DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS IN A CHANGING WORLD

Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.

Article 1, UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders

My children called me and told me that a woman was murdered in the entrance to our block of apartments; someone like me—the same age and height, and gray-haired. I told them, "These things happen in our city." They said, "No, it was meant to be you." 

Anna Politkovskaya, Russian journalist and human rights defender, in an interview given to the Committee to Protect Journalists in 2001. On 7 October 2006, Anna Politkovskaya was found shot dead in the lift of her Moscow apartment block.

THE ‘AGE OF RIGHTS’?

Human rights is one of the most influential and formative moral ideas of our time. Six decades on from the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), there is not a country in the world that hasn’t formally signed up to at least one core human rights treaty. Most states have enshrined human rights principles in their laws and constitutions, and many have incorporated official human rights institutions within their governmental apparatus.

Human rights have become a standard measure by which states judge each other’s legitimacy. Today, few members of the international community would dare say they were against human rights: those that do risk making themselves a pariah. The language of human rights is so central to legal, political and moral discourse within and between states that this has been described as “the age of rights”ⁱ.

But if the idea of human rights is so “mainstream”, why is it that defending human rights can still be so dangerous? The killing of Anna Politkovskaya is not an isolated case. Amnesty International has documented attacks on human rights defenders in most countries around the world. These attacks take many forms, from continual low level harassment and subtle attempts to disparage their work, to wrongful imprisonment, torture and even murder. If this is the age of rights, this is not yet the age of the rights defender.

HUMAN RIGHTS: A RADICAL VISION

Human rights defenders are at risk because they point to the reality behind the rhetoric. They are concerned with rights as they are actually experienced or denied at the level of people’s lived experience, rather than as promises proclaimed on paper. They expose the yawning gap between states’ commitment to human rights in theory and their compliance in practice.

That gap continues to be as enormous today as it was when the UDHR was adopted in 1948. The creation of an international system of human rights protection may have been one of the greatest legacies of the 20th century, but the century ended as it began with genocide, wars of unprecedented devastation, and millions dying from preventable disease and malnutrition, despite huge technological advances and vastly increased global wealth.

While commitments to human rights may have become mainstream and commonplace, public policies that abide by human rights principles are still seen as radical and are all too rare. By focusing on what governments have actually done to implement human rights principles beyond merely invoking them, defenders are often purveyors of uncomfortable truths, truths which governments will often make strenuous efforts to suppress. The role of a human rights defender will always be seen as subversive in countries where human rights are little more than a series of commitments on paper.

If human rights defenders are branded dangerous dissidents in the eyes of many, it is because they seek to unlock the transformative potential of human rights, to bring about the profound social changes needed to fulfill the radical vision of the UDHR: that of a world in which all are treated as “equal in dignity and worth”, and where “all enjoy freedom from want and freedom from fear”. Bringing about that vision necessarily means challenging the status quo and encroaching on vested interests, whether it’s the interests of a particular government, or the military, economic or political elites that sustain them.

Defenders “name and shame” those who abuse positions of power and authority. They uncover violations, subject them to public scrutiny and press for those responsible to be held to account. They empower individuals and communities to claim their basic entitlements as human beings. They refuse to accept as natural or immoveable any political, social or economic order that condemns whole sectors of the population to lives of misery, fear and indignity.

A contested agenda

While the notion of human rights has secured its place at the heart of the value system governing relations between and within states, the content and scope of human rights remains highly contested.

The human rights agenda has always been a dynamic and constantly evolving one, with defenders applying the principles and tools of human rights to different contexts and struggles. At different points in history, courageous and visionary people have sought to extend the boundaries of human rights protection to those outside its boundaries, whether it be people living in slavery, workers unprotected against exploitation or women denied the vote.

In recent decades, defenders have fought to make the promise of the UDHR relevant to new and emerging threats to human dignity. They have brought human rights into the sphere of the home and the community through the struggle to halt gender-based violence against women. They have pushed for multinational corporations to be held morally and legally accountable when their actions or omissions deprive people of their basic human rights. They have positioned universal access to primary education and to life-saving anti-retroviral treatment as fundamental entitlements rather than services conditional on economic growth or charitable benevolence.

Defenders forging new frontiers for human rights are often the most exposed to risk, ridicule and resistance. Those working to redress the historical neglect of economic, social and cultural rights risk making powerful enemies when they question the distribution of economic resources and call for those whose actions fuel poverty and inequality to be held to account. Similarly, women and men fighting for the right to have control over their own sexuality and reproductive capacity free from discrimination, coercion or violence may face formidable resistance from politically-motivated religious fundamentalists who deny that such a right exists in all cultures.

That huge variety of social movements increasingly use the language of rights to articulate their demands, and the vehemence with which such demands are challenged and suppressed, reflects not only the degree of moral authority attached to human rights claims, but also the extent to which the meaning and scope of human rights is still a battleground.

Human rights is not a static project, its boundaries cannot be fixed for all time. Human rights are recognized and codified in agreed international legal standards, but they do not flow from these: they come from the very essence of what it means to be human. Rights claims arise from the denial of human dignity in whatever form. The contours of human rights shift as patterns of oppression change. Their scope and content will therefore always be a matter for contestation. Indeed the human rights agenda has always been built by its own critique. Those excluded from the way human rights are traditionally understood or interpreted in any given social or historical context – for example, women, Indigenous people, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, or the disabled– have fought for inclusion and have enriched and transformed understandings of human rights as a result.

