Aadel Collection
Report submitted by Hina Jilani, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders
UNITED NATIONS
Economic and Social Distr. Council
GENERAL
E/CN.4/2004/94
15 January 2004
Original: ENGLISH
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Sixtieth session
Agenda item 17 (a) of the provisional agenda
PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS
Report submitted by Hina Jilani, Special Representative of the
Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders
C
GE.04-10336 (E) 260104
E/CN. 4/2004/94
page 2
Summary
This report, the fourth annual report to the Commission on Human Rights presented by
Hina Jilani, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights
defenders, is submitted pursuant to Commission resolutions 2000/6 1 and 2003/64, as described
in the introduction below.
Section I of the report describes the Special Representative's activities during the course
of 2003, referring to cases of concern she raised with Governments, country visits to The former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Thailand, as well as the postponement of a visit to Turkey.
Noting the importance of country visits, the Special Representative indicates her intention to
focus on Africa in 2004, but also regrets the large number of requests for invitations that have
not yet received a positive response. Section I goes on to describe the Special Representative's
increasing collaboration with United Nations bodies, regional intergovernmental institutions and
with non-governmental organizations (NGO5). The section concludes with descriptions of some
of the conferences, workshops and other events to which the Special Representative contributed
during the year, including on human rights and counter-terrorism, human rights defenders and
democratization, and on women human rights defenders.
Section II analyses trends and patterns in the cases of concern taken up by the
Special Representative with States over the year, using these to describe the situation of human
rights defenders. In 2003, 235 communications were sent to Governments, expressing her
concern at violations allegedly committed against 565 individual human rights defenders
and 203 organizations, in connection with their human rights work. The cases include: killings,
attacks, death threats, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, prosecution, prison sentences and
fines, harassment and intimidation, surveillance, violations of freedom of expression, assembly
and association and the targeting of family members. The Special Representative's analysis
suggests that defenders are particularly vulnerable to violations during the publicizing of human
rights concerns, peaceful demonstrations, participation in conferences and meetings, and during
electoral periods. Violations of the right to physical integrity and the use of civil and criminal
prosecutions are reported to be increasing, while impunity for all violations remains very
widespread.
Unknown individuals, military and paramilitary forces, and private actors continue to be
reported as frequent perpetrators of violations, while the courts and judicial proceedings are
increasingly perceived as selectively applying the relevant law, to the detriment of defenders.
Section III of the report analyses the responses sent by Governments to the
Special Representative's communications. The majority of responses received indicate that
Governments have taken measures to protect defenders in the cases raised by the Special
Representative. A third of the responses deny the status of human rights defenders as alleged
victims, question the defenders' credibility or deny a link between the reported violation and any
human rights activities. Many responses cite national law as justification for the alleged
violation or as the standard against which Governments' action should be assessed. The Special
Representative regrets the nature of some responses, which tend to deny the role of human rights
E/CN.4/2004/94
page 3
defenders and the application of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. She expresses
concern at the absence of any response at all from many Governments. She notes, positively,
that States from the Latin America region and States to which she has conducted country visits
have shown, comparatively, much better responsiveness.
Section IV concludes by emphasizing that the number and type of violations being
committed against human rights defenders, in practice, reflect severe challenges to the actual
implementation and legal applicability of international human rights standards for all persons.
The report concludes a number of recommendations addressed primarily to States, but
also to human rights defenders, including a suggestion that States consider the adoption and
publication of a policy on human rights defenders identifying specific steps that will be taken to
implement the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.
E/CN. 4/2004/94
page 4
CONTENTS
Paragraphs Page
Introduction 1 6
ACTIVITIES 2 - 24 6
A. Urgent appeals and allegations 2 - 3 6
B. Country visits 4-6 6
C. Cooperation with the United Nations system and
other intergovernmental organizations 7 - 12 7
D. Cooperation with NGOs 13 - 23 8
E. Other activities 24 10
II. TRENDS IN THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
DEFENDERS 25 - 78 10
A. Which defenders are being targeted, and where 7 29 - 41 11
B. Moments of vulnerability 42 - 48 13
C. What types of violations are allegedly being committed
against human rights defenders, and where 7 49 - 78 14
1. Using the law to violate human rights: arrest,
detention, prosecution and imprisonment
of human rights defenders 50 - 55 14
2. Violation of the rights of human rights defenders
to life and mental and physical integrity 56 - 64 15
3. Intimidation and harassment campaigns 65 - 70 17
4. Lack of response from the authorities and impunity
for abuses committed against defenders 71 - 73 18
5. Perpetrators 74 - 78 19
III. FOLLOW-UP OF CASES AND TRENDS IN
GOVERNMENT RESPONSES 79-99 19
A. Outcome and follow-up of cases 81 - 83 20
B. States' responsiveness to communications 84 - 87 20
E/CN.4/2004/94
page 5
CONTENT S (continued)
Paragraphs Page
C. Types of arguments used by Governments
in responding 88 - 99 21
1. Taking steps 89-90 21
2. Denial of human rights defender status or of a
link to human rights work 91 21
3. National law 92 - 93 22
4. Denial of facts 94 22
5. National remedies were not sought 95 22
6. Public order 96 22
7. Questioning the legitimacy of the mandate 97 - 98 23
8. Recognition of officials' wrongdoing 99 23
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 100 - 104 23
E/CN. 4/2004/94
page 6
Introduction
1. The present report, the fourth report submitted by Hina Jilani, Special Representative of
the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, is submitted pursuant to
Commission on Human Rights resolutions 2000/61 and 2003/64. Section I presents an account
of the activities undertaken within the framework of the mandate in the past year. Section II
examines the situation faced by human rights defenders as assessed from the information
received, the activities undertaken and the country visits conducted. Section III examines the
responses to communications sent by the Special Representative, in particular the positive
outcome of a small number of cases and the trends in responses received from Governments.
Summaries of communications, including urgent appeals and allegation letters, to and from
Governments, along with the Special Representative's observations, are contained in an
addendum.
I. ACTIVITIES
A. Urgent appeals and allegations
2. During the period under review the Special Representative sent 235 communications on
over 266 cases, including jointly with other mandate holders, regarding some 565 human rights
defenders and 203 organizations conducting human rights work.
3. She notes with concern the continued increase in the number of communications sent,
from about 161 cases in 2001, to 230 in 2002 and 266 in 2003. While this growth may in part be
the positive result of the increased visibility of her mandate and activities, the increased reporting
of serious violations of the rights of human rights defenders throughout the world attests to the
continuous and serious need for the effective protection of the rights of human rights defenders
and the implementation of the 1998 Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals,
Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Recognized Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (Declaration on Human Rights Defenders).
