Moroccan website
“Sahrawikileaks.com.” It was also reported that Ms. Mina Baali, also a member of the
association, participated in the Human Rights Council at the June 2017 session, and
believes because of this, she has become subject to reprisals at her place of employment.
12. Myanmar
42. The case of Mr. Khaing Myo Htun (also known as Mr. Khine Myo Htun), a human
rights defender who had reported on forced labour cases in Rakhine State, was addressed by
four special procedures mandate holders (A/HRC/34/75, MMR 2/2016, MMR 7/2017) and
included in the September 2017 report of the Secretary-General (see A/HRC/36/31, para.
43 and Annex, paras. 53-55). On 8 September 2017 the Government responded to the
special procedures communication (MMR 7/2017) pertaining to the charges related to
defamation and incitement. It is alleged that the arrest and detention of Mr. Khaing Myo
Htun was linked to his cooperation with Ms. Yanghee Lee, the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in Myanmar, with whom he met during her visit in June 2016
shortly before his detention. The charges against him relate to a written statement issued on
24 April 2016 by the Arakan Liberation Party, of which Mr. Khaing Myo Htun is a
member, claiming that the Myanmar Army had engaged in severe human rights violations,
including forced labour, forced land relocation, hostage taking, and arbitrary beatings and
ill-treatment of combatants.
43. The ILO Governing Body noted in its report of 7 February 2018 that it remained
deeply concerned that on 12 October 2017, Mr. Khaing Myo Htun, was convicted of
defamation and incitement under section 505 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 18 months
in jail, following eight months in detention during his trial. Ms. Lee, in her March 2018
report to the Human Rights Council, noted that he was convicted of disturbing public
tranquillity and incitement under Sections 505(b) and (c) in October 2017 for allegations he
made about forced labour the Myanmar security forces. Subsequently, after 19 months Mr.
Htun was released on 22 February 2018 (see A/HRC/37/70, para. 15).
13. Pakistan
44. On 26 July 2017, four special procedures mandate holders sent an urgent appeal to
the Government alleging threats and acts of intimidation against Mr. Adil Ghaffar, a lawyer
and human rights defender who has brought to the attention of the United Nations human
rights mechanisms, cases of extrajudicial killings, torture, and enforced disappearances
allegedly committed by State agents against members of the political party and movement
Muttahida Quami Movement, including persons belonging to the Mohajirs community
(PAK 5/2017).
45. According to the information received, Mr. Ghaffar’s home has been monitored and
he has received direct death threats from the twitter account @PakRangersFreePress. This
account reportedly belongs to Pakistani Paramilitary Rangers, who have been accused of of
serious human rights violations against MQM workers and ethnic Mohajirs.
46. The first threat received was on 1 July 2017, from a tweet referring to Mr. Ghaffar
as a “traitor of Pakistan.” It stated that if someone needs his residential address and details
about his family they should contact the sender. On 14 July 2017, Mr. Ghaffar received
another message from the social media account @PakRangersFreePress, which asked
“what punishment is fit for the traitor.” The special procedures expressed serious concern
that these reported threats and acts of intimidation appear to be reprisals against Mr.
Ghaffar at least in part due to his engagement with the United Nations human rights
mechanisms. At the time of writing there had been no response to the urgent appeal.
14. Rwanda
47. In the 2017 report of the Secretary-General it was noted that two special procedures
mandate holders sent an urgent appeal to the Government (RWA 1/2017) on 18 January
2017, in response to allegations of kidnapping and intense daily interrogation against
journalist and human rights defender Mr. Robert Mugabe (see A/HRC/36/31, para. 48 and
Annex, paras. 62 and 65) for his cooperation with the universal periodic review and the
Human Rights Council (A/HRC/35/44).
