Global: Silencing the defenders in the Commonwealth - new report

In the seventh decade after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Commonwealth governments continue to resist fulfilling their human rights obligations. There is an ongoing need for people who are ready and willing to stand up and defend human rights. It is, however, only relatively recently that the legitimacy and value of actions done in defence of human rights have been recognised at international and regional levels.

The United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, commonly known as the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (the Declaration), was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly in 1998. The Declaration was born out of two fundamental considerations: one, that promoting human rights is valuable and is the prerogative of everyone, and two, that these activities make the actor vulnerable to reprisal. Although it is a declaration rather than a treaty, and hence not legally binding, the unanimity with which it was adopted gives it a unique strength and places states under a strong moral and political obligation to abide by it.

The Declaration does not provide human rights defenders with new or special rights but brings together previously agreed legal obligations found elsewhere in international human rights law. The non-binding nature of the Declaration does not therefore mean that countries are not legally obligated to ensure that the rights in it are implemented. The Declaration simply reiterates already existing rights as being noteworthy in the context of the work that human rights defenders do and their need to be able to do it unhindered and protected.

That the work of human rights defenders is not popular in many Commonwealth jurisdictions is clear from the frequency with which they are targeted. Whether they are active in a conflict situation or a stable democracy, anything that suggests criticism of government can attract dire consequences. Human rights defenders are likely to suffer a range of abuses from having their activities unreasonably restricted and their organisations unfairly scrutinised, to being spied on or defamed, denied access to funding, or being subject to arbitrary arrest, physical violence and death – all imposed with the intention of deterring them from pursuing their valuable work. In certain situations these risks are even greater: the period around election time is one such context as are situations of internal armed conflict, coups and states of emergency. National security is a legitimate concern of governments, however the presence of protracted armed conflicts within state borders has prompted the passing of special laws and an increase in police powers which, in some cases, are not well-regulated, enabling them to be turned to ends other than those for which they were intended. There is also a tendency for governments to retain these statutes and continue to use them even after the tensions that prompted their adoption have ended.

However, the state has a duty to protect. Article 12 (2) and (3) of the Declaration underlines that the state has a responsibility to ensure that everyone is protected from violence in the exercise of their right to participate in peaceful activities against human rights violations. This means that the state and its institutions – particularly the justice system and the police – must be able to provide effective safeguards for both the person and the work of those under threat wherever these threats may come from. When non-state and private actors attack human rights defenders the state is bound to bring them to justice through the proper channels. But in many countries state machineries are simply unable to do this or are wilfully neglectful in making sure human rights defenders can go about their work without coming to harm. Indeed it would be fair to say that all too often the plight of human rights defenders is heightened by the active antagonism of the state combined with the protection that it affords its agents either unofficially or through legal mechanisms that assure impunity.

In recognition of the value and importance of the work of human rights defenders in protecting human rights and in implementing the fundamental human rights principles of the Commonwealth, and noting the difficulties that they face in carrying out that agenda, CHRI is calling on CHOGM as a matter of urgency to mandate the development of a Commonwealth wide policy on human rights defenders.

*The biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meet is a major target for CHRI’s advocacy. CHRI will be distributing hard copies of its report during the proceedings of the human rights assembly organised by the Commonwealth Foundation and Commonwealth Human rights Initiative, in Hotel Cascadia, #67 Ariapita Road, St. Anns, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, 23-24 November 2009. The report titled ‘Silencing the Defenders: Human Rights Defenders in the Commonwealth’ looks into an issue of human rights concern in the Commonwealth, which includes recommendations to further protect and promote human rights. Following on from previous reports which had highlighted trends in the Commonwealth to devalue civil liberties while enhancing state and police power, this year’s report examined the particular impact on human rights defenders whose crucial role in the promotion and protection of human rights is undermined by restrictions imposed on the space they have to carry out in their activities. Anyone who would like a copy of the report can contact Heather Collister [[email protected] or Iniyan Ilango] [[email protected]"> who will be addressing the human rights assembly.

* Heather Collister