B. Country visits
4. During the reporting period, the Special Representative undertook two country visits, to
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from 27 to 30 January 2003 and to Thailand
from 19 to 27 May 2003. Separate reports on these visits have been submitted to the current
session of the Commission (E/CN.4/2004/94/Add. 1-2). The Special Representative was
scheduled to visit Turkey in December; however, the mission had to be postponed. She hopes to
conduct this visit at the beginning of 2004.
5. In the first four years of her mandate, the Special Representative has conducted a total of
six visits to countries in Latin America, Asia, Europe and Central Asia. In 2004, the Special
Representative wishes to give particular attention to the situation of human rights defenders in
Africa. She hopes to be able to conduct visits to the region next year and looks forward to
receiving positive answers soon to her requests for invitations from countries in the continent.
During the year under review, the Special Representative has sought to obtain invitations to visit
the following countries: Angola, Chad, Egypt, India, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Senegal, Turkmenistan and Zambia. She has received an invitation from Mali for
E/CN.4/2004/94
page 7
which she thanks the Government. During the first four years of her mandate, the Special
Representative has sought a total of 33 invitations from countries in all regions of the world. She
subsequently received 10 invitations, three requests for additional information and two refusals.
The Special Representatives expresses her regret that, despite having reiterated her interest on
several occasions to a number of countries, through a second request, 19 of her letters remain
without answers to date, including some sent in 2001, the first year of her mandate.
6. The Special Representative considers country visits as an essential element in the
implementation of her mandate, providing her with essential opportunities to gain first-hand
knowledge of the situation of human rights defenders in a given country and region. Meetings
with key interlocutors, from civil society and State authorities, including at the highest level,
provide a unique opportunity for the Special Representative to make a fair and balanced
assessment of the situation from the perspective of both defenders and the authorities. She also
considers that country visits provide her with an opportunity to engage Governments in a
constructive dialogue on policy responses and legislative initiatives to address concerns
identified on the ground.
C. Cooperation with the United Nations system
and other intergovernmental organizations
7. The Special Representative has continued to seek closer cooperation with all bodies of
the United Nations system as well as regional intergovernmental organizations.
8. In that context the Special Representative received an invitation to the Fifth International
Conference on New and Restored Democracies, held in Ulan Bator in September 2003. While
she was unfortunately unable to attend the meeting, the Special Representative submitted a
position paper to the Conference on human rights defenders and democratization processes. She
is pleased that elements of this paper were highlighted in a statement by the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights to the Conference and that a number of the outcome documents
reflected some of her recommendations.
9. In May 2002, the Special Representative had met with members of the African
Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights and discussed opportunities to create a focal point
for human rights defenders within the Commission. She was delighted to learn of the decision
made at the ordinary session of the Commission, held in November 2003 in Banjul, to establish
such a focal point within the Commission's secretariat in order to streamline and better respond
to information on the situation of human rights defenders in Africa. This focal point will
represent the second mechanism of the kind established at the regional level; the first was the
special unit on human rights defenders, created in December 2001 within the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights. She hopes that cooperation can be established between her mandate and
the focal point, with a view to furthering the promotion of the Declaration on Human Rights
Defenders and strengthening protection mechanisms for defenders in Africa.
10. The Special Representative reiterates her belief that the collaboration between universal
and regional mechanisms for the protection of human rights is vital to ensure a coordinated and
effective strategy for the protection of human rights defenders worldwide. In this respect, she
E/CN. 4/2004/94
page 8
wishes to congratulate all international, regional and national NGOs that have consistently
worked with the Commission towards this end. She hopes that such experiences can be
replicated in other regions of the world.
11. The Special Representative has sought to further her cooperation with the
European Union. In that context, on 11 June 2003, she participated in a session of the Human
Rights Group of the European Parliament's Committee on Development and Cooperation,
entitled “Defending human rights defenders” held in Brussels. This very constructive meeting
provided her with the opportunity to present her mandate and discuss the potential role of the EU
in the promotion of the Declaration and the strengthening of protection mechanisms. She thanks
the Chairman of the Human Rights Group for this opportunity and hopes that regular interaction
between her mandate and the human rights unit of the European Commission can be established.
12. She has also sought to develop ties with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE), in particular with its human rights component, the Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). She hopes that, in the context of ODIHR plans to
further expand its work on the issues of freedom of association and assembly, closer contacts can
be established on a regular basis.
D. Cooperation with NGOs
13. The Special Representative has continued to strengthen interactions with NGOs. She
wishes to reiterate that NGOs, in their daily work of advocating, publicizing, lobbying and
monitoring the respect of internationally recognized human rights, are in the forefront of
defenders. The data provided by international organizations, as well as regional or
country-specific networks, in their reports, urgent appeals, open letters and campaigns
represent an essential source of information for the Special Representative, crucial to the
effectiveness and responsiveness of her mandate.
14. NGOs also have an essential role to play in furthering the implementation of the
Declaration nationally and internationally. NGOs represent a vital element in the
dissemination of the norms included in the Declaration and are best placed to ensure their
effective implementation at the national level. While the Special Representative has limited
resources and time to devote to a given situation, NGOs, in particular local NGOs, are able to
concentrate their resources on following up the recommendations made in her reports and during
country visits and thus enhance the promotion and protection of human rights defenders at the
local level. She encourages NGOs to follow her activities closely, especially where they directly
impact their country or region, and to use her work to further the respect for the rights enshrined
in the Declaration. She equally encourages Governments to view NGOs as partners in the
implementation of the Declaration and other internationally recognized rights.
15. In that spirit, the Special Representative tries, whenever possible, to respond favourably
to invitations from civil society to take part in events organized around the issue of the
promotion and protection of the rights of human rights defenders.
16. From 4 to 6 April 2003, the Special Representative attended a consultation on women
human rights defenders convened by the Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development
(APWLD), with the support of the Women's Human Rights Task Force in Bangkok. The
E/CN.4/2004/94
page 9
meeting brought together women human rights defenders from the region, as well as from Latin
and North America, Africa and Europe. Participants discussed the risks to which women human
rights defenders are vulnerable, including killing, arrest and detention, harassment, the use of
religious arguments to silence them, and societal prejudices. Participants also highlighted the
particular strengths of women human rights defenders and concluded with a series of
recommendations, including that women human rights defenders be recognized as such. The
meeting also provided momentum for additional meetings of women human rights defenders in
other regions, with the objective of organizing an international conference on women human
rights defenders in 2005. APWLD subsequently published the report of the meeting.