This evolution will continue and new generations of rights-defenders will challenge orthodox interpretations of human rights and articulate new claims. Those alerting us to the impact of climate change on the sustainability of life on the planet, or to the implications of biotechnological and genetic advances on what it means to be human, are already pointing to some of the issues which may feature increasingly on the human rights agenda of the future.

Fighting the backlash

Human rights defenders not only battle against static or restrictive understandings of human rights, but in recent years they have had to guard against a more fundamental assault on the validity and relevance of the human rights framework.

Some governments, particular in Europe and the US, have argued that “the rules of the game have changed” since the attacks in the US on September 11, 2001 and, subsequent attacks in other countries. They have called into question the extent to which human rights considerations should take precedence over the concern to protect their populations. This has led to attempts to justify torture and other ill-treatment in the name of fighting terrorism, and to the bypassing of fundamental due process guarantees by holding thousands of suspects indefinitely without charge or trial.

While expanding the boundaries of human rights, defenders therefore also fight to preserve long-recognized ethical values at the heart of the human rights framework, such as the complete and utter unacceptability of torture, and the right of everyone - no matter what they are alleged to have done - to be treated with dignity and fairness by the state. Their efforts to expose the practice of “extraordinary renditions” and the torturous conditions in Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantánamo and other “war on terror” detention sites have helped to resist this concerted attempt to erode the human rights framework.

Nevertheless, the backlash has prompted sober reflection among human rights defenders about the risk of complacency.ⁱⁱ The idea of human rights may have achieved near-universal endorsement, but it cannot be taken for granted that their primacy and legitimacy will always be recognized. If the fragile “human rights consensus” is to withstand the vagaries of the political ebb and flow, future attacks on the authority and practical applicability of human rights will need to be anticipated and forestalled. Human rights defenders working in different contexts and cultures are striving to ensure that human rights do not become a reactive agenda, but a progressive proposition for a better future.

India: defending human rights Dr. Binayak Sen is national Vice-President of the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), one of India's foremost human rights organisations. He is also one of the few doctors working with rural indigenous communities in India, commonly known as adivasis, to improve their access to healthcare. He is facing politically motivated charges, aimed at stopping his human rights work. Honduras: defending human rights Donny Reyes is the treasurer of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organization Rainbow Association (Asociación Arcoiris) in Honduras.Donny Reyes was detained by police in the capital, Tegucigalpa, in March 2007. The officers reportedly beat him, before putting him in a police station cell for six and a half hours where other detainees repeatedly raped and beat him, allegedly encouraged by a police officer. He was released some hours later. Thailand: defending human rights Luan Srisongpong is a Thai farmer who travelled 450 km to Bangkok as part of the Assembly of the Poor, convened to call for government action on the impact of development projects on the poor and disadvantaged. Russia: defending human rights Oleg Orlov is the head of Memorial, a leading Russian organization promoting human rights protection by monitoring and documenting human rights violations. Together with three journalists, he was abducted on the eve of an unsanctioned demonstration against the brutality of security forces and other human rights issues. The four men were reportedly driven outside the town, beaten and threatened that they would be shot, before being abandoned in a field. Iran: defending human rights Shadi Sadr is a journalist, lawyer and women’s rights defender, is facing possible imprisonment for defending women on trial for organizing a demonstration in June 2006 calling for an end to legal discrimination against women in Iran.

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS: A DIVERSE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE

The term “human rights defender” is used around the world to describe people who act in many different ways and in different capacities to protect and promote human rights.

The term “human rights defender” has been used increasingly since the adoption of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defendersiii (DHRD) in 1998, alongside other terms such as human rights activist, human rights advocate and human rights worker.

.

Human rights defenders work for the realization of any or all of the rights set out in the UDHR or in the array of human rights standards which the Declaration has given rise to in the form of conventions, declarations, bodies of principles and authoritative interpretations. The rights they defend may be civil and political rights (such as the right to be free from torture or the right to a fair trial), economic and social rights (such as the right to the highest attainable standard of health or the right to education) or cultural rights (such as the right of indigenous people to have control over their land and resources or the right of linguistic minorities to receive education in their own language).

Some defenders work against particular abuses, such as torture or forced eviction. Others work for the rights of specific groups or sectors of the population facing discrimination and disadvantage, such as Indigenous people, rural women, street children, or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Anyone, regardless of their occupation, can be a human rights defender: they are identified primarily by what they do rather than by their profession. Some human rights defenders are professional human rights workers, lawyers working on human rights cases, journalists, trade unionists or development workers. But a local government official, a policeman or a celebrity who actively promotes human rights can also be a human rights defender.

Defenders may act on their own or in association with others, in a professional or personal capacity. While many defend human rights in their ongoing endeavours, some people become human rights defenders because of one notable individual action or stance they have taken in favour of human rights.

For all their diversity, human rights defenders whoever they are and whatever they do have several characteristics in common. They all uphold the fundamental principle of universality–that all human beings are equal in dignity and rights, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or any other status. They are all committed to the realization of international human rights standards, and to respecting the rights and freedoms of others in their own actions.

Irrespective of whether or not it is ever justified to take up arms or resort to force in the name of human rights, the actions taken by human rights defenders must be peaceful in order to comply with the DHRD.

Everyone has a responsibility to protect human rights. As the DHRD affirms: “Everyone who, as a result of his or her profession, can affect the human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of others, should respect those rights and freedoms and comply with relevant national and international standards of occupational and professional conduct or ethics”.

While professional human rights defenders have many skills and years of honed experience, there is no mystery or mystique to defending human rights. We all hold the potential to become human rights defenders.

Different roads to realizing rights

Human rights defenders promote and protect human rights through a diverse range of methods. Many represent victims and survivors of human rights violations in their fight for justice and redress. Others disseminate information on human rights abuses, teach human rights principles and values as part of the school curriculum, or organize communities to take a stand against a threat to their livelihood.

