HRDN Stand 4 Human Rights Defenders Campaign: DO’S AND DON’TS for EEAS, EU delegations and member state embassy public statements or letters on human rights defenders

​​
The Human Rights and Democracy Network (HRDN), of which OMCT is a member, presents another case of a human rights defender, in the framework of its one year-long campaign: Stand 4 Human Rights Defenders. HRDN is an informal group of 48 NGOs operating at the EU level in the areas of human rights, democracy and peace building.


The HRDN has drafted a “Do’s and Don’ts in EU public statements on HRDs” as a practical, examples based illustration of some good practices in communicating about HRDs at risk, in a way that is helpful to them and to other defenders, and hopefully maximises chances of securing their release, the dropping of charges against them, and the end of other forms of harassment. It also outlines unhelpful messages that can unwittingly undermine their protection. It also includes a ‘baseline’ asking the EU to always issue statements in case of the killing of a human rights defenders, which should never be ignored. The EU and Member States committed to “improve public diplomacy and communication on its human rights actions” in the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, and HRDN will be meeting with the EEAS, and other key EU actors in order to discuss these ideas, over the coming weeks.

The document is available here as well as in HRDN's Website.

Who is a human rights defender?

To be a human rights defender, a person can act to address any human right (or rights) on behalf of individuals or groups. Human rights defenders defend the universality of human rights as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[1] seeking the promotion and protection of civil and political rights as well as the promotion, protection and realization of economic, social and cultural rights. The actions taken by human rights defenders are always non-violent.

Members andofficial bodies of the European Parliament are encouraged to be more publicwith their human rights messaging, in the form of press releases after missionsand joint meetings, in cases of HRDs at risk.

Humanrights defenders should be helped in holding their own governments accountable forhuman rights violations: they are a 'local solution to a local problem'. Butwhere governments are not allowing them to do this work, the internationalcommunity must publicly denounce abuses. The EU’s Guidelines on HRDs,specify that "The EU's objective is to influence third countries to carryout their obligations to respect the rights of human rights defenders andto protect them from attacks and threats from non-State actors. The overallobjective should be to bring about an environment where human rights defenderscan operate freely".

Aheadof a trial or in case of other violations against HRDs (harassment, threats,intimidation, physical assault, killings, etc.)

DO

· Seek the informed consent of theHRD about the aspects of the statement that concern them to minimise thesecurity risk to them, and ensure they support the calls included in thestatement, including advising on what to call for. If this is not possible,seek the informed consent of their representative, such as a lawyer or familymember;

· Describe the individual as a human rightsdefender (HRD): openly recognising them as such helps legitimisetheir work, and can increase their protection; it further raises the issue ofthe state's obligation to protect them under the UN Declaration on HRDs;

· Refer to relevant wordingwithin the UN Declaration on HRDs[2] aswell as the EU Guidelines on HRDs in thestatement;

· Consult international or regional sources thatassess the legitimacy of the actions taken against the HRD (ICCPR commitments, UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Council of Europe, AfricanCommission on Human and People’s Rights, Inter-AmericanCommission on Human Rights, etc.) and citethem in the statement in order to increase its weight and legitimacy;

· Explicitly point out the connectionbetween the actions taken (arrest, judicial action, harassment,intimidation, etc.) to the HRD's legitimate human rights work;

· Call for the violations against the HRDto cease and use the opportunity of your appeal to call for thestate to ensure that similar actions against other HRDs (only name them if youhave their informed consent) cease as well;

· Highlight the links between theindividual case and the wider trends of HRD harassment, anddenounce this trend; infer what the repercussions of this case could be on thewider human rights situation (silencing of other HRDs, the shrinking of civilsociety space, etc.); urge the government to repeal any harmful legislationrestricting HRD work (freedom of association, expression, NGO financing...);

· Imply what the repercussions of the casecould be on the international standing of the country and onrelations with the EU and the Member State(s);

· Ask for specific actions from theauthorities: ensuring the HRD's safety, an end to harassment,their release from detention, permission for the international community tovisit them in detention, access to lawyers, medical care, etc;

· Call for the adoption of policies, or toimplement fully existing legislation (if present) forthe protection of defenders, including precautionary measures, and inpretrial detention, the respect of international Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners;

· Always issue a condemnation in thestrongest possible terms in case of an HRD's killing; callfor an immediate independent, impartial investigation; the protection ofwitnesses, the HRD's friends, family and colleagues; the implementation ofnecessary measures to prevent the recurrence of an HRD killing; and theguarantee for all HRDs in the country to carry out their legitimate humanrights activities without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions.

DO NOT

· Sound apologetic about raising the caseand your concerns: states commit themselves to international scrutiny whenratifying international human rights agreements;

· Simplystate your concern without calling for specific actions.