17. From 28 June to 2 July 2003, the Special Representative was invited to the Regional
Human Rights Defenders Forum for Central and Southern Africa organized jointly by Amnesty
International, the Observatory and Hivos in Durban, South Africa. The Forum was held as a
follow-up to the All-Africa Conference on Human Rights Defenders held in Johannesburg in
November 1998 and to a subregional consultation held in Senegal in 2001 in which the Special
Representative also participated. The Forum aimed at examining the regional challenges faced
by human rights defenders, providing training on international instruments of protection, and
establishing regional plans of action in order to contribute to the effective protection of defenders
in Africa. It included seminars, working groups and practical exercises and was attended by
defenders from 10 countries of the subregion, as well as several from Latin America and Asia,
several international NGO representatives, and the regional representative of OHCHR. At the
end of the Forum, building on the Declaration and Plan of Action on Human Rights Defenders,
adopted in Johannesburg, three subregional plans of actions were drafted. The very useful
Forum provided an opportunity for participants to interact directly with the Special
Representative and to be trained on her role, the functioning of her mandate, the definition of a
human rights defender and the norms included in the Declaration.
18. The Special Representative was reinforced in her conviction that there is a need to
develop strong and sustainable regional and subregional networks of defenders in Africa in order
to strengthen the ties, the information sharing and the solidarity between actors in the defence of
human rights on the continent. She notes that, despite efforts to establish such structures,
networks in the region face difficulties of continuity. She reiterates her belief that networks offer
an effective form of protection to defenders insofar as they provide visibility, ensure better
communication, including to the Special Representative, and allow for the devising of
situation-specific, prompt and concrete protection strategies. She notes further that there is an
unmet need for practical training on the means of protection at the disposal of defenders in
Africa, in particular, with regard to her mandate. The Special Representative therefore hopes
that initiatives from NOOs and others to further practical knowledge about mechanisms of
protection in the region will be pursued.
19. The Second Dublin Platform for Human Rights Defenders was held from 10
to 12 September. Organized by Frontline, it aimed at analysing and exposing the reality
of the situation of human rights defenders worldwide, promoting their work internationally,
and drawing strategic lessons for prevention and protection from participants' experience.
Participants included several dozen human rights defenders from all regions of the world,
representatives of the Government of Ireland, the Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights,
a judge from the International Criminal Court, as well as representatives from various
international NGOs.
E/CN. 4/2004/94
page 10
20. While in Ireland, the Special Representative had the opportunity to meet with the
Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on Human Rights, a subcommittee of the Joint Parliamentary
Committee on Foreign Affairs, to discuss the situation of human rights defenders in the world,
especially in the context of Ireland's forthcoming presidency of the EU. The Special
Representative wishes to thank the Government of Ireland for its cooperation and commitment to
the protection of human rights defenders.
21. The Special Representative participated in a meeting of human rights defenders
organized by the Carter Center in Atlanta, United States of America, on 11 and 12 November,
attended by approximately 40 defenders from across the world and co-hosted by former
President Carter and OHCHR. The meetings discussed obstacles to the work of human rights
defenders in the context of international counter-terrorism actions and an international political
environment that is raising new challenges to previously accepted human rights standards.
Participants at the meeting adopted the Declaration of Atlanta calling for international action to
support human rights and those that defend them.
22. The Special Representative notes that such events provide a valuable opportunity for
defenders from across the world to meet, share experiences and network. They also provide an
opportunity to raise the visibility of the issue of human rights defenders in an international public
forum where actors having different perspectives, including from local and international civil
society, international organizations and Government, can meet and interact. She wishes to
extend particular thanks to Amnesty International, the International Service for Human Rights,
the World Organization against Torture, the hiternational Federation of Human Rights League,
Frontline, Forum Asia, APWLD and the Carter Center for organizing these important events and
making her participation possible.
23. The Special Representative has continued to receive invitations to attend various events
around the world on issues relating to her mandate. Owing to her heavy schedule, she regrets
being unable to accept a number of them.
E. Other activities
24. On 13 November, the Special Representative presented her annual report (A15 8/3 80) to
the General Assembly, which focused on her deep concern at the impact of security and
counter-terrorist legislation on human rights defenders, including the deliberate use by some
States of such legislation as a tool to prevent defenders from investigating and reporting human
rights abuses.
II. TRENDS IN THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS
25. This section of the report provides an analysis of alleged violations of the Declaration on
Human Rights Defenders as reflected in the communications sent by the Special Representative
to Governments from 1 December 2002 to 30 November 2003. The communications were based
upon information from sources, including international and national NGOs, professional
associations, trade unions, political parties, individuals, human rights units of United Nations
peacekeeping missions and human rights units of regional intergovernmental organizations. The
E/CN.4/2004/94
page 11
Special Representative relies on the information she receives. Where no information has been
forthcoming, she has not been able to draw any conclusion about the situation of defenders. The
trends described below are not an exhaustive account of the situation of defenders throughout the
world, but rather an analysis reflecting those situations of concern which have found voices to
relay them.
26. In spite of this limitation, due partly to limitations on the resources available to the
Special Representative, the overall and comparative reading of communications yields evident
patterns and characteristics in the types of issues in connection to which defenders are targeted,
the moment when such targeting occurs, the types of violations to which defenders are exposed
and the categories of alleged perpetrators.
27. The Special Representative has sent some 235 communications this year,
including 165 jointly, concerning over 265 cases and regarding at least 565 defenders
and 203 NOOs. Communications emanated from all regions of the world: 27.5 per cent from the
Americas, 23.5 per cent from Europe and Central Asia, 20 per cent from Africa, 14.5 per cent
from Asia and 14.5 per cent from the Middle East.
28. The Special Representative notes that information has been more forthcoming where civil
society networks are in place. Such networks create the necessary structural relay at the national,
regional and international levels capable of gathering, checking, formatting, communicating,
disseminating and following up on information about human rights abuses committed against
defenders, including with respect to mechanisms such as the special procedures of the
Commission. Such networks perform essential work through their capacity to identify the
relevant bodies competent to address a specific situation tailor the information to their needs, and
to provide a link between those bodies and the individuals or organizations at the local level.
Such structures allow even the most isolated defender access to the international community.
A. Which defenders are being targeted, and where?
29. The overwhelming majority of communications sent by the Special Representative
concern cases in which human rights defenders have been targeted in their capacity as members
of NOOs. Out of 566 individuals targeted, 442 were members of NOOs.
30. Human rights defenders continue to be targeted in their professional capacity as lawyers
(62 cases), journalists (45) and doctors (7). Relatives of victims of human rights abuses (23),
trade unionists (25) and students (17) also encounter serious hostility to their activities. Whereas
NGO members and professionals remain the largest categories of defenders targeted, civil
servants working as judges, ombudspersons, prosecutors and members of ministries, and in
parliaments and national human rights institutions are increasingly targeted for their work in the
defence of human rights, in particular in connection with the enforcement of the rule of law (17).