48. On 30 May 2018, Mr. David Kaye, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, wrote to the Government in
response to allegations that while Mr. Mugabe was travelling to Geneva to attend the 2017
United Nations Internet Governance Forum on 15 December 2017, he was stopped by the
authorities at the airport in Kigali and barred from leaving the country (RWA 1/2018). He
was reportedly detained and questioned for several hours on accusations of “working
against the state, treason, and spreading rumours to undermine the state…” based upon his
critical reporting published online. The police searched his bags and phone and questioned
him about his activities related to the Human Rights Council. He was released after four
hours of questioning to return home. On 16 December 2017 he was reportedly summoned
again to the police, and criminal investigations from January 2017 were reopened against
him, which could lead to formal charges. If convicted for treason, Mr. Mugabe could face
25 years in prison. At the time of writing the Government had not responded to the
communications by the special procedures of 18 January 2017 and 30 May 2018.
15. Saudi Arabia
49. It was reported that on 16 September 2017, Mr. Issa Al-Hamid, of the Saudi Civil
and Political Rights Association (ACPRA) was arrested, following previous sentences
imposed by the Saudi authorities during a crackdown on human rights defenders. The 2017
report of the Secretary-General (see A/HRC/36/31, para. 49 and Annex, paras. 66-67) noted
that three special procedures mandate holders took action on the case of Mr. Al-Hamid,
who was sentenced to 11 years in prison followed by an 11-year travel ban and a fine of
100,000 Riyals (SAU 8/2016). He was originally sentenced to nine years by the Specialized
Criminal Court for having, inter alia “communicated with international organizations in
order to harm the image of the State,” a charge that according to special procedures appear
to also constitute acts of reprisal for cooperation with the United Nations. His sentence was
increased by two years on 1 December 2016 by the Court of Appeal.
50. On 13 December 2016, three special procedures mandate holders raised concerns
over allegations of reprisals against Mr. Al-Hamid for cooperating with the United Nations
(A/HRC/35/44, SAU 8/2016). In its reply dated 13 February 2017, the Government did not
address the case of Mr. Al-Hamid, as a response concerning his case had been provided
already in relation to a previous communication (SAU 4/2016) in which the Government
informed that he was sentenced by a lower court to nine years of imprisonment and a ban to
travel outside the Kingdom for a similar period. The Government did not address the
allegations relating to reprisals.
16. Thailand
51. The 2017 report of the Secretary-General (see A/HRC/36/31, para. 57 and Annex,
paras. 78-79) noted that, in June 2016, grant recipients of the United Nations Voluntary
Fund for Victims of Torture, Ms. Porpen Khongkachonkiet and Mr. Somchai Homla-or of
Cross-Cultural Foundation and Ms. Anchana Heemmina of Duay Jai Group, were subject to
a legal complaint filed by the Royal Thai Army operating in the Southern Border Provinces
for publishing a report in February 2016 entitled “Fifty-four cases of torture and ill-
treatment in the Deep South documented in 2014-2015,” funded in part by the Voluntary
Fund. They were consequently accused of publicizing false information on torture and ill-
treatment committed by military officials. The spokesperson of the Royal Thai Army in the
region issued a public statement on 11 February 2016 accusing the organization of bias and
of using outdated information to seek funding.
52. It is reported that the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) Region 4 filed
a lawsuit against them for defamation and publication of false information on the internet.
On 1 July 2017, plainclothes men believed to be military personnel visited Ms. Hemmina
and warned her not to post comments about human rights violations on social media.
Further to advocacy efforts related to the allegations, in November 2017, the ISOC 4
withdrew the defamation charges against Ms. Porpen Khongkachonkiet, Mr. Somchai
Homla-or, and Ms. Anchana Heemmina. The charges were dropped by the Pattani
Provincial Prosecutor.
53. On 13 September 2017 four special procedures mandate holders noted that
Ms. Angkhana Neelapaijit, Ms. Porpen Khongkachonkiet and Ms. Anchana Heemmina,
among others, were also reportedly subject to an online smear campaign, accusing them of
bias and misinformation, and associating their human rights advocacy with the promotion
of insurgency and separatist movements (THA 6/2017). Ms. Angkhana Neelapaijit is a
Commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand. Beginning in
October 2016, the online blog “Conditions in South Thailand” regularly published content
discrediting the work of Ms. Khongkachonkiet and Ms. Heemmina. Death threats were also
posted online against Ms. Khongkachonkiet.
