Author: Isabel Marler

China: End relentless repression against human rights lawyers on first anniversary of crackdown

Chinese authorities must end their ruthless assault against human rights lawyers and activists, Amnesty International said ahead of the first anniversary of the start of an unprecedented crackdown.

At least 248 human rights lawyers and activists were targeted during the nationwide sweep which began on 9 July 2015. One year on, 17 individuals caught up in the onslaught remain detained, eight of whom could face life imprisonment after being charged with “subverting state power”.

“Human rights lawyers have faced the full wrath of China’s secretive machinery of repression. The detained lawyers must be released and this systemic assault against individuals defending the rights of Chinese people must end,” said Roseann Rife, East Asia Research Director at Amnesty International.

“President Xi Jinping has the gall to claim the Chinese government upholds the rule of law even when lawyers face life in jail for trying to do just that.”

The authorities have used an armoury of repression in an attempt to break the lawyers. Most of those detained in the crackdown were denied legal counsel and contact with their family, a clear violation of their rights.

Read the rest of the report from Amnesty International.

Center for Reproductive Rights Calls on Texas to Abandon Latest Unconstitutional Attempt to Restrict Safe, Legal Abortion

The Center for Reproductive Rights has submitted comments to the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) in response to the Abbott administration’s latest politically motivated and unconstitutional attempt to restrict a woman’s ability to access safe and legal abortion.

Specifically, the regulations—which were proposed only four days after the U.S. Supreme Court struck downTexas’ clinic shutdown law after a legal challenge brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights— would force healthcare providers serving women who seek abortion, treatment for miscarriage, or removal of an ectopic pregnancy to bury or cremate the embryonic or fetal tissue resulting from these procedures, regardless of the woman’s personal wishes or religious beliefs.  In addition to needlessly increasing the cost of reproductive healthcare services, such regulations also increase the shame and stigma surrounding abortion and pregnancy loss.

Notably, contrary to DSHS’s assertions, the regulations offer no public health or safety benefit and therefore fly directly in the face of the Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt.  As noted in the Center’s comments:  “[l]ike the restrictions at issue in that case, the proposed amendments impose heavy burdens on women seeking abortion care and do not offer a proportional benefit, as required by the U.S. Constitution.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights is calling on DSHS to rescind the regulations in order to avoid “costly litigation for Texas—litigation state taxpayers can scarcely afford, after the state spent over $1 million, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, defending the abortion restrictions struck down by the Supreme Court inWhole Woman’s Health.”  The comments also note that Governor Abbott recently sent a fundraising email to his supporters asking for money based in part on these very regulations–thereby severely undercutting the state’s claims that these regulations have anything to do with protecting women’s health and safety.

“Texas politicians are at it again, inserting their personal beliefs into the health care decisions of Texas women,” said Stephanie Toti, Senior Counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights.  “The Center for Reproductive Rights is prepared to take further legal action to ensure that Texas women can continue to access abortion and other reproductive healthcare without interference by politicians.”  

Read the original article from the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Pan African Parliament Endorses Ban on FGM

After years of wrangling and debates among African leaders, the movement to end female genital mutilation (FGM) is gaining real momentum, with a new action plan signed this week by Pan African Parliament (PAP) representatives and the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) to end FGM as well as underage marriage.

The UNFPA has already trained over 100,000 health workers to deal specifically with aiding victims of FGM, while tens of thousands of traditional leaders have also signed pledges against the practice.

The agreement followed a PAP Women’s Caucus meeting with UNFPA representatives in Johannesburg on July 29-30.

Kicking off the meeting, PAP President Roger Dang said, “PAP is determined to help and be part of stakeholders to come up with solutions to this practice. This is in line with the mandate of PAP to defend and promote gender balance and people living with disability.”

Read the full article at Inter Press Service.

Saudi Arabia: Women Are “Changing the Game”

Women in Saudi Arabia have made some progress in participating in sports for health, competition, and professional opportunities but serious barriers remain.

On the eve of the Rio Olympics, the Saudi government, including the new women’s section of the Saudi sports authority, should remove the remaining barriers to sports in schools, businesses, federations, and team sports.

Four women will represent the country in Rio, a slight improvement from the two who competed in the 2012 London Summer Olympics. But inside Saudi Arabia, widespread discrimination still hampers access to sports for Saudi women and girls, including in public education. This exists against a backdrop of pervasive discrimination that constrains women’s day-to-day lives in Saudi Arabia. Women are not allowed to travel abroad, marry, or be released from prison without a male guardian’s permission, and may be required to provide guardian consent to work or get health care. They are not allowed to drive.

