Archives: Resources

This report analyses the ‘due diligence’ principle and state obligation to eliminate violence against women in Africa.

The ‘due diligence’ principle is now generally accepted to include an obligation of the State to prevent, protect against, prosecute, punish and provide redress for acts of violence against women (“5P’s”).

The report is divided into five sections:

• Section I introduces the principle of ‘due diligence’ and its evolution to the point where today it is generally accepted that a State has an obligation to prevent, protect, prosecute, punish and provide redress for acts of violence against women, whether committed by State or non state actors.
• Section II sets out the purpose, scope and methodology of the report. It delineates the scope of the report, including providing the definition of violence against women used and the various forms of violence, contexts and groups of women focused on in particular. Finally section II also shares the methodology of the report, locating it within the larger Due Diligence Project, and describing the various inputs that went into the elaboration of the report.
• Section III delves into the situational context of the Africa region, detailing the relevant socio-political-legal context within which the violence against women and related State (in)action is taking place. It also elaborates on the forms of violence particularly visible in this region, and the manner in and extent to which the due diligence principle has unfolded within the region.
• Section IV lays out the findings of the report. Trends are indentified, good practices illustrated, and recommendations made. These are organized according to five areas in which the due diligence principle is applicable, namely prevention, protection, prosecution, punishment, and provision of redress. In this report, these five areas are also referred to as the “5P’s”
• Section V closes with conclusions and reflections for future action.

This report analyses the ‘due diligence’ principle and state obligation to eliminate violence against women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America.

The ‘due diligence’ principle is now generally accepted to include an obligation of the State to prevent, protect against, prosecute, punish and provide redress for acts of violence against women (“5P’s”).

This report is divided into four sections:

• Section I introduces the principle of ‘due diligence’ and its evolution to the point where today it is generally accepted that a State has an obligation to prevent, protect, prosecute, punish and provide redress for acts of violence against women, whether committed by State or non-state actors.
• Section II explains the methodology of the report and situates it in the context of the broader Due Diligence Project.
• Section III summarizes key aspects of the socio-political-legal context in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America, and the nature of gender violence in the region. It highlights the policy and legal frameworks with regard gender violence, and the manner in and extent to which the due diligence principle has unfolded within the region.
• Section IV summarises survey responses and other commentary from NGO’s. It enumerates trends identified by NGO representatives; identifies good practices and describes challenges in fulfilling the due diligence obligation. This section is organised according to five areas in which the due diligence principle is applicable, namely, prevention, protection, prosecution, punishment, and provision of redress. In this report, these five areas are also referred to as the “5P’s”.

This report published by the Danish Institute for International Studies provides an introduction to the OIC’S Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission.

In June 2011 the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation established the Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission, with the objective to “advance human rights” and “support the Member States’ efforts to consolidate civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.” This report provides an introduction to the new human rights commission, presenting the background to its establishment, its objectives, activities and experts, as well as its relation to the international human rights community and its conception of human rights. The report concludes by discussing some of the potentially problematic aspects of the Commission, as well as some of its strengths, seen from a Danish perspective.

1. Abstract 5
2. Executive Summary 6
3. About the Report 8
4. Introduction 9
5. A Brief History of the OIC 12
6. Establishing the Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission 14
7. Objectives, Activities and Experts 19
8. The IPHRC and the International Human Rights Community 25
9. What Kind of Human Rights? 29
10. Conclusions 34

This report published by the Danish Institute for Human Rights argues that an international organization like the OIC that is dominated by conservative, authoritarian states is unlikely to create political opportunity structures to advance human rights.

In 1990, the OIC introduced the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, presenting a set of Islamically defined human rights which conflict with essential principles of the UN Declaration on Human Rights. More recently, the OIC has become known for its promotion of the so-called defamation of religion agenda, challenging the right to freedom of expression. Western states argued that religious people have a right to protection from discrimination and defamation—but religions do not.