31. An alarming trend this year is the increasing targeting of international humanitarian
workers, particularly in the context of ongoing and post-conflict situations. While the most
infamous example is the attack against the United Nations compound in August 2003 in
E/CN. 4/2004/94
page 12
Baghdad, the Special Representative has also received information of numerous other cases in
which humanitarian workers from United Nations agencies and international relief agencies as
well as peace activists, have been targeted and killed by the military, armed rebel groups and
terrorist groups.
32. The Special Representative has also received information with regard to cases of
defenders targeted for collaborating with international bodies and agencies. In particular, this
year has seen some cases of defenders who were killed or disappeared after having cooperated
with the special procedures of the Commission on Human Rights. The Special Representative
expresses her deep concern over this emerging trend. Human rights defenders who report on the
human rights situation inside their countries to the outside world, in particular to special
procedures, provide an invaluable source of information. Where they remain silent for fear of
retaliation, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to assess their situation.
33. While in most instances defenders have been targeted as human rights activists in
connection with their efforts to uphold general human rights norms, many have also been
targeted in relation to their work on a number of specific human rights concerns.
34. In the past year, communications sent attest that defenders working on strengthening the
rule of law and against impunity have been targeted in Argentina, Colombia, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela, but also in Chad, the Gambia, India, Indonesia,
Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zimbabwe.
35. Cases show that defenders have also been targeted in connection with their activities in
the fight against torture and inhumane treatment in Brazil, Chad, the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the
Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe.
36. Defenders have been targeted in relation to their work on minority rights in Azerbaijan,
Bulgaria, China, Egypt, Greece, Indonesia, Israel, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, the Syrian
Arab Republic and Turkey, in particular in the context of the right to self-determination.
37. Those working on democratic rights have encountered serious obstacles in Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan, and also in Cuba, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Iran (the Islamic Republic of), Pakistan, Tunisia and
Zimbabwe.
38. Reports of defenders targeted in connection with their work on indigenous and land rights
have come mainly from Angola, Bolivia, Brazil Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico,
but also from Cambodia, Egypt, Nepal and Viet Nam.
39. Communications from Bolivia, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Thailand and Zimbabwe indicate that defenders have also been
targeted for their activities in favour of labour rights.
40. In the past year, peace activists have been targeted in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Egypt, Israel, the Sudan and the United States of America.
E/CN.4/2004/94
page 13
41. Finally, allegations of human rights defenders being targeted in connection with their
work on women's rights have been received from Azerbaijan, Colombia, Egypt, Guatemala,
Nigeria, Slovakia and the Sudan.
B. Moments of vulnerability
42. The information received by the Special Representative has enabled her to identify
moments when those working in the defence of human rights appear to become particularly
vulnerable.
43. The communications sent indicate that human rights defenders are disproportionately
targeted before, during, orjust after publicizing human right issues. In particular, defenders have
been targeted at the time of the publication of reports, articles, petitions, open letters, radio
broadcasts, public statements and campaigns denouncing human rights violations, criticizing
the Government and State authorities for policies and practices not in compliance with
internationally recognized human rights standards.
44. Defenders have also been particularly vulnerable to attacks in the context of denouncing
human rights abuses during peaceful public demonstrations, rallies and strikes. Defenders are
increasingly targeted in the run-up to the organization of peaceful protests; in particular, they
have encountered administrative harassment in securing authorization for such events. They
have also suffered from the use of excessive force by authorities during peaceful protests,
including violent anti-riot methods, as well as hasty and often arbitrary detention before, during,
and in the aftermath of such events.
45. In view of the many cases sent in this respect this year (40), the Special Representative is
particularly concerned that Governments, in the context of their internal and international fight
for greater security, are showing an undue willingness to overly restrict the right of their
population to peaceful dissent, in particular through unwarranted violent methods to control
peaceful crowds. She reiterates the concern expressed in her previous report to the Commission
that the right to peacefully protest against violations of human rights has come under particular
strain. Indeed, the abuse of force on the part of State authorities has turned peaceful assemblies
into riots, for which, in her view, those who use such force are responsible.
46. Defenders have also frequently been targeted in the context of the investigation of human
rights abuses, in particular when it becomes likely that the rule of law will be enforced or that
judicial or other institutions responding to the complaints of human rights defenders will provide
redress, and when defenders cooperate nationally and internationally with judicial and other
authorities by giving testimonies, acting as witnesses in court cases or sharing their forensic,
medical, or legal expertise to further the advancement of the rule of law.
47. Participation in conferences, seminars, workshops and meetings, and travel to and back
from these events have also prompted and provided occasions for greater targeting of defenders.
E/CN. 4/2004/94
page 14
48. The run-up to and the aftermath of an election are also periods of particular vulnerability
for human rights defenders. The Special Representative has received numerous communications
from defenders who have been arbitrarily detained, physically assaulted and threatened in the
context of an electoral process in connection with their activities to secure respect for democratic
rights and accountability for past human rights abuses of candidates.
C. What types of violations are allegedly being committed
against human rights defenders, and where?
49. The Special Representative notes with concern that the communications sent this year
indicate an increase in the number of cases alleging grave human rights abuses against defenders,
and a shift from low-level targeting such as intimidation and harassment to more serious
violations such as detention, prosecution, conviction and threat to their physical integrity.
1. Using the law to violate human rights: arrest, detention, prosecution
and imprisonment of human rights defenders
50. The majority of communications sent by the Special Representative to Governments this
year concern cases of human rights defenders who have been arrested (88), detained (77) and
prosecuted (46) in connection with their activities in the defence of human rights, a marked
increase over previous years.
51. In the past year, human rights defenders across the world have been arrested and
detained, many without warrants, for asking for authorization to hold a demonstration; for
contesting the payment of a fine; for distributing posters and leaflets; for participating in
demonstrations, meetings, seminars and workshops; for investigating or reporting on cases of
human rights abuses; and for making critical statements against the authorities. Many were
detained without charges only to be released days, in certain instances weeks, later without
having had access to a lawyer, been informed of the reason for their arrest, or had access to a
judicial process.
52. The communications also indicate that State authorities are increasingly using courts and
restrictive legislation, including security legislation, as a means to deter defenders from carrying
out their activities and to sanction their work. In one case, a human rights defender was charged
with “maliciously publishing false news” for releasing a report on the torture and ill-treatment
of migrant workers. In another case, a defender was charged with “disinformation” for
statements denouncing violence perpetrated by law enforcement officials during a demonstration
in favour of environmental rights. Defenders have faced charges of subversion for setting up
Internet-based human rights web sites, of being spies for disseminating information abroad, and
of aiming to overthrow the Government and damage the country's reputation for reporting on the
internal human rights situation at international human rights conferences. Others have been
accused of treason, terrorist activities, aiding and abetting an illegal organization, and
endangering the integrity of the State for acts such as making public statements in a minority
language or publishing reports about minority rights.