Many work through legal process to claim justice and redress for people whose rights have been violated. There are countless examples of victories secured by defenders invoking the protective principles of international human rights standards in domestic courts. An increasingly effective international legal system has also provided avenues for redress where justice is denied at home. Countries in Africa, the Americas and Europe have elaborate regional mechanisms where survivors of human rights violations and those working with them can hold their governments to account.

Thanks to the long-standing efforts of human rights lawyers from countries around the world working together in coalition, a global judicial infrastructure has begun to emerge in recent times, most notably with the adoption in 1998 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Court has jurisdiction over the most serious crimes under international law, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Another significant development brought about by defenders working together across borders is the evolution of universal jurisdiction, enabling the courts of one country to try such crimes even if committed elsewhere.

Defenders have also sought to find creative alternatives to criminal prosecution in situations where this was rendered politically or practically impossible. In many situations of transition from conflict or authoritarian rule, defenders have helped establish “truth commissions” aimed at bringing to light the experiences of victims and survivors, establishing who was responsible, and providing reparation. Despite their shortcomings, such commissions can represent important steps towards justice and reconciliation, and a powerful validation of the experiences endured by survivors.

But legal and quasi-legal processes are only one means of asserting rights. Court cases are expensive, time consuming and can seem inaccessible. Working for human rights can also be done through grassroots campaigning, advocacy and lobbying of governmental or international institutions, building the capacity of local communities to understand and claim their rights, or providing humanitarian relief services to people displaced by conflict or natural disaster.

DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS: A HOST OF CHALLENGES

Amnesty International has worked with human rights defenders since its inception almost half a century ago. Over the decades, Amnesty International has witnessed and worked against a range of repressive tactics that governments of every political hue have deployed to silence human rights defenders. Patterns of repression have varied over time and across context: in Latin America, for example, “disappearances” and death squad killings replaced politically motivated imprisonment in the 70s and 80s as favored tactics for suppressing dissenting voices, tactics which allowed the military governments of the time to cover their tracks and deny all responsibility.

Such tactics still pose a threat to the life and work of defenders in many countries around the world, particularly those experiencing armed conflict or severe civil unrest.

Democratic Republic of the Congo: defending human rights

Human rights defenders in the Democratic Republic of Congo often work in conditions of extreme danger. Congolese activists have been victims of torture, extrajudicial execution and arbitrary arrest. In most areas, the local political and military authorities are hostile to the activities of local NGOs, which they fear may expose their involvement in human rights violations. The activists are frequently called in by the authorities for questioning or to settle so-called “administrative matters” that are, in reality, thinly disguised acts of intimidation; their offices are subject to unannounced arbitrary visits by security officials. In some cases, human rights activists have been threatened with death at gunpoint. On 31 July 2005, prominent human rights activist Pascal Kabungulu Kibembi, was murdered at his home in the eastern city of Bukavu, allegedly by soldiers. Although a military judicial investigation was immediately launched, to date no one has been brought to justice for his murder.

Death threats are a common means of intimidation, often delivered to defenders offices, homes or relatives, while the police or judiciary take no effective action to investigate or punish those responsible.

Human rights defenders in many countries are at risk of being detained or abducted in an effort to force them to refrain from their activities. Many have been tortured or subjected to other ill-treatment during captivity, often in an attempt to force a confession to criminal activity or to force a retraction of accusations of human rights violations.

Detention safeguards are often flouted and many may be held without charge. Others may have spurious charges brought against them, a pattern Amnesty International has increasingly observed in countries where the authorities seek to tarnish defenders’ image and reputation by portraying them as criminals, terrorists or delinquents. In some cases, charges are clearly fabricated. In others, legitimate activities such as convening a demonstration or lodging an official complaint have been characterized as public order offences or acts of libel.

At least 15 people have been detained in Iran while collecting signatures for the Campaign for Equality, which aims to collect a million signatures on a petition calling for an end to discriminatory legislation in Iran. Raheleh Asgarizadeh and Nasim Khosravi, were detained on 14 February 2008 while collecting signatures after a street theatre performance about polygamy in Daneshjoo Park in Tehran. Initially, the two women were held by police in a local detention centre. After two days, they were transferred to Evin Prison in Tehran where they were held until they were released on bail on 26 February 2008. Bail was set at 100 million rials (approximately US$11,000) each. They are facing trial on charges of “propaganda against the system”. Another woman, 62-year-old Ehteram Shadfar, was sentenced in February 2008 to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, after conviction of “propaganda against the system”. She had been detained for 24 hours in June 2007 in connection with her activities collecting signatures for the Campaign. She was the third woman to be sentenced for collecting signatures.

Harassment of human rights defenders – through a range of means including surveillance, phone tapping and unjustified restrictions on travel - is so often part of their daily life that it goes unreported. Harassment can take the form of attacks and raids on offices or homes, often made to look like acts of common criminality. Defenders have had equipment and files confiscated, their access to the internet and other communication facilities blocked, and their assets frozen.

Smear campaigns and defamatory tactics are also used to delegitimize the work of defenders, with the media often colluding in the dissemination of slanderous accusations and attacks on their personal integrity and political independence.

Bureaucratic barriers have also been applied in politically motivated ways to hamper the work of organizations working for the defense of human rights. All manner of pretexts have been used to deny organizations legal registration, to restrict their meetings, to obstruct fact finding visits and even to force them to cease operating, whether directly or by preventing access to sources of funding.