“Saudi women are making tremendous strides in the world of sports – climbing the tallest mountains and swimming the lengths of rivers,” said Minky Worden, director of global initiatives. “They are showing their determination, talent, effort, and heart despite daunting legal, cultural, and religious hurdles. As the Rio Olympics open, Saudi Arabia needs to change the game by addressing the profound discrimination that holds back women’s and girls’ participation in sport in the kingdom.”

Read the full article at Human Rights Watch.

Saudi Arabia: Male Guardianship Boxes Women In

Saudi Arabia’s male guardianship system remains the most significant impediment to women’s rights in the country despite limited reforms over the last decade, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

Adult women must obtain permission from a male guardian to travel abroad, marry, or be released from prison, and may be required to provide guardian consent to work or get health care. These restrictions last from birth until death, as women are, in the view of the Saudi state, permanent legal minors.The 79-page report, “Boxed In: Women and Saudi Arabia’s Male Guardianship System,” examines in detail the panoply of formal and informal barriers women in Saudi Arabia face when attempting to make decisions or take action without the presence or consent of a male relative. As one 25-year-old Saudi woman told Human Rights Watch, “We all have to live in the borders of the boxes our dads or husbands draw for us.” In some cases, men use the permission requirements to extort large sums of money from female dependents.

Saudi Arabia’s male guardianship system remains the most significant impediment to women’s rights in the country despite limited reforms over the last decade.

“The fact that Saudi women are still forced to get a male guardian’s permission to travel, work, or do anything else is a long-standing rights violation and a barrier to the government’s plans to improve the economy,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director. “The government should do itself a favor and finally listen to the demands of half its population to be freed from the shackles of the guardianship system.”

Human Rights Watch interviewed 61 Saudi women and men for the report and analyzed Saudi laws, policies, and official documents. Every Saudi woman must have a male guardian, normally a father or husband, but in some cases a brother or even a son, who has the power to make a range of critical decisions on her behalf.

“My son is my guardian, believe it or not, and this is really humiliating… My own son, the one I delivered, the one I raised, he is my guardian,” a 62-year old Saudi woman told Human Rights Watch. A woman’s other male relatives also have authority over her, although to a lesser extent.

Women’s rights activists in Saudi Arabia have repeatedly called on the government to abolish the male guardianship system. In 2009, and again in 2013, Saudi Arabia agreed after its universal periodic review at the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Since making these promises, Saudi Arabia has taken steps to lessen guardians’ control over women, including no longer requiring permission for women to work and passing a law criminalizing domestic abuse. In 2013, then-King Abdullah appointed 30 women to the Shura Council, his highest advisory body, and, in 2015, women voted and ran as candidates in municipal council elections for the first time.

Saudi Arabia’s male guardianship system remains the most significant impediment to women’s rights in the country despite limited reforms over the last decade.

Despite these limited steps, the male guardianship system remains largely in place, hindering and in some cases nullifying the reforms, Human Rights Watch found.

Women may not apply for a passport without male guardian approval and require permission to travel outside the country. They regularly face difficulty conducting a range of transactions without a male relative, from renting an apartment to filing legal claims. The government does not require guardian permission for women to work, but does not penalize employers who do require this permission. Women cannot study abroad on a government scholarship without guardian approval, and a male relative must accompany her abroad while she studies, though this requirement is not always enforced. Women are barred from driving.

Women face tremendous obstacles when trying to seek help or flee abuse by violent guardians, Human Rights Watch found. For example, a husband retains guardianship control even during divorce proceedings. There is deeply entrenched discrimination within the legal system, and courts recognize legal claims brought by guardians against female dependents to enforce their authority.

Women who have escaped abuse in shelters may, and in prisons do, require a male relative to agree to their release. “The [authorities] keep a woman in jail… until her legal guardian comes and gets her, even if he is the one who put her in jail,” said a women’s rights activist. If a guardian refuses to release a woman from prison, authorities may transfer her to a state shelter or arrange a marriage for her. Her new husband becomes her new guardian.

Human Rights Watch spoke with women who felt their only safe option was to leave the country after male family members abused and threatened them, but who were unable to convince their guardians, in some cases the abusers, to allow them to travel.

Saudi Arabia’s male guardianship system remains the most significant impediment to women’s rights in the country despite limited reforms over the last decade.

The guardianship system is grounded in the most restrictive interpretation of an ambiguous Quranic verse – an interpretation challenged by dozens of Saudi women, including academics and Islamic feminists, who spoke to Human Rights Watch. A former Saudi judge told Human Rights Watch the country’s imposition of guardianship is not required by Sharia, or Islamic law.

Saudi Arabia, which acceded to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in 2000, is legally obligated to end discrimination against women without delay, including by abolishing the male guardianship system.