However, there are signs of the OIC moving towards a universal conception of human rights, strengthening its participation in the international human rights system. As part of a larger reform of the OIC, a Ten Year Programme of Action was launched in 2005, introducing a clear focus on universal human rights and the importance of mainstreaming them into all programmes and activities.

In 2011, a human rights commission was established with the purpose to support member states in their implementation of international human rights obligations. And the same year, the OIC co-sponsored a UN resolution on religious discrimination, at least on the surface signaling a move away from the anti-defamation agenda.

Optimists see these initiatives as signs of the OIC’s willingness to leave behind the Cairo Declaration, and instead promote a conception of rights that is more in line with international human rights. Skeptics see them as nothing but window-dressing.

These issues were on the agenda at a workshop on the OIC and human rights in September 2013 hosted by the Danish Institute for Human Rights and the ISA Joint Human Rights Conference in Istanbul in June 2014. Some of the papers, including this one written by Anthony Tirado Chase, presented at the workshop and the ISA conference are now being published in the Danish Institute for Human Rights’ working paper series Matters of Concern.

PREFACE 4

INTRODUCTION 7

1 Problematising the OIC’s Promise 8

2 The OIC and Human Rights: Actions and intentions 12

3 International Organisations: can the independently impact human rights? 21

CONCLUSION 25

This report published by the Danish Institute for Human Rights addresses the research question ‘How can an organisation of modern nation states that officially adheres to the UN system of international law, a secular law, presume to act as a kind of Islamic Vatican and propound conflicting Islamic human rights principles?’ It then shows that OIC stands out in terms of the extent to which it stakes out blatantly contradictory positions on human rights.

In 1990, the OIC introduced the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, presenting a set of Islamically defined human rights which conflict with essential principles of the UN Declaration on Human Rights. More recently, the OIC has become known for its promotion of the so-called defamation of religion agenda, challenging the right to freedom of expression. Western states argued that religious people have a right to protection from discrimination and defamation—but religions do not.

However, there are signs of the OIC moving towards a universal conception of human rights, strengthening its participation in the international human rights system. As part of a larger reform of the OIC, a Ten Year Programme of Action was launched in 2005, introducing a clear focus on universal human rights and the importance of mainstreaming them into all programmes and activities.

In 2011, a human rights commission was established with the purpose to support member states in their implementation of international human rights obligations. And the same year, the OIC co-sponsored a UN resolution on religious discrimination, at least on the surface signaling a move away from the anti-defamation agenda.

Optimists see these initiatives as signs of the OIC’s willingness to leave behind the Cairo Declaration, and instead promote a conception of rights that is more in line with international human rights. Skeptics see them as nothing but window-dressing.

These issues were on the agenda at a workshop on the OIC and human rights in September 2013 hosted by the Danish Institute for Human Rights and the ISA Joint Human Rights Conference in Istanbul in June 2014. Some of the papers, including this one written by Turan Kayaoglu, presented at the workshop and the ISA conference are now being published in the Danish Institute for Human Rights’ working paper series Matters of Concern.

Table of Contents

THE ORGANISATION OF ISLAMIC COOPERATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS 4

INTRODUCTION 7

1 The OIC in the UN System 10

2 Justifying Deviations from International Human Rights Law 12

3 Islamic Censorship Criteria and International Law 16

4 OIC Resolutions on Defamation of Islam 18

5 The Danish Cartoons 21

6 The OIC and Defamation of Islam in the West 28

CONCLUSION 33

This report published by the Danish Institute for Human Rights assesses the policy direction Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission set up by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

First, the author provides a brief history of the IPHRC. Second, he discusses four reasons that indicate that the IPHRC is moving in the wrong direction: its shift away from universalism, its tendency to present biased human rights coverage, its lack of grounding in human rights discourse, and the absence of collaboration with international human rights organizations. Third, he presents recommendations, prepared by a group of human rights experts, that outline ways for the IPHRC to fulfill its mandate to protect and promote human rights in the Muslim world.