54. It was reported that on 14 February 2018, a case was opened against Mr. Ismaael
Teh, founder of the Patani Human Rights Organization Network and a field officer since
2013 for an investigation funded by the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of
Torture (see A/HRC/36/31, para. 57 and Annex, paras. 78-79). Mr. Teh is responsible for
helping document 82 cases of allegations of torture that were submitted by civil society
representatives to the Committee Against Torture. Military officials of the Internal Security
Operations Command Region 4 (ISOC Region 4) via the Pattani Provincial Police
reportedly accused Mr. Teh of defamation following a television interview in which he
recounted his own personal experience of torture while in military custody in Pattani
province, in 2006. In October 2016, the Supreme Administrative Court had ruled that Mr.
Teh had been physically abused in military custody based on medical records, and ordered
the Thai Royal Army to award him compensation. Mr. Teh’s interview was broadcast on a
Thai PBS program on 5 February 2018, after which he was accused of defaming the 4th
Army Region and ISOC Region 4.
17. United Arab Emirates
55. Mr. Ahmed Mansoor, advisor to the Gulf Centre for Human Rights and Human
Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division, was mentioned in the 2017 report
of the Secretary-General (see A/HRC/36/31, para. 60 and Annex, paras. 84-85) and was the
subject of actions by seven special procedures mandate holders (ARE 1/2017; ARE
7/2017). Mr. Mansoor is alleged to have suffered intimidation and reprisal for his
collaboration with the Human Rights Council, the special procedures, the universal periodic
review and the treaty bodies. Mr. Mansoor has experienced physical assaults, death threats,
government surveillance, and since 2011, has been subject to a travel ban to prevent him
engaging in person with United Nations human rights mechanisms. According to reports,
he was detained on 20 March 2017 when security agents searched his home in Ajman,
confiscated laptops and other equipment, and arrested him without a warrant. He was
placed in custody in Al Wathba prison in ill-health and has been subject to ill-treatment and
possibly torture. On 29 May 2018 Mr. Mansoor was sentenced to ten years prison before
the State Security Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court, fined one million Dirhams (USD
$272,294.00), and ordered to be put under surveillance for three years upon his release. The
Government responded in writing to the allegations transmitted by the special procedures in
April 2017, but did not address the allegations of reprisals.
56. On 4 October 2017, two special procedures mandate holders raised concern about
the treatment of Mr. Mohamad Ismat Mohamad Shaker Az as retaliation of an opinion
issued by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on his case (ARE 6/2017). Mr. Shaker
Az was transferred to solitary confinement on 2 July 2017 for two months, beyond the 15-
day limit recommended in international standards, allegedly as a measure of retaliation after
the issuance of Opinion No. 21/2017 in which the Working Group found Mr. Shaker Az’s
detention arbitrary. Furthermore, Mr. Shaker Az was told that the prosecutor would ask for
an increased penalty, from 15 years to which he was sentenced in 2014, to life
imprisonment. The Government responded in writing to the allegations transmitted by the
special procedures in October 2017, citing its view that Mr. Shaker Az was not subjected to
arbitrary detention, torture or solitary confinement.
57. Mr. Osama Al-Najjar was alleged to have been subject to reprisals after meeting
with the Ms. Gabriela Knaul, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and
lawyers during her visit to the United Arab Emirates in 2014. His case has been raised by
five special procedures mandate holders (ARE 2/2015) and in previous reports of the
Secretary-General in 2014, 2015 and 2016. According to information received, Mr. Al-
Najjar, who was arrested, tortured and held incommunicado in March 2014, was then
transferred to Al Wathba prison, to be released on 17 March 2017, following the
completion of his three-year sentence. However, in March 2017 the Federal Supreme Court
reportedly refused to release him and, requested by the Public Prosecution, transferred him
to a counselling center (Munasaha) based on Article 40 of Federal Law No. (7) of 2014 on
Combating Terrorism Offences. On 1 June 2017 the court extended his placement in this
center by six months and on 13 December 2017 it was again renewed for another six
months.