Hostile environments

Armed conflict is one of the most hostile environments in which to defend human rights. As countless examples have shown, armed conflict almost always involves violations of fundamental human rights, often on a massive scale. Whether the confrontation is between professional armies or armed groups, civilian lives and livelihoods are increasingly the principal casualty.

It is in such an environment that the work of human rights defenders is most needed; yet often least respected. In an atmosphere of tense polarization, their impartiality is called into question. In the context of a civil conflict or a war of occupation, denouncing government abuses can lead to defenders being vilified as disloyal, unpatriotic, and even treacherous. Criticizing abuses by armed groups renders them government stooges in the eyes of those who support the group’s cause, who see defenders and their organizations as legitimizing the government’s agenda. These misperceptions can have deadly consequences: they can lead to defenders and their organizations being seen as allied with the enemy and thus branded a “legitimate target” by either side.

Colombia: defending human rights

In Colombia, civilians living in the municipality of Apartadó created the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó in 1997, in an effort to insist on their right not to be drawn into Colombia’s internal armed conflict. However, the security forces and their paramilitary allies have accused the community of subversion and the guerrilla group. Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), have in turn accused the community of cooperating with their enemies. Since the Peace Community was created, over 160 of its members have been killed or have "disappeared", the vast majority at the hands of the security forces and their paramilitary allies, the remainder at the hands of the FARC.

In situations of armed conflict defenders also face formidable problems of a practical nature. The security situation may make it impossible to gain access to certain areas to verify allegations of abuses, or may be used as a pretext to prevent the operation of human rights or humanitarian organizations. Verifying breaches of international humanitarian law (the laws of armed conflict) poses additional methodological challenges – for example in assessing the legality and “military necessity” of a particular attack - which can prove insurmountable in conditions where infrastructure has been devastated, resources are scarce and access to victims and communities is obstructed. Emergency legislation may place legal restrictions on freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of expression, severely constraining the ability of defenders to carry out their work.

New security measures introduced worldwide since the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US, have also had a chilling effect on the environment in which human rights defenders operate. Many governments use the so-called “war against terror” as a justification or pretext to restrict the legitimate activities of organizations working to defend human rights. In some countries, newly introduced anti-terrorist legislation has had an inhibiting effect on human rights organizations concerned that their legitimate human rights activities could be brought within the scope of the legislation’s vague and sweeping provisions.

More broadly, many human rights defenders have had to contend with a governmental discourse that prioritizes “security” (understood as prevention of terrorism) over human rights, and that sees the two as conflicting rather than mutually supporting policy goals. In such circumstances, human rights have come to be equated with “being soft on terrorism” or concerned only with the rights of suspected terrorists, rather than with the victims of terrorism. The work of human rights defenders is thus mischaracterized as one-sided or irrelevant, and has itself come to be equated with terrorism or subversion in the eyes of some governments.

Countries with undemocratic, authoritarian systems of government can also represent an especially hostile environment for defending human rights. In such states, the space for human rights defenders to operate is often severely curtailed by laws and policies placing draconian restrictions on freedom of expression and association in the name of national security or public order.

China: defending human rights

On 22 December 2006, Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng was sentenced by the Beijing Municipal No.1 Court to three years' imprisonment for "inciting subversion", a broadly defined crime in the Chinese criminal law that is regularly used to imprison activists in violation of their fundamental human rights to freedom of expression. Chinese law contains sweeping definitions of crimes such as 'subversion' and 'stealing state secrets', which can be used to detain and imprison people simply for engaging in legitimate human rights activities.

If authoritarian states create a hostile environment for the defence of human rights, “failed or failing states” – those without a functioning governmental infrastructure - can also pose formidable challenges for the work of human rights defenders. Where the institutions necessary for the delivery of basic public goods and services, from law enforcement to health-care and education, are either entirely lacking or dependent on weak and transient de facto authorities, human rights defenders must work creatively with and through other political and social structures in order to prevent and redress abuses and build a framework of protective safeguards at the local and community level. The absence of the rule of law, and the prevalence of force over democratic dialogue as the main means of political contestation, pose huge obstacles to their task.

BRINGING RIGHTS OUT FROM THE MARGINS

Defenders working on human rights issues which have traditionally been neglected or marginalized from the mainstream agenda often face specific obstacles as a result. The rights they uphold may be especially contested or controversial, either because they challenge dominant social norms or because they are seen as threatening to the established political, religious or economic order. This section looks at the particular challenges facing those working for economic, social and cultural rights, women’s reproductive rights and rights associated with sexuality.

Economic, social and cultural rights defenders: fighting for the right to live with dignity

Economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights are given the same emphasis in the UDHR as civil and political rights. However, these rights were in many ways a casualty of the Cold War; it was not until the early 1990s that recognition and understanding of ESC rights began to strengthen in response to action by grassroots activists and other civil society actors. Campaigns by social movements around the world drew attention to the drastic social impact of structural adjustment programmes^iv, to the effects of the crushing debt burden on developing countries’ capacity to satisfy the basic needs of the population, and to the deepening inequalities that many countries witnessed in the context of economic globalization.