53. While a number of court cases against defenders have resulted in acquittal, many others
have resulted in their conviction, with penalties ranging from fines to life imprisonment.
Examples include defenders being sentenced to life in prison for participating in a campaign
E/CN.4/2004/94
page 15
calling for the organization of a referendum on democratic reforms, and a defender being
condemned to 12 years' imprisonment on charges of espionage for sharing information about a
protest concerning land rights with groups outside the country. Some sentences were passed
after closed trials, some by security and military courts. In some cases, the defence was not
heard, evidence was not presented and the court decisions were not reasoned.
54. Legal proceedings against defenders are not only increasingly frequent, they are multiple
and repeated. Some defenders and their organizations face as many as several hundred cases
against them in court. Others have faced extremely long procedures with one defender on trial
for seven years. In some instances, despite having been acquitted, defenders have faced further
legal prosecution on the basis of the same facts but with different charges against them. In the
past year, incidents of this type have been reported in Algeria, Cuba, the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Egypt, Georgia, India, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Malaysia, Tunisia
and Turkey.
55. The Special Representative expresses her deep concern over the growing use by States of
the legal system to harass human rights defenders and hinder their work. Such harassment has
resulted in defenders' reputations being undermined and in their time and financial resources
being diverted from their human rights work. She is particularly concerned where existing laws
criminalize the activities of defenders in favour of the defence of human rights. During the
reporting period, the Special Representative has sent several communications with regard to laws
drafted and passed by Governments and parliaments that restrict the space in which human rights
activities may be carried out. In particular, communications were sent regarding laws overly
restricting the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association to the Governments of
Egypt, Georgia, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Such laws raise serious
concerns as they provide the basis for judicial authorities to legitimize the detention and
conviction of defenders in connection with their human rights activities.
2. Violation of the rights of human rights defenders
to life, and mental and physical integrity
56. The number of cases sent in 2003 regarding human rights defenders killed (18), those on
whose life attempts have been made (10), those assaulted (46), kidnapped or abducted (18), those
tortured or otherwise ill-treated (42), and those against whom threats have been proffered (69)
point to an increase in reports of the most serious forms of violations. The Special
Representative is deeply disturbed by such a trend, which indicates that defenders are at a
heightened risk of becoming victims of physical harm, in some cases resulting in death.
57. Defenders have been subjected to ill-treatment such as beatings, including with wooden
sticks, stones and axes, being blindfolded, suffocated and forced to strip. Such abuses have
occurred while defenders were being arrested and en route to their places of detention. A
number of defenders have faced pogrom-like assaults from the population after defamation
campaigns in Government-controlled media disclosing their personal contact details and
pictures. Yet others have faced assaults by groups of political supporters of known perpetrators
of past human rights abuses in the run-up to elections.
E/CN. 4/2004/94
page 16
58. A number of defenders detained have been held in poor conditions without access to
food, water, or medical care, in confined cells with no daylight. Others have been held in
incommunicado or solitary confinement with no access to their relatives or legal counsel.
Defenders have also been subjected to ill-treatment and torture while in custody, including
beatings, electric shocks, sexual and verbal abuse and sleep deprivation. Some have been forced
to sign self-incriminating statements and commitments to stop their activities, which were later
used against them in judicial proceedings.
59. Defenders have had shots fired at their homes, offices and cars. Some have had to flee
for their lives while being chased by unknown armed individuals in trucks. Police and security
forces have used excessive force, including live ammunition and high-calibre weapons, to
repress peaceful protests, causing serious injuries and even death, to defenders. Defenders
working in conflict situations have become targets of the warring parties. Humanitarian workers
have been shot in cold blood by rebel forces while attempting to tend to the needs of the local
population. Peace activists have been shot or otherwise killed by regular armed forces despite
having signalled their neutral status by visible fluorescent clothes, some in the attempt to save
lives, others to prevent homes from being destroyed. Defenders have been abducted at gunpoint
by military and plain-clothes officers, have faced armed attacks on their vehicles and homes,
have been shot dead in front of their houses during raids or while being abducted. In one case, a
defender was poisoned while in custody and died shortly after being released.
60. Human rights defenders have also had to live for long periods in fear for their safety and
that of their family. Anonymous and repeated phone calls and letters to their home and on their
cell phones have threatened them with arrest, disappearance and death, explicitly in an attempt to
deter them from investigating cases of abuse, from continuing to publish articles on police
brutality, from testifying in a murder case, or from investigating mass graves. Defenders have
seen security forces burst into their homes and threaten their families. In one case, 12 armed
men with false identity cards forced themselves into a defender's house, threatening him and his
family after the publication of an article on corruption of the authorities. Defenders have also
received numerous insults and been verbally assaulted in connection with their activities.
61. As in previous years, Latin America was the region with the majority of communications
concerning defenders who have been the subject of attacks against their person, including
killings (9), kidnapping (12) and death threats (42). Allegations of such violations have been
received from Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico and
Peru.
62. Defenders in Europe and Central Asia have also faced serious threats against their
physical integrity with a number of cases reporting death threats (11), physical assaults (8),
torture (7) and kidnapping (3). The Special Representative has sent communications in this
regard to the Governments of Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Russian Federation,
Turkey, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
63. It is noteworthy that Asia has become the second region in terms of communications sent
concerning defenders killed (5). Allegations of death threats (7), physical assaults (5) and
attempted killings (2) in the region have also been frequent. Communications were sent in this
respect to the Governments of China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
E/CN.4/2004/94
page 17
64. The Special Representative has also received allegations of such violations from
defenders in Algeria, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Gambia,
Guinea Bissau, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel, Tunisia and Zimbabwe.
3. Intimidation and harassment campaigns
65. The communications sent to Governments this year attest to the continued intimidation
and harassment of defenders.
66. Defenders have continued to be subjected to defamation campaigns in Government-run
media in Algeria, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Colombia, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Namibia, Nepal, Togo,
Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe. Government officials, including in one case the chief of the national
armed forces and the President, have made statements linking defenders to rebel groups,
assimilating them to terrorists, labelling them as “enemies of the State” and “the people”, and
questioning their morals. Such slanderous attacks have aimed at discrediting the aims, work and
integrity of defenders in order to undermine financial and public support for their activities. In
certain instances, defenders have been framed. Examples include false accusations of sexual
abuse against minors, and even of drunk driving. Lawyers, judges and doctors have faced
disciplinary proceedings from their professional boards, been sanctioned, at times disbarred and
their licences taken away, for offering legal counsel, investigating cases of human rights abuses
and writing medical certificates attesting to ill-treatment. Some have lost theirjobs in
connection with their action in the defence of human rights.