58. On 6 July 2018 the Government provided follow up information on multiple cases,
noting that Mr. Al-Najjar is currently going therapy and treatment at a counselling centre
called a Munasaha Centre which “consists of psychological, social and religious sessions to
uproot terrorist and extremist ideologies” based on “concern that he might commit a
terrorist offence after leaving the prison” and a “threat to public security.” The Government
stated that Mr. Shaker Az is “currently serving his sentence of imprisonment at the Al
Wathba penal institution, where he receives appropriate health care, and is permitted to
communicate with his family in accordance with the regulations and procedures applicable
to penal and correctional institutions.” Mr. Mansoor “was tried, convicted and sentenced to
ten years’ imprisonment” and is serving his sentence at the Al Sadr penal institution with
the right to an appeal. The Government did not address the allegations of reprisals.
18. Uzbekistan
59. The case of Ms. Elena Urlaeva, of the Human Rights Alliance of Uzbekistan, an
independent labour monitor who documents the practice of forced labour in the cotton
industry, was included in the 2017 report of the Secretary-General (see A/HRC/36/31, para.
61 Annex, para. 86-87). On 1 March 2017, Ms. Urlaeva was arrested in Tashkent and taken
to a police station, the day before she was due to meet representatives of the ILO and the
World Bank on 2 March 2017. She had filed a complaint with the International Finance
Corporation’s Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) regarding World Bank
investments. At the police station, Ms. Urlaeva was insulted and mocked by police officers
who told her that she needed psychiatric treatment. She was then forcibly transferred to a
psychiatric facility in Tashkent. On 24 March 2017, Ms. Urlaeva was released after 24 days
of psychiatric detention.
60. On 5 April 2017 four special procedures mandate holders raised concerns about
these incidents, which they noted appear to be related to her cooperation with international
organizations (UZB 1/2017). On 28 April 2017 the Government responded, stating that
according to a 2006 ruling of the Miabad Interregional Civil Court in Tashkent, Ms.
Urlaeva suffers from mental illness and is legally incompetent. On 27 October 2017 the
Government further responded to the mention of this case in the 2017 report of the
Secretary-General, reiterating that no illegal actions by law enforcement were taken against
Ms. Urlaeva, and that the Government maintains a cooperative relationship with the ILO.
61. It has subsequently been alleged that police and other authorities in several regions
arbitrarily detained, interfered with and obstructed the work of both Ms. Urlaeva and
Ms. Malohat Eshonkulova, an independent journalist and human rights activist who also
signed the complaint to the Ombudsman, because they openly monitor work based upon
forced labor. On 12 September 2017, police in Yaipan, a district of the Fergana region,
detained Ms. Urlaeva at the police station where they confiscated her notebook, three
mobile phones, camera, and a recording device. When Ms. Eshonkulova came to the station
to demand Ms. Urlaeva’s release, she was also detained. Both were released several hours
later. Police in Buka detained Ms. Urlaeva again on 6 October 2017. On 15 October 2017,
police in Pastdargam district, in the Samarkand region, detained Ms. Urlaeva and Ms.
Eshonkulova for six hours. They were taken to the police station where they were
interrogated and had their belongings confiscated, including notebooks, mobile phones, and
camera flash card. In November 2017, is also alleged that police raided Ms. Eshonkulova’s
home and confiscated several of her belongings in a nearly 11-hour search for her computer
and cell phone.
19. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
62. The 2017 report of the Secretary-General contains information about alleged acts of
intimidation and reprisals against Mr. Henrique Capriles, former governor of Miranda state
(see A/HRC/36/31, paras. 29 and . 88). In a press briefing on 19 May 2017, the
spokesperson of the High Commissioner for Human Rights referred to the case of Mr.
Henrique Capriles, who was scheduled to meet the High Commissioner in New York, on
the same day, but was prevented from leaving Venezuela to do so. On 19 January 2018, the
Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights wrote to the Government about allegations
of further reprisals against Mr. Capriles, expressing concern that subsequent attempts by
him to renew his travel documents to participate in international events have been thwarted.
On 11 April 2018 it was reported that Mr. Capriles was issued a passport to travel abroad to
visit a sick relative.