Over the last twenty years, social justice movements, development practitioners and human rights activists have increasingly taken the language and tools of rights into the sphere of economic and social policy. They have faced major challenges along the way. Some governments, including that of the world’s most powerful economy, the United States, have remained hostile to the very concept of economic and social rights as enforceable entitlements. At both the international and domestic level, legal mechanisms for claiming redress for ESC rights violations are severely underdeveloped in comparison to civil and political rights. Whereas the UN Human Rights Committee has been hearing individual complaints of violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for decades, there is still no equivalent complaints mechanism under its counter-part treaty, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Although activists have had great success in putting issues of poverty, inequitable trade, unsustainable debt and insufficient aid on the domestic and international agenda, human rights defenders still encounter resistance – from governments but also from other sectors of civil society - when speaking about food, housing, health and education in the language of rights. The challenges involved in identifying violations, attributing responsibility and proposing appropriate measures for redress and prevention have led some to view ESC rights as inherently less enforceable through legal means (“justiciable”). Moreover, the complexity of addressing issues of national resource allocation or international macroeconomic policy from a human rights lens also poses a formidable challenge.

Nevertheless, economic and social rights defenders have made enormous strides forward in recent years. Thanks to their efforts, national parliaments have adopted laws and constitutional changes directly recognizing economic and social rights. Groundbreaking victories have been won through landmark court cases, such as the South African Constitutional Court decision ordering the provision of anti-retroviral drugs to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission or the Indian Supreme Court ruling that the right to life with dignity required equitable access to housing and the means of securing one’s livelihood, and hence precluded arbitrary forced evictions.^v

These achievements have also reflected the work carried out by ESC rights defenders, in co-operation with development experts, social scientists and professionals from such fields as health, education and housing, to develop new tools and methodologies for assessing ESC rights violations. These have included identifying indicators and benchmarks for measuring compliance with the obligation to satisfy minimum essential levels of these rights, and budget analysis to gauge whether governments are realizing ESC rights progressively according to their maximum available resources.

But the progress made in affirming and claiming ESC rights is not solely a result of court rulings, the deliberations of human rights professionals and academics, or even global campaigns mounted by international NGOs. It is primarily the result of concrete struggles fought by individual communities to defend their livelihoods in the face of abusive action by government authorities, powerful industries or corrupt elites.

In the words of an Indian defender, asked whether the efforts of global civil society had been important in improving the conditions of people affected by the construction of the Narmada Dam:

“If villagers, farmers, adivasi [tribals] are “global civil society”, I can say that yes: “global civil society” made a big difference. If we now have some resettlements, even with their problems, it is because this “global civil society” organized itself and challenged state governments, the government of India, the World Bank, the dam builders. If today we have some rights recognized, this is because of our struggle.”^vi

Embodying rights: defenders working on reproductive and sexual rights

One of the most important fronts in the struggle for women’s rights is around sexual and reproductive autonomy, and the coercive and often violent ways in which that autonomy is suppressed.

Much of the gender-based violence that men inflict on women is aimed at restricting and controlling their sexuality and reproductive capacity: from so-called “honour killings” of women who have had sex outside marriage, to marital rape or targeting pregnant women of the “enemy” camp as a strategy of conflict. These and other sexual and reproductive rights violations are happening worldwide on a massive scale and are clearly proscribed under international law. Yet they are amongst the most challenging issues for human rights defenders to work on.

A key reason is the widespread deference to cultural and religious values when it comes to issues of sexuality and women’s control over their reproductive choices. What is considered socially acceptable in terms of sexual relations and family planning, it is argued, depends to such a varying degree on cultural and religious attitudes in each context that an affirmative right to sexual and reproductive autonomy cannot be asserted as a universal right.

Such arguments are often based on a fixed and stereotypical view of “culture” or “tradition”, which denies the variety and heterogeneity of opinion that can exist within one faith or cultural context. Arguing that what should be considered a right when it comes to women’s sexuality or behaviour as being culturally or faith dependent overlooks the fact that societies of all faiths have targeted women’s sexuality and reproductive autonomy as a key means of keeping them socially subordinate. Many have turned a blind eye even to the most violent manifestations of this form of discrimination.

Over the last two decades, such attitudes have begun to change, thanks to steadfast campaigning, lobbying and advocacy by women human rights defenders. Their efforts to trace the links between sexuality, reproduction and gender-based violence and discrimination have been complemented by the work of defenders combating violations against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people; those working to halt abuses in the context of HIV/AIDS; and activists concerned at the health and development implications of issues such as maternal mortality or lack of access to contraception.

A major achievement by this coalition of defenders has been influencing the international community to affirm sexual and reproductive rights as human rights in UN declarations and consensus documents. For example, the Programme of Action adopted at the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, and the Beijing Platform for Action resulting from the UN World Conference on Women the following year. These instruments articulate in more detail what states must do to respect, protect and fulfill women’s reproductive and sexual rights, and have since been complemented by the work of relevant UN expert bodies.

Such achievements have been matched at the regional and national level. For example, in December 2006, defenders celebrated the inclusion of provisions recognizing reproductive health and rights as fundamental rights in the interim Constitution of Nepal, a country in which more women are reported to have died due to pregnancy in the last decade than men and women due to the armed conflict.^vii

However, defenders working at the domestic level have often faced fierce resistance, not only from officialdom but, from powerful political or religious institutions, the media and even from other sectors of the human rights movement.

Sri Lanka: defending human rights

In Sri Lanka, homosexuality is punishable by up to 12 years in prison. In August 1999, The Island newspaper published a letter protesting against a lesbian conference that was to be held in Colombo. A Sri Lankan women’s support group ‘Companions on a Journey’ lodged a complaint about the letter with the Sri Lankan Press Council. However, the Press Council refused to condemn the newspaper and ruled that the author had the right to offer his point of view, and that his view was justified because lesbianism is an “act of sadism”, and was an offence under the country’s penal code.

Individuals or groups defending the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people are often exposed to risk and vilification in their societies. LGBT rights defenders face the full spectrum of abuse at the hands of government authorities, from denial of legal registration to death squad killings or imprisonment for “crimes against nature”. They are also exposed to threats, attacks and repudiation by others in their community.