67. Defenders have continued to face constant surveillance, including being followed by
plain-clothes officers, having armed men in cars watching their homes and offices, and having
their phones tapped, their correspondence opened and their names put on intelligence lists after
participating in meetings, workshops or conferences. Others have been summoned to report to
the police on a regular basis and repeatedly interrogated about their organization. Harassment of
this nature was reported by defenders from Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Colombia, Guatemala,
Honduras, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, the Russian Federation and Tunisia.
68. Defenders' offices have been raided, vandalized and arbitrarily shut down. Their
equipment, including computers, cameras and files, has been destroyed, stolen and seized. In
one case, the bank account of a human rights organization was barred from receiving funds from
the European Commission destined to finance its projects. Defenders have seen their travel
documents, identity cards, clients' files and photographs confiscated and faced refusal to return
them. Incidents of this nature have been reported in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Chile,
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Peru, the Russian Federation,
the Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey and Zimbabwe.
69. Defenders have been barred from travelling abroad by having their travel documents
seized, being refused access to planes and detained at airports in order to prevent them from
reporting about the situation inside their country to international forums and bodies, including
the Commission on Human Rights. Some have been detained, searched and interrogated upon
their return from travelling abroad. Others have been refused visas, barred from access to places
E/CN. 4/2004/94
page 18
of human rights abuses, denied renewal of their residence permits and even deported as
retaliation for their human rights work. Defenders have encountered such obstacles in
Cameroon, Israel, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, the Sudan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe.
70. Defenders have faced increasing administrative harassment in connection with the
registration and the status of their organization. Citing security needs, Governments have
embarked on national campaigns to register all NGOs, during which well-established human
rights organizations have seen their registration denied. Human rights defenders have faced
difficulties registering their organization in Belarus, Egypt, Honduras, the Russian Federation,
Tunisia, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe. Defenders have also seen their work hindered by
burdensome administrative authorization requirements, in particular for holding meetings,
demonstrations and strikes. An emerging trend is the administrative closure of NGOs. In
Belarus and the Russian Federation more than 20 NGOs received warnings and faced legal
proceedings to be shut down. Human rights organizations have been closed by local courts on
complaints from government ministries for minor administrative irregularities such as having a
different street address from that registered, the absence of quotation marks surrounding their
names on their letterheads, and undertaking activities deemed outside the scope of their charter.
The use of such pretexts by Governments to close organizations has forced defenders to continue
their work without registration. This has resulted in a criminalization of their activities, making
them even more vulnerable to legal proceedings.
4. Lack of response from the authorities and impunity
for abuses against defenders
71. Defenders frequently have had to face a lack of response by the authorities to their
situations or complaints. This has resulted in impunity for those abusing their rights. Police
forces have failed to intervene to stop assaults against defenders by private actors, have stood by
and watched offices being attacked, and have failed to investigate complaints lodged with them.
In some cases, defenders have been interrogated, investigated and detained for having reported
such incidents.
72. Judicial authorities worldwide have shown a disturbing lack of diligence in examining
cases of abuse against defenders and particular leniency towards suspected perpetrators,
especially members of the security and armed forces. The information received by the Special
Representative shows that a majority of cases brought by defenders have not resulted in
convictions, but in acquittals. In the few instances where perpetrators have been convicted, the
sentences have been particularly lenient. In certain cases, police officers convicted of torture
have been able to convert their prison terms into fines. In some countries, the regulations in
place require authorization prior to prosecuting police or military officers and accused officers
are not suspended from their duties while on trial. In others, legislation sets extremely low
maximum penalties for convicted officers and confers immunity for a number of actions, in
particular those conducted in “good faith” in the context of the fight against terrorism.
73. The Special Representative is deeply disturbed by such trends, which attest to the fact
that impunity for human rights abuses against defenders remains unacceptably widespread. Far
from fulfilling their duty of protection, a number of States seem to criminalize the activities of
defenders and tolerate, and in some cases legitimate, the abuses perpetrated against them.
E/CN.4/2004/94
page 19
5. Perpetrators
74. Some half of the communications sent by the Special Representative (134) concern
abuses reportedly committed by police and security forces, such as riot police, gendarmes,
intelligence forces and immigration officials, worldwide. Police and security forces have been
particularly involved in abuses such as physical assaults, raids on offices and homes, arbitrary
detention, ill-treatment in custody and surveillance. As mentioned above, in many cases they
have also failed to respond appropriately to abuses against defenders.
75. The Special Representative notes with deep concern that, in numerical terms (103),
communications concerning courts, including security and military courts, administrative bodies
such as the Ministries of Social Affairs, the Interior and Justice and, in some cases, the
parliament, as perpetrators of violations appear to have taken precedence over those
concerning military and paramilitary forces. This worrying trend suggests the
institutionalization of acts against defenders. It is particularly noticeable in information
from Belarus, the Russian Federation, Slovakia and Turkey, especially in connection with
judicial harassment, registration issues, closure of NGOs and, in some cases, defamation
campaigns. To a lesser extent, it is also visible in cases from Algeria, Egypt, Malaysia,
Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, the United Republic of Tanzania, Tunisia and Zimbabwe.
76. In a worrying number of cases (47), the identity of the perpetrators remains unknown.
This is typically the case for violations of the gravest nature including killings, attempted
killings, kidnappings and death threats. Information was received in this respect from Argentina,
Armenia, Bolivia, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,
Mexico, Nigeria, the Russia Federation and Uzbekistan.
77. Military, paramilitary and rebel armed forces continue to be responsible for abuses
against defenders in many cases (38), in particular in regions facing open armed conflict or a
growing rebellion. Armed forces are mainly responsible for killings, serious injuries,
disappearances and incommunicado detentions. The Special Representative has received
communications to that effect from Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia,
Liberia, Mexico, Nepal, the Russian Federation, the Sudan and Zimbabwe, and from the
Occupied Palestinian Territories.
78. Finally, a growing number of communications (22) concern violations perpetrated by
private actors. This category of perpetrators includes groups of citizens conducting pogrom-like
assaults, neighbours, mafia networks and corporate business interests, in particular in connection
to land, indigenous and labour rights. Cases were received in this respect from Azerbaijan,
Bolivia, Brazil, China, Guatemala and Pakistan.
III. FOLLOW-UP OF CASES AND TRENDS IN
GOVERNMENT RESPONSES
79. This section of the report gives a brief overview of the outcome of a small number of
cases for which the Special Representative has received follow-up information. It also
analyses the trends in responses received, up to 30 November 2003, from Governments
E/CN. 4/2004/94
page 20
to the communications sent by the Special Representative. In particular, it examines the
responsiveness of different regions and countries and the types of arguments used by
Governments in their responses.
80. It is important to note that the analysis below is based on the relatively small amount of
data available to the Special Representative. The rate of response by States to cases sent is low.