In 1990, the OIC introduced the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, presenting a set of Islamically defined human rights which conflict with essential principles of the UN Declaration on Human Rights. More recently, the OIC has become known for its promotion of the so-called defamation of religion agenda, challenging the right to freedom of expression. Western states argued that religious people have a right to protection from discrimination and defamation—but religions do not.

However, there are signs of the OIC moving towards a universal conception of human rights, strengthening its participation in the international human rights system. As part of a larger reform of the OIC, a Ten Year Programme of Action was launched in 2005, introducing a clear focus on universal human rights and the importance of mainstreaming them into all programmes and activities.

In 2011, a human rights commission was established with the purpose to support member states in their implementation of international human rights obligations. And the same year, the OIC co-sponsored a UN resolution on religious discrimination, at least on the surface signaling a move away from the anti-defamation agenda.

Optimists see these initiatives as signs of the OIC’s willingness to leave behind the Cairo Declaration, and instead promote a conception of rights that is more in line with international human rights. Skeptics see them as nothing but window-dressing.

These issues were on the agenda at a workshop on the OIC and human rights in September 2013 hosted by the Danish Institute for Human Rights and the ISA Joint Human Rights Conference in Istanbul in June 2014. Some of the papers, including this one written by Turan Kayaoglu, presented at the workshop and the ISA conference are now being published in the Danish Institute for Human Rights’ working paper series Matters of Concern.

Table of Contents

PREFACE 4

INTRODUCTION 7

1 THE INDEPENDENT PERMANENT HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION 9

2 FOUR SIGNS THAT IPHR IS WRONG-HEADED 12

2.1 From Universal Rights to Particularities of Islam and Muslim Societies 12

2.2 Problematic Coverage of Human Right Issues 16

2.3 IPHRC discourse is largely devoid of international human rights 17

2.4 The IPHRC’s Institutional Connections are Governmental—not International or Civil Society 18

3 A BETTER PATH FOR THE IPHRC 20

CONCLUSION 24

• the family,
• reproductive health and rights,
• HIV/AIDS, adolescents and youth,
• gender equality, equity and the empowerment of women,
• data for development and
• resource mobilisation and partnerships.

This statement on the role of Women Human Rights Defenders to support and implement the Sustainable Development Goals was made by AWID at the 35th session of the Human Rights Council, Panel 2 on Women’s rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: health and gender equality.

Women human rights defenders are at the forefront of rights struggles across the breadth of the SDGs and in all human rights arenas. WHRDs are targeted in each area because of our work, including for what we do, the fact that we do it, and the identities we carry.

The Women Human Rights Defender International Coalition has particular intersectional contextual concerns which shape our defense of rights:

1. Attacks on the entire framework of human rights
2. Government efforts to limit space for civil society voice and action
3. Rise in fundamentalisms across all regions and contexts (including those related to religion)
4. Negative effects of globalisation, and neo-liberal economic ideology, including poverty and inequality
5. Militarism and the devastating effects of proliferation of arms and defense industries and related spending
6. Crises of governance and democracy
7. Patriarchy, heteronormativity and other social norms that limit enjoyment of rights of women, WHRDs and all people.

This is a joint statement on ‘LGBTI rights defenders: The international legal framework, key threats and challenges faced, and recommendations to ensure their protection’ submitted by ISHR, ARC International, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and ILGA at the 35th Human Rights Council session.

The International Service for Human Rights makes this submission in collaboration with organisations working to promote and protect human rights on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC), including ARC International; Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch, International lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex association; and 10 other organisations. We welcome the first report of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Independent Expert rightly identified the importance of safeguarding defenders working on these issues from ‘incursions and reprisals from various protagonists (whether State or non-State actors) who do not comply with human rights’. This submission outlines the international legal framework underpinning the rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) rights defenders (LGBTI defenders), an overview of the key threats and challenges they face, and recommendations to ensure their protection.