Read the full story from Human Rights Watch

El Salvador: Scandalous proposal to increase jail terms for women accused of abortion

A new proposal by a group of parliamentarians from opposition party ARENA in El Salvador to increase jail terms for women accused of having an abortion to up to 50 years is scandalous, irresponsible and flies on the face of basic human rights standards, Amnesty International said.

“Parliamentarians in El Salvador are playing a very dangerous game with the lives of millions of women. Banning life-saving abortions in all circumstances is atrocious but seeking to raise jail terms for women who seek an abortion or those who provide support is simply despicable,”, said Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas Director at Amnesty International.

“Instead of continuing to criminalize women, authorities in El Salvador must repeal the outdated anti-abortion law once and for all.”

Following a change in the Penal Code in 1998, abortion in El Salvador has been banned in all circumstances – even when the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest or when the life of the woman is at risk. The current jail term in the Penal Code is from 2 to 8 years. The change in the law has led to wrongful prosecutions and misapplication of criminal law where women are immediately assumed guilty. Women with few economic resources are particularly affected by the ban.

Read the full story from Amnesty International

Sexual Rights at HRC 32

Courtesy of the Sexual Rights Initiative
The 32nd session of the UN Human Rights Council took place from the 13th of June to the 1st of July 2016.  
The HRC32 Recap provides information on some of the key sexual rights related:
all of which the Sexual Rights Initiative (SRI) was engaged with during the session.
Sexual Rights-related Resolutions

 
Accelerating efforts to eliminate violence against women: Preventing and responding to violence against women and girls, including indigenous women and girls A/HRC/32/L.28
 

For the first time in UN history, Comprehensive Sexuality Education is referenced without being qualified by a footnote.

The annual resolution led by Canada focused on Indigenous women this year and sought to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences.

While the resolution lacked specificity in relation to the context in which Indigenous women and girls experience violence and their exposure to different forms of violence, the negative impact of colonialism and access to culturally acceptable services, the resolution did make advances in other areas. For the first time in UN history, comprehensive sexuality education is referenced without being qualified by a footnote. The resolution also references intimate partner violence and women human rights defenders as well as sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, emergency contraception, prevention of adolescent pregnancy, safe abortion where permitted by national law, and women’s rights to have control over all matters related to their sexuality.

The resolution was adopted by consensus, however, Russia introduced 11 amendments (7 of which were withdrawn), to remove references to the Security Council, intimate partner violence, human rights defenders and comprehensive sexuality education. All amendments were defeated. Reservations were noted by Paraguay, Saudi Arabia (on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council), Togo and China.

AMENDMENT VOTING

Removal of reference to Security Council
YES 12 / NO 22 / ABSTAIN 13
L36 Rejected

Removal of reference to Intimate Partner Violence
YES 15 / NO 22 / 9 ABSTAIN
L37 Rejected

Removal of reference to Human Rights Defenders
YES 14 / NO 23 / ABSTAIN 10
L42 Rejected

Removal of reference to Comprehensive Sexuality Education
YES 10 / NO 24 / ABSTAIN 12
L43 Rejected
Click here to read the resolution

 
Discrimination Against Women in Law and Practice A/HRC/32/L.7

The annual resolution led by Colombia and Mexico focused on discrimination against women with regard to the right to health and safety, the theme of the most recent report of the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women in Law and Practice. The main ask of the resolution was for the extension of the mandate of the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women for a further three years.

The resolution contains strong language on sexual and reproductive health and rights including repealing discriminatory laws such as third party authorization for health services; eliminating legal, administrative, financial and social barriers that hinder women’s right to health; reaffirming women’s rights to bodily autonomy and to have control over all matters related to their sexuality; recognizing that women’s health care is often deficient in relation to privacy and confidentiality and informed choice; and calls upon States to promote a human rights based approach to women’s health.

The resolution was adopted by consensus, however, Russia introduced three amendments to remove references to human rights defenders, the Security Council and a human rights based approach. All amendments were defeated. In addition, reservations were noted by Paraguay, Ecuador, El Savador, Russia, Saudi Arabia (on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council) and China.

AMENDMENT VOTING

PP4 Removal of reference to the Security Council
YES 16 / NO 20 / ABSTAIN 11
L67 Rejected

OP7 Removal of Human Rights Based Approach
YES 16 / NO  21 / ABSTAIN 9
L69 Rejected

OP18   Removal of Human Rights Defenders
YES 14 / NO 23 / ABSTAIN 9
L70 Rejected
Click here to read the resolution

 
Elimination of Female Genital Mutilation A/HRC/32/L.31/Rev.1

Led by South Africa on behalf of the Africa Group, the goal of the resolution is to intensify efforts to eliminate female genital mutilation (FGM). The resolution was adopted by consensus.