However, a number of cases sent to Governments in 2003 may receive responses in the course
of 2004. Nonetheless, as in the analysis of the communications sent, an analytical reading of the
government responses received so far yields some evident patterns, which are described below.
A. Outcome and follow-up of cases
81. Owing to restricted resources, it has proved difficult for the Special Representative to
systematically follow up on the outcome of cases upon which she took action. Nevertheless, in a
few of them, she received information both from Governments and defenders, enabling her to
draw further conclusions. In many instances, the information received prompted the Special
Representative to send follow-up communications to Governments as the violation was
reportedly continuing. These are included in the addendum.
82. Nevertheless, the Special Representative notes with satisfaction that in a small
number of cases, she has received information confirming that the violation has stopped. The
majority of cases for which positive follow-up information was received concerns human rights
defenders in detention. Out of the 76 cases of detention raised in her communications, she
received information that at least 10 resulted in the release of the defenders concerned. In two
cases, the Special Representative received information that the court cases against defenders
were dropped. In one particular case, all charges were dropped and previous questionable
judgements condemning the defender in absentia were quashed. This allowed for the defender,
who had been living in hiding for almost a decade, to return to normal life.
83. The Special Representative also notes that in a number of responses (13) concerning
threats to the physical integrity of the defenders, States report having taken protective measures.
This is particularly noticeable in responses from Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico,
especially when such measures were requested by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
The Special Representative welcomes these positive steps. Nevertheless, she would like to stress
that many defenders refused the protection of police and the military because they represent the
majority of the alleged perpetrators of violations against them and their presence does not give
the defenders a sense of security.
B. States' responsiveness to communications
84. Of the 235 communications sent to Governments by the Special Representative this year,
a total of 103 had received responses as of 30 November 2003. In numerical terms, responses
from Latin America have been the most numerous (55) with some amounting to dozens of pages
and including very detailed information about each case. Far fewer responses were received
from Europe and Central Asia, the Middle East and Asia (respectively 17, 16 and 14). Finally,
the lowest number of government responses so far in 2003 came from Africa (6).
E/CN.4/2004/94
page 21
85. An analysis of the number of government responses received against communications
sent indicate that countries in Latin America are by far the most responsive and those in Africa
the least. Countries from the Middle East are the second most responsive.
86. The Special Representative is pleased to note that this represents a slight increase in the
responsiveness of Governments from 2002 when 72 responses were received. Nonetheless, the
Special Representative regretfully notes that over 50 per cent of cases sent remain without
responses and that Governments' responsiveness thus remains poor.
87. The Special Representative is happy to report that countries to which she has conducted a
country visit - Colombia, Guatemala, Kyrgyzstan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
and Thailand - have shown a very good level of responsiveness to her communications. She
believes that such an attitude on the part of Governments builds very positively on the dialogue
started during her country visits.
C. Types of arguments used by Governments in responding
88. An analysis of the content of responses received indicates a general consistency in the
nature of the arguments used by Governments. Two regional trends can be identified. A
majority of the responses stating that steps have been taken in relation to a violation come from
Latin America, while responses denying the human rights defenders the status of alleged victim
come mostly from countries in the Middle East.
1. Taking steps
89. In the majority of responses received by the Special Representative (36), Governments
show a willingness to cooperate with the Commission mechanisms. They report, some at great
length, that steps have been taken to ensure the protection of the alleged victims.
90. In 13 responses, 12 from Latin America, protective measures are reported to have been
granted to the defender at risk. Though in a number of responses investigations are said to be
ongoing, only four report that the perpetrators have been identified and judicial proceedings
started. To date, no responses indicate that the perpetrators have been indicted or sentenced.
Judicial proceedings, where mentioned, seem to be ongoing. This confirms the trend underlined
earlier in this report that, even where violations against defenders are recognized as such by
Governments, impunity remains the norm. This represents a serious challenge to the
implementation of the Declaration.
2. Denial of human rights defender status or of a link to
human rights work
91. Approximately a third of the responses received question the credibility of the reported
victim. A number of them deny their human rights defender status, while others seek to
undermine their credibility by alleging that they are involved in criminal activities or violent or
politically motivated acts. Some also suggest that the individual in question is suffering from a
mental disorder. Other responses deny the existence of a connection between the alleged events
and the human rights activities of the defender. Examples include responses in which violations,
such as the theft of human rights databases, are treated as common crimes.
E/CN. 4/2004/94
page 22
3. National law
92. Almost a third of the responses refer to national law either as a justification for the
alleged violation, or as the standard against which Governments' compliance with human rights
norms should be judged. State responses frequently argue that they are in compliance with
national legislation and internal rules in order to legitimate the lawfulness of the reported
violation, despite its possible qualification as a violation under international law, and seldom
refer to their international obligations in that context.
93. In such instances, the facts alleged in the communication sent are often re-qualified in
the State response according to terminology used in national legislative provisions, thereby
purportedly bringing the facts within the scope of application of such legislation. For example,
facts described as the exercise of freedom of expression by defenders are qualified in a response
as a “disturbance of public order”, “threat to the State” or “incitement to hatred”. The
maintenance of “public order” is often cited as the legitimation of action taken against defenders.
Similarly, the lawfulness of the alleged violations under national law, or their endorsement by
national institutions (such as courts), is sometimes cited as legitimating the violations committed
against defenders. Only four responses mention international law as the standard against which
compliance should be judged. In each of them, the Government reported that its national law
was in conformity with international norms.
4. Denial of facts
94. While two thirds of the responses do not question the veracity of the facts alleged, in the
remaining third, Governments claim that the reported facts are false. In most cases, they provide
alternative facts. It is significant to note that, despite their small number, all responses to
communications on cases concerning torture or ill-treatment of defenders deny those violations.
This trend is confirmed by responses received to many communications sent by the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture.
5. National remedies were not sought
95. Some responses also report that no complaint was lodged with the national authorities by
the defender. Governments thus often state that as the violation has not been reported to national
authorities, no response can be given to the Special Representative. Responses reporting the
absence of a complaint are most frequent in the context of problems of gaining access to a
lawyer while in detention.
6. Public order
96. Other responses refer to the necessity of maintaining public order and security as a
justification for permitting or suppressing a particular activity. Few of these, however, give an
explanation as to the exact manner in which a defender's activities may have caused a
disturbance of public order.
E/CN.4/2004/94
page 23
7. Questioning the legitimacy of the mandate
97. In a small number of responses, Governments suggest that the Special Representative is
acting outside the scope of the mandate. These include communications sent with regard to the
issuance of visas to foreign human rights defenders, to specific national legislation, and to
individuals not considered by the State to be human rights defenders. The Special
Representative is concerned that such responses indicate a misunderstanding of the Declaration
and of her mandate on the part of a number of States.