Examples of best practice

DO say

→ 'I urge your government to fulfil its obligations under international law and release all HRDs who have been arbitrarily detained in violation of their fundamental rights'

→ 'We condemn the use of administrative detention by the authorities as an instrument aimed at creating pressure, fear and uncertainty'

→ 'The detention of human rights defender[insert name of HRD] resulted directly from his/her exercise of legitimate work aiming at improving the promotion and protection of [insert human right e.g. free expression or sexual and reproductive rights]'[3]

→ '[Such actions] curtail the exercise of freedom of expression and of assembly in country X. We therefore call on country X to honour its international human rights obligations'.

→ 'We condemn in the strongest terms the killing of X, renowned human rights defender. We call for the swift reaction of the authorities to thoroughly investigate this murder and bring to justice those responsible. This crime cannot go unpunished.'

→ 'We urge the government to guarantee by all means possible the protection of human rights defenders who legitimately defend the rights of their communities through peaceful means.'

Whenan HRD is standing trial

All ofthe above +

DO

· Call for the trial to meet fair trialstandards;[4] callfor the monitoring of the trial by the EU (either by an official from the EU delegationand/or from an EU Member State embassy), preferably from the highest level; monitor the trial yourself (if the HRDagrees and if external monitoring is allowed) send MEPs to monitor the trial;

· Mention if there is clear evidence thatthe judiciary is not independent or if there have been flaws inprevious similar prosecutions (flawed trials, trumped-up charges, excessivesentences, etc.) that lead you to doubt the fairness of the trial;

· Denounce laws or practices thatcriminalise legitimate human rights work and are used tounfairly charge HRDs and ask for them to be repealed.

DO NOT

· Saythat you will await the outcome of the legal process in countries where thejudiciary is not independent, or where the legislation is flawed, withoutmaking reference to fair trial standards;

· Simplyask for national laws to be respected or ask for the sentence to beproportionate to the scale of the crime if the legislation on which charges arebrought is known to fall short of international standards.

Examples of best and bad practice

DO say

→ 'The overly broad offences established by law X constitute an unjustified restriction on expression rights and on fair trial rights'.

→ 'We call on you to ensure that the HRD, X, has full access to the assistance of legal counsel and that the proceedings related to this case are open to the public, the media, and members of the diplomatic community'.

DO NOT say

→ 'La Délégation reste attentive à la poursuite de la procédure engagée et se veut convaincue qu’elle aboutira à un jugement juste et équitable.'

If anHRD is convicted in an unfair trial

All ofthe above +

DO

· Describe the outcomes of your trialobservations and enumerate the flaws of the trial[5]citing international and regional sources to reinforce your argument;

· Appeal to the authorities to re-examinethe case; mention the rights of the HRD that have been violatedand the state's international obligations; consult with the HRD and local civilsociety representatives for other case-specific calls – the HRD may not wantyou to appeal for a pardon on their behalf.

DO NOT

· Mention compassion, dignity orhumanitarian concerns as the sole reasons for releasing an imprisoned HRD; onlycall for compassionate release if there is no other recourse for an HRD beingliberated, and you have their explicit consent.

Examples of best and bad practice

DO say

→ 'While the authorities have asserted that the prosecution of these individuals is unrelated to their work as journalists, independent inquiries have found that this is not the case. For example, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention held that the imprisonment of X, violated your country's obligations under international law, and requested his immediate release.'

→ 'The EP condemns the life sentence for alleged “charge Z” handed out today to HRD X, which is completely unjustified. The EU deplores that the due process of law was not respected, in particular with regard to the right to a proper defence. We call for his immediate and unconditional release as well as the release of all his supporters detained in relation to his case.'

DO NOT say

→ 'Le Parlement européen souhaite que tout puisse être mis en œuvre pour que sa situation soit traitée avec humanisme et dans le respect des règles et procédures énoncées par les lois du pays X... Dans l’attente du prochain jugement...'

→ '(l'UE) se félicite que la justice, dans le respect des lois et des engagements internationaux du pays X, ait fait prévaloir les principes d'humanité et de dignité dues aux personnes'.

If anHRD is released

DO

· Mention what remains to be done: freeother HRDs (only name them if you have their informed consent), amendlegislation, reform the judiciary, end impunity, etc.

· Highlight and express concern if therelease is conditional upon restrictions such as housearrest, ban on performing human rights work, loss of previously held positions(ex. teacher, public servant), etc.

· Call on the government to guarantee inall circumstances that all human rights defenders in country X are able tocarry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisalsand free of all restrictions.

Examples of best practice

DO say

→ 'We welcome the release of human rights defender X after almost X years of imprisonment motivated directly by their legitimate and peaceful human rights work. This should be followed without delay by the release of all the remaining detained human rights defenders and the reinstatement of their full human rights.'

→ 'We call on the government to guarantee in all circumstances that all human rights defenders in country X are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions.'