In many countries, official complaints presented by LGBT rights defenders are met with indifference and therefore impunity. Defenders who seek protection against death threats or other attacks are frequently met with the attitude that “they got what they deserve”. In the seventy or so countries in which homosexuality is a criminal offence, defending LGBT rights can be seen as promoting criminality. Defenders can therefore face prosecution for carrying out activities in defense of their human rights as well as for their identity.

Uganda: defending human rights

In October 2004, a radio station in Uganda was fined for hosting a live talk show with sexual rights activists discussing discrimination against members of the LGBT community and their need for HIV/AIDS services. The Broadcasting Council imposed a fine of approximately one thousand US dollars, claiming that the programme was "contrary to public morality" and breached existing laws. Following this incident, security officials continued to harass LGBT people, causing LGBT human rights defenders at one of the main universities to fear for their personal safety.

LGBT rights defenders have also struggled for space to place these issues on the international human rights agenda. In some cases, their participation in international human rights forums has been deliberately blocked by hostile governments. At such forums, attempts by defenders to secure recognition of the patterns of abuse faced by LGBT people worldwide have repeatedly and consistently been excluded from formal human rights platforms and resolutions, with some governments arguing that these issues are “no fit subject” for consideration by international human rights bodies.

Nevertheless, the work of LGBT rights defenders in countries around the globe has begun to be recognized and reflected in the analysis of the UN’s expert monitoring bodies, including the UN Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders, and those experts dealing with such issues as violence against women, the right to health, the prevention of torture and extrajudicial executions.

Defenders have brought to public attention the many ways in which people whose sexual orientation or gender identity differs from the perceived norm are prevented from living their lives and exercising rights and freedoms others take for granted. They have highlighted the specific patterns of abuse faced by transgender people and the double discrimination faced by lesbians, on grounds of both gender and sexual orientation, which often renders their experiences invisible.

The challenges outlined in this section highlight the importance of an open-ended and inclusive approach to the concept of the “human rights defender”, and the power of recognizing as human rights defenders those working with themarginalized. Amnesty International witnessed an example of that protective power in Guayaquil, Ecuador, where LGBT rights defenders had contacted Amnesty International concerned at possible police retaliation against the city’s first LGBT rights demonstration, which was going ahead despite being refused official authorization at the last minute. Defenders and demonstrators carried banners, made of blown-up urgent appeals sent by Amnesty International members calling for their freedom of association and their right to defend human rights to be respected, to shield themselves from any physical attack. The demonstration went ahead peacefully and without incident.

As well as seeking to end police brutality, gender-based violence and other abuses, sexual and reproductive rights defenders are affirming an emancipatory vision of human rights. This is a vision that sees sexual integrity as integral to human well-being and dignity as freedom of conscience or belief. Indeed, autonomy in one’s intimate, emotional and family life is itself an issue of conscience.

THE INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK

Over the last decade, the international community has agreed on an international framework, which recognizes the role of everyone in defending human rights. Governments throughout the world have acknowledged the important role played by human rights defenders and made commitments to protect them. It has also been recognized that civil society has the right and obligation to act autonomously to protect human rights. While commitments on paper have not always been implemented in reality, this framework offers new opportunities for the protection of human rights defenders.

The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders

The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (DHRD) was adopted on 9^th December 1998 - the eve of the 50^th anniversary of the UDHR. It was an expression of universal recognition among UN member states that the ideals enshrined in the UDHR can only become reality if everyone participates in their implementation, and if those who work to promote these ideals are able to do so free from interference, obstacles, intimidation and threats.

Governments agreed that efforts by human rights defenders in regard to monitoring, scrutiny and making proposals for improvements are not only compatible with state obligations to comply with domestic and international human rights law and standards, but greatly contribute to and further this end.

The DHRD requires governments to protect the rights that are essential to human rights defenders’ work. The right to free speech, to express critical views of government policies, to free peaceful assemble and to advocate peacefully for change, and the right to receive and impart information and to communicate with national and international organizations are among the rights that are recognized as being essential to human rights defenders. The DHRD specifically refers to the right of human rights defenders to act collectively to protect rights.

It was recognized that human rights defenders often put themselves at risk by criticizing the state or other powerful actors. Governments are therefore obliged to ensure that human rights defenders can carry out their work without interference, obstacles, discrimination or fear of retaliation. When there are allegations that such abuses have occurred, human rights defenders have the right to have a complaint reviewed before an independent, impartial and competent judicial or other authority and, where a violation is found to have taken place, to obtain redress.

The DHRD requires governments to promote the understanding of human rights Including the dissemination of human rights related information, human rights education and the creation of national human rights institutions. The UN Commission on Human Rights has also urged governments to facilitate the DHRD and report on their efforts. It has also urged all UN human rights bodies and mechanisms to take the provisions of the DHRD into account.

The Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on Human Rights Defenders

In 2000, the UN Secretary General appointed a Special Representative to help implement the DHRD. Hina Jilani, a Pakistani lawyer and human rights activist, was appointed as the first Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders. Her mandate includes producing reports, monitoring, country visits, individual action on cases of violations and making recommendations to improve protection of human rights defenders. The mandate was given a new title of Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders in April 2008, and a new mandate-holder, Margaret Sekaggya, was appointed.