The resolution recalled FGM as a discriminatory practice and reaffirmed that the practice constitutes a serious threat to women and girls’ health. FGM is noted as a human rights violation and abuse of the rights of women and girls and expressed concern over the increasing medicalization of FGM. The resolution highlights that FGM has no relevant religious or cultural basis. There is also a consistent emphasis throughout the text of including men and boys in the process of eliminating FGM.

States are encouraged “to develop, support and promote education programmes, as appropriate including on sexual and reproductive health, that clearly challenge the negative stereotypes.”
Click here to read the resolution

 
Protection against violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity A/HRC/32/L.2/Rev.1

Presented by Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Colombia, the resolution establishes a new Independent Expert to assess the status of implementation of international human rights law to overcome violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, research and report to the Human Rights Council on the root causes of violence and discrimination on this basis and to engage with States and other stakeholders on this issue.

Saudi Arabia put forward a No Action motion on the whole resolution which was defeated. Russia and Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC except for Albania) put forward 11 amendments to essentially change the whole focus of the resolution and remove reference to SOGI. 4 amendments were defeated and 7 were adopted including troubling language on sovereignty, preservation of cultural values and morals, and rejection of interference by the human rights system on social matters including private individual conduct and national level “sensitivities”.  Further voting was called on individual paragraphs which were defeated.

The resolution was adopted by a vote of 23 in favour, 18 against and 6 abstentions.
Click here to read the resolution

 
Addressing the impact of multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination and violence in the context of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance on the full enjoyment of all human rights by women and girlsA/HRC/32/L.28

The core group for this resolution consisted of  Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Paraguay, and Uruguay. The resolution was adopted by consensus.

The resolution calls for awareness of the multiple factors that might make women and girls more vulnerable to racial discrimination. Gender was removed from the title and discrimination in the context of gender is not mentioned, although there is mention of the need to integrate and mainstream a gender perspective into relevant policies and comprehensive gender-responsive, multisectorial policies and programmes.

The resolution calls for a panel to share practices to combat multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination and violence experienced by women which will take place during HRC 36 (Sept 2017). A summary report of the panel will be made by OHCHR.
Click here to read the resolution

 
Civil Society Space A/HRC/32/L.29

This annual resolution has a core group comprising of Chile, Ireland, Japan, Sierra Leone, and Tunisia.

The resolution is based on the UN High Commissioner’s report on civil society space and highlights the important role civil society plays in contributing to peace and security, human rights and sustainable development. The resolution also includes a number of positive measures on promoting and protecting civic space and requests the OHCHR to develop a report on the participation of civil society across the UN and regional and international organizations.

In response to 15 hostile amendments (3 withdrawn), SRI joined over 240 civil society organizations calling on States to adopt a strong resolution. All amendments were defeated. Historically adopted by consensus, a vote on the draft resolution was called by Russia and China.
The resolution was adopted with 31 in favour, 9 against and 7 abstentions
Click here to read the resolution

 
Protection of the family: the role of the family in supporting the protection and promotion of human rights of persons with disabilities A/HRC/32/L.35
Presented by Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, El Salvador, Mauritania, Morocco, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Uganda, this resolution is part of a regressive agenda that seeks to elevate the status of ‘the family” within international law at the expense of the human rights of individuals.  The text does not recognize diversity of families, that families are often the site of oppression and violence for people with disabilities of all ages, particularly as it relates to sexual and reproductive rights.  The resolution calls for a one-day intersessional seminar on the on the role of the family in supporting the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities, and to discuss challenges and best practices in this regard.

Three amendments were put forward by the UK and one amendment by Switzerland and Norway to recognize that various forms of the family exist and the rights of individual family members. All amendments were defeated.

The resolution was adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, 12 against and 3 abstentions.

 

AMENDMENT VOTING

Inclusion of Various forms of the family
YES 16 / NO 25 / ABSTAIN 4
L82 Rejected

Change family to families and replace persons by their members
YES 13 / NO  27 / ABSTAIN 5
L83 Rejected

Supporting members of the family
YES 14 / NO 27 / ABSTAIN 4
L84 Rejected

Change title to Protection of the family: the role of families in supporting the protection and promotion of the human rights of their members with disabilities
YES 14 / NO 27 / ABSTAIN 4
L89 Rejected
Click here to read the resolution

 
The right to a nationality: Women’s Equal Nationality Rights in Law and in Practice A/HRC/32/L.12

The core group consisted of Algeria, Australia, Botswana, Colombia, Mexico, Slovakia, Turkey, United States of America.

The resolution requests the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in coordination with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: to organize a half-day expert workshop to showcase best practices to promote women’s equal nationality rights in law and in practice.