98. One response suggested that the Special Representative is displaying bias by virtue of
sending communications only with regard to violations affecting persons who are critical of their
Government. In this respect, the Special Representative would like to underline that she
considers all cases submitted to her on an equal basis. Indeed, as stated above, an increasing
number of communications sent by the Special Representative this year concern defenders who
are civil servants and work for the State.
8. Recognition of officials' wrongdoing
99. The Special Representative notes that responses in which Governments accept
responsibility for wrongdoings towards defenders are particularly rare (4).
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
100. From her analysis of the information gathered over the year, the Special
Representative is compelled to conclude that the pattern of restrictions being imposed
upon human rights defenders reflects very serious challenges to the implementation of
human rights standards themselves. Firstly, the 266 cases taken up - which the
Special Representative considers to represent just a small proportion of what is
occurring - reveal multiple allegations of defenders being victims of, inter alia, kiffings,
attacks, death threats, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, prosecution, prison
sentences and fines, harassment and intimidation, surveillance, violations of freedom of
expression, assembly and association, and the targeting of family members. Violations
committed against defenders are rarely a single occurrence and usually have an impact
over long periods of time, affecting defenders' professional and personal lives. A death
threat against a defender and her family can change the way the family leads its life for a
year or more. Multiple prosecutions of defenders exhaust their time and fmancial
resources over several years. The Special Representative regrets that 2003 has thus
revealed a continuation of the severe and widespread violations against defenders she has
reported in the past, as a direct response to their human rights work. These cases provide
the most direct and pressing challenge to the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.
101. Secondly, cases targeting human rights defenders represent not only a violation of
the defenders' rights, but also a violation of the human rights standards that the defender
was working to support, sometimes on behalf of many people. Restrictions on the capacity
E/CN. 4/2004/94
page 24
of individuals, groups and organizations to fulfil their role and responsibilities in
accordance with article 18 of the Declaration are also restrictions on the capacity within a
State to implement and protect human rights standards. In the same way, reprisals against
defenders collaborating with United Nations and other international or regional
human rights mechanisms have a negative effect on the defender concerned as well as on
the capacity of the international human rights framework to function. Similarly, the
continuing rise in acts against international and national humanitarian workers, and
other human rights defenders whose work is critical to the survival of populations in
emergencies, have a rapid and heavy consequence for the human rights of thousands of
people in the affected areas. The Special Representative thus underlines that violations
against defenders, in several ways, have a severe impact on the general protection of
human rights of all persons and on the capacity of States, civil society and the international
community, including the United Nations system, to address human rights concerns.
102. Thirdly, citing security and sovereignty, and making use of domestic legislation,
some Governments have manufactured sensitivity around certain issues - such as State
security - as a means to deter criticism of practices and policies that violate human rights
and are contrary to the principles of the Declaration. Acts previously considered as
aberrations from accepted norms now find acceptance within some domestic laws and the
cases described in this report reflect the high number of defenders whose rights are being
restricted through the application of domestic legislation, enforced by the courts. The
Special Representative is concerned that, through these actions, the universality of
international human rights standards and their legal applicabifity within a State is being
questioned. Turning both the law and the courts against human rights removes essential
pillars of the international human rights system. Further, silence on the part of
Governments on the communications (on cases and requests for visits) addressed to them
by the Special Representative precludes the possibility of a dialogue, limits her capacity to
gather information and denies the Commission on Human Rights its prerogative of
contributing to the protection of international human rights standards.
103. In spite of these serious causes for concern, the Special Representative welcomes the
increase in efforts by some States, some regional organizations and civil society to support
the role and situation of human rights defenders. Several national parliaments have taken
the initiative to conduct debates in support of defenders; one State is in the process of
adopting a foreign policy on defenders and their protection; others have shown interest in
adopting the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders as binding national legislation. The
establishment by the African Commission of a focal point on human rights defenders is an
excellent initiative accompanying similar action by the Inter-American Commission.
Human rights defenders within civil society are increasingly organized at the national and
regional level, and contributing to the promotion and protection of human rights. The
United Nations is increasingly embracing a human rights approach and the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights is particularly active in supporting this
transformation.
E/CN.4/2004/94
page 25
Recommendations
104. The Special Representative:
(a) Urges States, in consultation with human rights defenders, to adopt, publish
and implement a policy on defenders which:
(i) Has the objective of strengthening support for the role and situation
of human rights defenders and fully respects the Declaration's
provisions;
(i i) Contains a programme of specific actions to implement the
Declaration;
(ffl) Recognizes civil society as an essential partner in a democracy and
acknowledges its role in the promotion and protection of human
rights;
(b) Urges States:
(i) To review their domestic legislation to ensure conformity with the
rights recognized in the Declaration, with other international
human rights instruments and with the Charter of the
United Nations;
(i i) To consider adopting the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders as
a part of domestic legislation;
(ffl) To provide training for judges and lawyers on the rights protected by
the Declaration and consider the application of legal penalties for
false prosecution of defenders;
(iv) To provide training on the Declaration to police, military and other
security forces and to institute and enforce sanctions against those
acting in violation of its principles;
(c) Encourages States to create regular forums for consultation between State
authorities and human rights defenders to strengthen dialogue;
(d) Encourages national and international NGOs:
(i) To create and strengthen coalitions and networks to enhance the
protection of defenders;
(i i) To give increased priority to training defenders on the national,
regional and international protection instruments and on the ways to
invoke them;
E/CN. 4/2004/94
page 26
(e) Suggests that the “periods of vulnerability”, indicated by the information she
has received, be taken into account by State authorities and by human rights defenders
when defining strategies for the protection of human rights defenders. She calls on
Governments to be particularly vigilant in their duty to protect at such moments and to
make their commitment in this respect public. She also encourages Governments to seek
the cooperation of the regional and international protection systems where these can
enhance the capacity of national mechanisms to provide protection to defenders;
(fl Urges that special legal regimes restricting the normal respect for
human rights not be applied to defenders and that the situation of human rights defenders
be more closely monitored by national authorities, as well as by the international
community, in all regions under martial law or other states of exception;
(g) Urges State authorities:
(i) To establish a methodology for the prompt investigation of
complaints and allegations brought to their attention by the
Special Representative and other special procedure mechanisms of
the Commission on Human Rights, and for timely action to prevent
harm to defenders at risk;
(ii) To respond to her communications on cases as soon as possible and to
be more forthcoming in these responses, with a view to strengthening
opportunities for dialogue;
(ffl) To give positive consideration to her requests for country visits and
other opportunities to gather information on issues falling within her
mandate.
(Ii) Assures States of her willingness to provide them with any support they
might request in the implementation of the above recommendations, within the limitations
of her mandate and the resources available to her.