When human rights defenders are at particular risk, the Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders can take urgent action on their behalf. In taking such action, she usually depends on information from local human rights defenders or international organizations working on their behalf. Since 2000, the Special Representative has sent over 1,500 communications to governments, raising concerns about human rights defenders at risk.^viii

The Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders also carries out country visits to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the situation facing human rights defenders in particular countries. Since 2000, the Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders has visited ten countries. Unfortunately, not all countries have co-operated fully with the Special Representative. Twenty-one countries have failed to issue an invitation allowing a visit, while others have not responded to her communications.^ix

Government responsibility for the protection of human rights defenders

Under the DHRD and other international and regional human rights standards, governments are accountable for attacks, harassment, threats and other violations against human rights defenders carried out by government officials, including members of the security forces. States are required to put in place measures to prevent such violations and, when they are alleged, to carry out prompt and impartial investigations and provide reparations to the victims.

States also have a duty to prevent actions by private individuals, companies or other non-state actors that threaten, attack, or otherwise abuse or seek to hamper the work of human rights defenders. If the state fails to act with due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish such abuses, it can be held accountable under international law.

In spite of these obligations, human rights defenders have frequently found themselves the subject of government suppression or inaction when they have faced threats by non-government actors. Their work may lead human rights defenders to expose uncomfortable truths about government policies, or support the rights of marginalized people or political opponents. However, this does not legitimize abuses against them.

Regional mechanisms

In Latin-America, Africa and Europe, governments have worked together to protect human rights defenders. Such inter-governmental co-operation has promoted a deeper understanding of the context facing human rights defenders in a particular region, and helped governments to develop appropriate responses. However, the full potential of regional protection remains unfulfilled. The Middle East lacks regional mechanisms for human rights protection generally, and for the protection of human rights defenders.

The governments of the Americas have made explicit commitments to upholding the DHRD in resolutions by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States adopted every year since 1999. Within the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), the work on human rights defenders is co-ordinated through a designated Human Rights Defenders Unit. The Human Rights Defenders Unit monitors, analyzes and reports on the situation of human rights defenders. It also advises the IACHR on individual petitions by human rights defenders for precautionary measures, which may be ordered when a person is at risk of “serious and irreparable harm”. Precautionary measures include both security measures and investigations into threats or other violations against human rights defenders, in order to address the root causes and prevent repetition.^x In 2005, such measures were ordered in 11 cases related to human rights defenders.

In 2004, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) adopted a Resolution on the protection of human rights defenders in Africa, urging member states to give full effect to the DHRD. The resolution also established the office of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders in Africa.^xi While the work of this office so far has been limited, mainly due to funding restrictions, recent initiatives including press releases calling on Governments concerned to provide adequate protection to human rights defenders at risk, and the launch of The Rapporteur's Newsletter in November 2007 provide hope that regional efforts related to human rights defenders in Africa can be strengthened.

The European Union (EU) has a stated commitment to the protection of human rights defenders. The EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, adopted in July 2004, provide a framework for EU States’ activities to provide support and protection to human rights defenders in third countries. This includes supporting the work of human rights defenders in multilateral fora, interventions for human rights defenders at risk, and support for international and regional mechanisms to protect human rights defenders. The EU has launched worldwide campaigns on specific issues related to human rights defenders, including the right to freedom of expression and women human rights defenders.

A commitment to establish a regional human rights body is expressed in the Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) signed in November 2007. A body of experts has been appointed to draft the human rights body's terms of reference. Amnesty International and civil society organizations in the region are campaigning for a strong, professional and representative human rights body which applies international standards.

A GLOBAL MOVEMENT: A WORLD OF POSSIBILITIES

Through their vision, steadfastness and courage human rights defenders are overcoming the obstacles facing them, and making lasting change happen. They expose violations and campaign for redress for victims; they empower individuals and communities to claim their legitimate entitlements; and they respond to global issues in ways that emphasize the dignity of all. They take action wherever and whenever they see a need. They are often the first to speak out when rights are violated, and the persistent voice that remains after the world’s attention has shifted elsewhere. In these and other ways, human rights defenders are essential actors of our time and employ a range of means to effect change.

International campaigning and mass mobilization have often been central to building legitimacy and convincing governments to take action on human rights issues. More than one million people called for action to prevent weapons falling into the hands of human rights abusers. The number of governments supporting the establishment of an International Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) increased dramatically since the campaign began, and the international community subsequently agreed to start work on developing a Treaty which will require governments involved in the arms trade to act in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian standards. Previous experiences from the International Campaign to Ban Landmines – in which a network of NGOs joined with supportive governments to take action – illustrate the impact such campaigns can have. The Ottawa Convention of 1997, which bans the use, production and export of landmines, has been ratified by 153 countries, and the use of landmines is widely condemned.^xii

Similarly, the women’s rights movement is continuing its global efforts to end violence and discrimination against women, as well as impunity for perpetrators of violations against women. Women human rights defenders all over the world have led and participated in campaigns to end violations against them, often challenging social, cultural or religious norms. While numerous victories have been won, women human rights defenders in some countries remain at risk.

While international mobilization can be effective, the defence of human rights starts at the level of individuals in their communities. Solutions that are grounded in this context can have international impact. The founder of the Grameen Bank, Muhammad Yunus has stated that, “I became involved because poverty was all around me, and I could not turn away from it”.^xiii The micro-finance movement he started by providing small loans to the poor has empowered marginalized individuals and communities to access a wide range of rights. It has also advanced the international understanding of the indivisibility of rights, and of poverty as a human rights violation.

Human rights defenders have also responded to the increasing impact of companies on human rights by developing strategies to address abuses by companies and by demanding that they respect human rights. Companies are not legally bound by international human rights treaties, but, at minimum, they have a responsibility to respect all human rights - and their responsibilities can be broader: In specific circumstances companies also have responsibilities to protect, fulfil and promote.