The resolution was adopted by consensus without a vote.
Click here to read the resolution

 
Realizing the equal enjoyment of the right to education by every girl A/HRC32/L.30

The United Arab Emirates are the main sponsor of this resolution which focuses on ensuring that girls are able to complete a full course of primary and secondary school education and have equal access to all levels of education and quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education. The resolution was passed without a vote.

The resolution urges states to increase efforts by removing obstacles that impede the right to education by every girl: including FGM, gender stereotypes, child early and forced marriage, and early pregnancy.

The need for professionally trained and qualified teachers, including female teachers, and the need to provide full access to separate, adequate and safe sanitation services, that include hygiene kits.
Click here to read the resolution

 
The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet A/HRC32/L20

The core group consists of: Brazil, Nigeria, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey and the United States of America. The focus of this resolution is on empowering all women and girls by enhancing their access to information and communications technology, promoting digital literacy, eliminating the digital gender divide, the protection of the freedom of expression, and the elimination of gender based violence on the internet.

The resolution condemns measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online. The resolution calls for OHCHR to prepare a report on ways to bridge the gender digital divide from a human rights perspective.

AMENDMENT VOTING

Inclusion of reference to eaves-dropping and right to privacy
YES 15 / NO 23  / ABSTAIN 9
L86 Rejected

Inclusion of new OP Expresses its concern at the use of the Internet and information and communications technology to disseminate ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, and incitement to racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
YES 17 / NO 25 / ABSTAIN 5
L87 Rejected

Removal of reference to Human Rights Based Approach
YES  18 / NO 24 / ABSTAIN 5
L88 Rejected
Click here to read the resolution

 
Youth and Human Rights A/HRC/32/L.1

This is the first resolution on Youth and Human Rights. It was tabled by a core group consisting of Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, El Salvador, France, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Moldova and Tunisia. The resolution passed unopposed and without a vote.

The resolution calls for a panel on Youth and Human Rights during HRC 33 (March 2017) to identify main challenges faced by youth in the exercise of their rights.
Click here to read the resolution

 
Sexual Rights-related Panels & Discussions

 
Annual full-day discussion on the human rights of women

Theme 2: Women’s rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: delivering on the promise to leave no one behindThe panel provided an opportunity to discuss the Sustainable Development Goals in compliance with human rights obligations, particularly related to gender equality and paying attention to the impact of intersecting forms of discrimination.

The SRI delivered an oral statement addressing laws that criminalize and restrict health services only women and girls, impunity for intimate partner violence, sexual violence and violence against sex workers, the lack of comprehensive sexuality education, and gap in recognizing the intersection of human rights. The SRI encourages states to think about sustainable development in a different way, one that fully respects the autonomy of the person and challenges the gender based status quo that exists in all parts of the world.
Click here to read the SRI statement

 
Clustered ID with the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences and the Working Group on discrimination against women

The Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences and the Working Group on discrimination against women presented their reports.

The SRI delivered an oral statement, addressing the need for an intersectional approach and calling on states to adopt a holistic, integrated approach to violence and discrimination; to act collaboratively and support NGOs working on violence against women; to continue the work to eliminate online violence while taking measures to recognise and protect the right to privacy and anonymity, freedom of expression and of association and the right to access information; and to adopt a holistic approach towards women’s health and safety.
Click here to read the SRI statement

 
Panel on the promotion and protection of the right to development: Commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the declaration on the right to development

The discussion focused on the promotion and protection of the right to development in order to generate policy recommendations and practical measures for making the right to development a reality for everyone.

The SRI delivered an oral statement reminding the Council that since there can be no human rights without addressing human needs, the right to development, aimed at addressing human needs, is an integral part of all human rights. The SRI is asking states to act collectively to tackle poverty and inequality and its consequences; to recognize, track and address the human rights implications of development; to resist double standards in the recognition and respect for rights; and to facilitate a holistic approach to the issue of poverty and inequality by addressing its systemic and structural causes.
Click here to read the SRI statement

 
Report on the Special Rapporteur on the right to everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health

The Special Rapporteur on the right to everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health presented his report.

The SRI delivered an oral statement, reminding states that they have the primary responsibility to ensure the full realization of the right to health and must address the root causes presented in the report. The SRI calls for states to meet their obligations to recognize adolescents as rights holders and encourages the Special Rapporteur to continue to focus on and examine adolescents sexual and reproductive health from a human rights perspective.
Click here to read the SRI statement

 
General Debate
The SRI delivered an oral statement commending efforts related to sexual orientation and gender identity while reminding the Council that human rights related to sexuality address a wide range of issues that intersect with several other rights. To this end, the SRI called upon the Council to ensure that all measures recognize and address the root causes of violence and discrimination and the multiple and intersecting forms of oppression; to recognize that it is impossible to address violations related to sexuality and gender without naming and addressing their root causes; to systematically address multiple and intersecting forms of oppression; and to recognize and establish protections to all those whose rights are violated through criminalisation.
Click here to read the SRI statement

 
SRI Oral Statements

 
Click here for SRI statement transcripts and video footage

 
Outcomes from the 24th session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) were reviewed during the 32nd session of the HRC. The following fourteen countries were reviewed: Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Palau, Paraguay, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, and Somalia.