Whenan HRD is a women human rights defender (WHRD)

All ofthe above +

DO

· Reference the General Assembly resolution 68/181 of 18December 2013, focusingspecifically on women human rights defenders;

· Acknowledge women defenders are more at risk of certain forms of violence (includinggender-based violence) and restrictions, and are more vulnerable to prejudices,exclusion and public repudiation by state forces and social actors especiallywhen engaged in the defence of women’s rights; when they are perceived to defycultural norms and social constructs on gender, sexuality and femininity; orwhen they challenge social structures vested in economic interest ortraditional practices;

· Express particular concern about systemic and structural discrimination andviolence faced by women human rights defenders of all ages, and call upon thegovernment to take all measures necessary to ensure their protection and tointegrate a gender perspective into their efforts to create a safe and enablingenvironment for the defence of human rights;

· Emphasize the need for the participation of women human rights defenders in thedevelopment of effective policies and programmes related to their protection,recognizing their independence and expertise with regard to their own needs,and the need to create and strengthen mechanisms for consultation and dialoguewith women human rights defenders.

DO NOT

· Ignore or perpetuate gender stereotypes, which stop women and girls from fully exercisingtheir rights, and allow customs, traditions or religion to be used to justifydiscrimination or harmful practices which contravene international human rightsstandards.

Examples of best practice

DO say

→ 'The killing of human rights defender Ms X is a tragic reminder of dangers women face from the lack of justice in country Y.'

In all of these cases ensure that there is follow-up on the case,either in the course of visits to the country concerned by Delegations,Committees or individual MEPs, in resolutions or committee/delegation/plenarydebates, or by ensuring close scrutiny of the action of other EUinstitutions. Do debrief civil societyon actions taken on behalf of HRDs.

How to show support for HRDs at risk byusing social media?

Showing support on social media to HRDs and their organisations is away to express solidarity, recognise the importance of their work, and helpthem counter negative public messaging. Here a few tips on how to showsolidarity using social media:

· IfNGOs tag you in a campaign or an appeal requesting help for the HRD, retweetit. Or even better, draft your own tweet using the same language the NGO uses

· Tweetmessages of support to HRDs linking to positive news or info about their work(i.e. their profile page on FLD website)

· AlwaysTweet, Facebook, or hyperlink to credible, positive sources of news and infoabout the HRD -- the internet is flooded with negative, defaming content aboutHRDs. Use websites like those of HRDN members to access content that isHRD-approved, and promote this when you reference them or want to hyperlink tosomething. That way you can be assured it is productive, safe, and approved bythe HRD. This will help to counter act defamation campaigns

· Similarly,if you prepare a briefing or note about an HRD, hyperlink their name to a positivenews item or FLD website (again, the lessens the chance that another politicianwill google them and receive a negative / false result)

· Consistently check the social mediaaccounts of respected NGOs for the latest news about HRDs, and RT or Fbook it. Eventhe smallest act of retweeting something can improve an HRDs credibility andsecurity both internationally and locally.

Public or private diplomacy? Some thoughts:

Do notaccept that authorities declare human rights to be 'internal affairs', orthat raising issues is ‘giving lessons’. Human rights are not onlyEuropean values and should not necessarily be private. International humanrights standards are amongst the most signed and/ or ratified developed set ofinternational agreements, and their discussion in the public sphere areexplicit parts of the agreement: governments having accepted to hold each otheraccountable, at State level; just because governments rejecting this scrutinywhen there are problems should not be accepted as legitimate. This includes theEU too.

Shouldyou speak up or try private diplomacy? First consult the defender or his/herrepresentatives, who are best placed to assess the situation and how they wantit addressed, including facing any risks that raising their case brings up, forthemselves or others. They might agree that private diplomacy is a first step;but should that not work, that public diplomacy should be pursued thereafter.

Theneed to act publicly in case of risk is acknowledged in EU guidelines such asthose on freedom of expression: "The EU will publicly condemn thekillings, attack, execution, torture, enforced disappearance or other acts ofserious violence or intimidation against any individual for exercising his orher right to freedom of opinion and expression". This is a recognition ofthe need for public diplomacy to be instantly activated in cases of high risk(in consultation with the HRD);

Defenders need help incounteracting all the negative messaging made by states aimed at criminalisingand de-legitimising their work. General statements on the work of defenders arenot necessarily useful as audiences might not recognise whom you are talkingabout, and indeed might believe the authorities' rhetoric labelling individualsas traitors, saboteurs, terrorists etc: so only naming individuals allows thepublic to understand that the EU does not stand by and allow them to be smearedon the public scene.

It is important to keep in mindthat if you only express praise or support for the authorities of a country youvisit, this can be either mis-represented in the media as supportingviolations, or understood by the public as unconditional support. Especiallywhen the EP has taken a strong stance on a country in a resolution, MEPs onofficial visits should ensure these concerns are reflected in theirpositions. Avoiding mentioning theseconcerns or downplaying their strength could be seen as undermining the EP’sstance and is unhelpful for HRDs.

[1] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

[2] The Declaration on the Right andResponsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and ProtectUniversally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

[3] See EP Guide on Visiting Places of Detention outside the EU - aGuide for MEPs, June 2015