While international legal systems to hold companies accountable remain weak, human rights defenders have raised awareness and increased public scrutiny of their policies and practices. International NGOs, governments and campaigners came together in the Kimberly Process to establish voluntary codes of conduct for the diamond trade to prevent the trade fuelling war and grave human rights abuses. Yet many human rights defenders continue to demand that companies be subject not only to voluntary, but to legally binding principles. Human Rights Defenders that confront economic power can face a backlash not only from the companies they seek to hold to account, but also from the state that protects private sector interests.

STANDING WITH HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS

“We… are privileged because there is someone keeping an eye on us, but there are thousands of people trying to protect the basic human rights of others – but who are losing their own lives. Thanks for the eyes”.^xiv

Dr. Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, Sudan Social Development Organization.

Despite the establishment of international and regional mechanisms to protect human rights defenders many continue to face harassment, intimidation or other abuses. Defenders who work in such situations develop strategies and tactics to protect themselves and others, based on their daily experiences. While these constitute the most immediate form of protection, international NGOs, governments and inter-governmental organizations play an important role by supporting and strengthening such strategies whenever possible.

By creating national, regional and international networks, human rights defenders are able to establish patterns of abuse, find solutions to shared problems, strengthen advocacy and build capacity. Participation in national or regional networks can also facilitate access to regional and international protection mechanisms, and may increase the legitimacy of human rights defenders, in particular those working on issues that have traditionally been ignored by the human rights movement, or those facing discrimination by national authorities.

International organizations carry political weight and can effectively mobilize to raise awareness about individual cases, as well as more systemic violations, laws and practices. They may be able to use their legitimacy and moral force to pressure key officials, when local human rights defenders would face repercussions. International organizations have spoken out on behalf of human rights defenders in countries such as Myanmar, where calls for even the most fundamental rights are likely to be silenced.

New technology is providing new opportunities for human rights defenders to communicate. The increasing speed of the Internet, combined with its ability to reach a wide audience, allows local human rights issues to become international concerns within hours. However, the potential of the Internet has not escaped the attention of some governments, who, assisted by some of the biggest IT companies in the world, have sought to limit free expression. In China, Vietnam, Tunisia and elsewhere, human rights defenders have been harassed and imprisoned for their Internet activism.

Some international NGOs support training that specifically addresses the protection of human rights defenders and their work. Such training includes awareness-raising about the content of the DHRD, how to access international and regional protection mechanisms, risk assessment, information security, developing strategies for minimizing risk and other information relevant to human rights defenders. For example, in April 2008 Amnesty International and a Colombian coalition of women’s organizations delivered and participated in a workshop on, and with, women human rights defenders, with activists from 18 different regions of the country. Aside from discussing strategies to improve their personal and organizational protection, the workshop contributed to furthering contacts between women defenders. This experience demonstrates how Amnesty International, activists and local organizations, can work together to strengthen and support effective activism.

Other organizations, in particular Peace Brigades International, have established a physical presence in areas where human rights defenders work. This presence can reduce the risks faced by human rights defenders, thereby enabling them to continue their work. The effectiveness of such international accompaniment depends on a range of local and international factors. However, human rights defenders in countries including Colombia, Guatemala and Indonesia have repeatedly requested such accompaniment as an element of their security strategies.

Governments, the diplomatic community and donor agencies can all take steps to protect human rights defenders and their work even in other countries. Governments can raise concern about the situation of human rights defenders in bilateral or multilateral fora, and can provide support to international and regional mechanisms. Donor agencies can include issues related to human rights defenders in all stages of project development, implementation and assessment, and prioritize capacity building of human rights defenders. Some governments have included protection of local human rights defenders in their contingency plans for emergency situations. Governments can also speed up their own visa process, allowing the movement of human rights defenders who have to relocate due to serious threats. In some countries members of the diplomatic community have visited the offices of human rights defenders, or invited them to their homes or offices. Such measures can have significant impact and send a strong signal that violations against the defenders will have international repercussions.

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS: VITAL FOR THE FUTURE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

‘.. the oppression of defenders is typically an indicator of a much wider lack of respect for human rights within a State and is directly proportional to this wider situation.’

Hina Jilani, Special Representative of the Secretary General on HRDs (2000-2008), 2007

The future of human rights is inherently connected to the ability of human rights defenders to operate freely and without fear. The murder of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya sent out a clear and chilling message about the dangers faced by all those who speak out against repression in Russia. It also sends a message that one of the best ways to attack human rights is to attack those who defend them – a message all too frequently felt around the world. Fortunately, there are those brave enough to confront these attacks -- amongst those participating in Anna Politkovskaya memorial events a year after her murder, were other human rights defenders for whom threats and intimidation remain a daily reality.

While many victories have been won, the future of genuine human rights protection lies in the ability of human rights defenders to work and operate freely, without intimidation, persecution or attack. Defenders continue to develop new and innovative ways to confront injustice while trying to minimize the danger to themselves, their families and their communities. The advances made over the last 60 years in national and international legal mechanisms to protect human rights and human rights defenders are significant. They offer a public commitment to their safety. But, while they are a great step-forward on paper, the rhetoric does not yet translate into either respect or protection. Justice systems worldwide need to find new, concrete ways to protect human rights defenders, by giving teeth to the international, regional and national HRD mechanisms that exist, and enacting them at the national level. The international human rights movement needs to embrace defenders working in new, emerging and contested areas. Amnesty International continues to press for greater recognition of the status and role of human rights defenders and all those who expose and campaign against human rights violations and impunity.

Standing with the international movement of human rights defenders

remains as important as ever.