SRI delivered statements to three countries:

SRI also made statements on:
The SRI is a coalition of organizations from Canada, Poland, India, Egypt, Latin America and Africa, that work together to advance human rights related to sexuality at the United Nations.For more information visit
www.sexualrightsinitiative.com

#HRC32 / Wrap up of the 32nd Session of the UN Human Rights Council

ISHR’s Human Rights Council Advocacy Director, Michael Ineichen, takes a look at the highs and lows of the 32nd session.

So another session of the Human Rights Council has concluded – or has it?
A disappointing but steady stream of obstructionist posturing and filibustering resulted in Friday’s sitting stretching well into the evening and the session has been extended into this week to tie up the loose ends.

SOGI expert

The big highlight of the Council session of course was the historic vote to create an Independent Expert of sexual orientation and gender identity issues which is a huge win for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people all around the world who continue to face discrimination and violence.

It was a fiercely contested vote. Countries like the Russian Federation and members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation succeeded in inserting some regressive language into the resolution, but thankfully failed to defeat it.

Well done and thanks to the Governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Uruguay for presenting the resolution at significant political cost to them, and their diplomats in Geneva, and well done to LGBT rights defenders from around the world who helped to rally the votes.

In addition to the expected ‘dishonorable mentions’ – Russia, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, it was disappointing to see the ‘rainbow’ nation, South Africa, abstain from the vote. The political choice to stand aside and abstain in this historic moment for the Human Rights Council seems to go against the spirit of the South African constitution which seeks to uphold the rights of all people regardless of their sexual identity.

In case you missed it, check out the great opinion piece our Pooja Patel wrote in the lead up to the vote with Jacobus Witbooi from Pan Africa’s ILGA.

Protecting civil society space

Another win was a call to action for States and the UN to try and reverse the global crackdown on civil society. The 47-member Council agreed to issue a clear policy blueprint for countries around the world to follow to value and protect the important contributions of civil society groups and human rights defenders.

This was following up on the recent warning from the UN’s top rights official, High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, that ‘clampdowns on public freedoms, and crackdowns on civil society activists and human rights defenders, are hacking away at the forces which uphold the healthy functioning of societies.’

In the lead up to vote, ISHR coordinated an open letter to the Council’s members which was endorsed by over 240 civil society groups from more than 90 countries.

Business and Human Rights

A disappointment from this session was seeing the Council fall below the very standard it had set in regards to acknowledging and responding to the risks faced by human rights defenders working on business and human rights issues.

The resolution, although adopted by consensus remains non-specific in relation to key elements of the UN’s own guiding principles on Business and Human Rights about the obligation of States to protect not only victims, witnesses, and whistle-blowers but also human rights defenders who assist them and their communities, and ensure they have adequate legal avenues to seek justice for corporate abuses.

Independent Expert on Côte d’Ivoire

The Council has agreed to renew the mandate of the Independent Expert on Côte d’Ivoire, but with a troubling ‘sunset clause’. The resolution explicitly says that the mandate was extend for the final time, without setting clear benchmarks to measure the success of the mandate in one years’ time, or whether the country needs further assistance to protect rights.

Violence and discrimination against women

The Council adopted good resolutions about violence against women and discrimination against women that highlight women human rights defenders’ contributions and called for attention to their safety and sustainability of their work. A number of amendments proposed by Russia seeking to water-down the text by removing references to human rights defenders, including women human rights defenders were soundly defeated.

The resolutions successfully renewed the two mandates, ensuring continued UN expert attention to these critical issues.

In addition to interpersonal violence, we hope that the Special Rapporteur will also look into the role of non-State actors perpetuating, both directly and indirectly, violence against indigenous women and girls. States have an obligation in this regard to prevent and respond to gender-based violence, for example in the context of large-scale development projects.

The Discrimination against Women resolution highlighted the role of discrimination in access to health care as a serious barrier, including with regard to sexual and reproductive health and rights. It also acknowledged the need to ensure the safety of civil society organisations and human rights defenders advocating for full equality and elimination of violence against women and girls.

Freedom of association and assembly

Another resolution adopted by consensus – this time after oral revisions to downplay the positive roles that professional groups, including for instance lawyers associations, can play for the promotion and protection of human rights, and to delete a call on states to create an environment conducive to their development. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur was renewed for another three years. Maina Kiai, the current mandate holder, will continue in the job until March 2017.

Other Council matters

Other issues of significant attention during the 32nd Council session included:

  • Internet freedom. The Council reaffirmed that people should be able to enjoy the same rights online that they hold offline, including in realion to freedom of expression, assembly and association.
  • Eritrea. Following intense negotiations, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Eritrea was renewed. Tasked to help implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry on Eritrea, the  Special Rapporteur  will also report to General Assembly. The General Assembly was asked to submit relevant report to other UN bodies, including the Security Council.
  • The Council also renewed the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus
  • Migration. In a welcome move, Mexico requested the High Commissioner to report on the promotion and protection of the human rights of migrants in the context of large movements.
  • Sri Lanka. The High Commissioner provided an update on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka acknowledging some progress but also highlighting a series of ongoing concerns including foot-dragging on legal revisions, including counterterrorism and witness protection laws. He emphasized the need for international involvement in the transitional justice mechanism, to ensure accountability for both past and ongoing violations.

ISHR will deliver a final joint statement to the Council with a number of partner organisations – including Article 19, International Commission of Jurists, Human Rights Watch, CIVICUS, ILGA, and Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development – reflecting on some of the session’s achievements and failings. A copy of the statement can be read here.

Reposted from the International Service for Human Rights

UN Committee Finds Ireland’s Abortion Laws are Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading

 

6/9/2016 – (Center for Reproductive Rights) Ireland’s abortion laws subjected a woman to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, according to a landmark decision from the United Nations Human Rights Committee. This ground-breaking ruling marks the first time that, in response to an individual complaint, an international human rights court or committee has recognized that by criminalizing abortion a state has violated a woman’s human rights.

The U.N. committee ruled in favor of Amanda Mellet, who was denied access to an abortion in Ireland in 2011 after learning her pregnancy involved a fatal fetal impairment and found the prospect of continuing her pregnancy unbearable. The committee held that the Irish government must take measures to redress the harm Ms. Mellet suffered and reform its laws to ensure other women do not continue to face similar violations, as  well as  i instructs the government to guarantee effective, timely and accessible procedures for abortion in Ireland.

In November 2013, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a complaint on behalf of Amanda Mellet before the United Nations Human Rights Committee, arguing that Ireland’s restrictive abortion laws violated her basic human rights by subjecting her to severe mental suffering and anguish.

Said Leah Hoctor, regional director for Europe at the Center for Reproductive Rights:

“Women’s health and wellbeing are put at risk when laws deny them access to abortion services.

“Today’s landmark decision from the U.N. Human Rights Committee sends the clear message that Ireland’s abortion laws are cruel and inhumane, and violate women’s human rights.

“The Irish government can no longer ignore its responsibility to ensure women’s health. Ireland must now move swiftly to provide Amanda Mellet the justice she deserves and reform its abortion laws.” 

In 2011, Amanda Mellet learned during the course of her pregnancy that the fetus had a fatal fetal impairment. She knew she could not continue with the pregnancy and asked her doctors for an abortion. However because Ireland outlaws abortion in almost all circumstances, she was forced to travel to the United Kingdom to end the pregnancy.

In its decision, the U.N. Human Rights Committee affirms that outlawing women’s access to abortion services can cause severe suffering and undermines their personal integrity and autonomy, which results in acute violations of their human rights.

The U.N. committee unanimously held that prohibiting Ms. Mellet from accessing abortion services in Ireland violated her right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, as well as her right to privacy. The U.N. committee also determined that Ireland’s failure to provide services that Ms. Mellet required constituted discrimination.

###

Background:

Ireland’s abortion laws are among the most restrictive in the world. Abortion is permitted only when there is a risk to the life of a pregnant woman. In every other circumstance abortion is a serious crime. Since 1983, Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution has placed “the right to life of the unborn” on an equal footing with the right to life of pregnant women.  Because of Ireland’s restrictive abortion laws, every year approximately 4,000 pregnant women travel to access abortion services in a foreign country.

The U.N. Human Rights Committee is an independent expert body that oversees states’ compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is charged with a dual mandate in that regard. First, to conduct periodic reviews of state reports on implementation of the Covenant and to issue ‘concluding observations’ on those reports. Second, under the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant, it is mandated to receive individual complaints from alleged victims of violations, to adjudicate the matter and issue its views as to whether a violation occurred. Amanda Mellet’s complaint was submitted in accordance with the procedure under the First Optional Protocol.

OURs - News piece

Salvadoran Court Releases Woman Wrongfully Imprisoned

05.20.16 – (Centre for Reproductive Rights) A Salvadoran woman wrongfully imprisoned after a miscarriage is being released, according to the San Salvador Third Tribunal of Sentences (Tribunal Tercero de Sentencia de San Salvador) ruling today.

Serving three years of a 40 year sentence, Maria Teresa is suffering from serious health complications stemming from a kidney infection she developed prior to her miscarriage that was left untreated. In its decision, the court determined to absolve her and overturned her conviction.

For more than 16 years, El Salvador has criminalized abortion in all circumstances—even when necessary to save a woman’s life—imposing harsh criminal penalties on both women and physicians. The ban has resulted in the wrongful imprisonment of countless women who have suffered pregnancy-related complications and miscarriages, who are then charged for having an abortion and wrongfully convicted of homicide.

Said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:

“Maria Teresa’s release is a victory and symbolizes hope for women who have suffered under El Salvador’s unjust laws.

“Women should never face criminal prosecution when they suffer pregnancy complications. Maria Teresa was treated for far too long as a criminal and denied her dignity, freedom, and rights.

“El Salvador must be held accountable for the gross human rights violations endured by every Salvadoran woman who has been wrongfully imprisoned under this needlessly devastating law.”

In November 2011, without ever realizing she was pregnant, Maria Teresa went into early labor, experiencing heavy bleeding and ultimately miscarried in a public restroom. Her family called emergency services and at the hospital the police were called on the suspicion that she induced an abortion.

Despite inconsistencies and lack of proof that Maria Teresa attempted to end the pregnancy, she was convicted of aggravated homicide and condemned to 40 years in prison on June 5, 2012. Although the Ombudsman of Human Rights (Procurador de Derechos Humanos) of El Salvador recently said that Maria Teresa’s rights were violated during her trial, she was in prison until this ruling today.

Before Maria Teresa miscarried, she received medical treatment for both a kidney and ear infection. However, she still has kidney issues that have only worsened since her arrest in November 2011. Despite multiple requests for medical attention, Ilopango Prison refused to provide Maria Teresa any health care while she was in prison.

In December 2014, a coalition of NGOs led by Agrupación Ciudadana and the Center for Reproductive Rights, launched the “Las17” online campaign calling for the release of “Guadalupe” and 16 other Salvadoran women who all suffered obstetric emergencies, were charged for having an abortion and were later convicted of homicide. “Mirna,” one of “Las 17” was released in December after serving her prison sentence before her pardon could be finalized. In February, Guadalupe was successfully released and pardoned, after serving seven years in prison. The remaining 14 women are each currently serving 30-40 year sentences.

Prior to Maria Teresa’s hearing, the U.S. State Department issued a letter this week expressing that the U.S. government has “serious concerns” about the criminal penalties imposed on women in El Salvador who have experienced obstetric emergencies, as well as public health system limitations and the particular impact on low-income women with limited education.  The letter also states that the U.S. Embassy has been in contact with the Salvadoran Human Rights Ombudsman about the status of the cases of “Las 17”.

The letter is in response to multiple advocacy efforts made by the Center, Agrupacion and partner organizations before the State Department – including the delivery of nearly 40,000 signatures last October, asking them to take action regarding “Las 17”.

The Center together with the Agrupación Ciudadana filed the case in December 2015 before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights– a principal human rights body for the Americas—on behalf of nine women who had serious pregnancy complications and are now in prison due to the severe enforcement of El Salvador’s absolute abortion ban. The petition shows an alarming pattern of due process violations in these women’s cases, including the police failing to read them their rights when initially being questioned and the denial of the right to appeal their cases against their wrongful detainment. The case also argues that the women’s rights to personal integrity, health, private and family life, freedom from gender violence, equality before the law and non-discrimination were violated.

“The Center for Reproductive Rights will continue to shed light on the human rights violations faced by Las 17 and women across the country, and let’s not forget there are 14 women left” said Catalina Martinez Coral, regional director for Latin America and the Caribbean at the Center. “We stand with our global and local partners to demand the release of all women wrongfully imprisoned and will not rest until the El Salvador reforms its laws to respect, protect, and fulfill women’s rights to life and health.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights has worked for more than 12 years to expose the consequences that El Salvador’s blanket abortion ban has on the lives of women. Recently, the Center and the Agrupación Ciudadana co-authored the report Marginalized, Persecuted and Imprisoned: The Effects of El Salvador’s Total Criminalization of Abortion that documents the human rights consequences of the abortion ban, and includes the personal stories of five women who were unfairly prosecuted for illegal abortion after suffering obstetric emergencies without receiving medical attention. The report analyzes how El Salvador’s health, judicial and prison systems fail to guarantee women’s human rights.


Press release from the Centre for Reproductive Rights