Ukraine: No peace plan without accountability for human rights

26 Jun 2014 | About Index, Campaigns, Statements, Ukraine

President Petro Poroshenko

11 Bankova street
01220 Kyiv
Ukraine

26 June 2014

Mr President,

We, the undersigned members and partners of the Human Rights House Network (HRHN), condemned in the strongest terms human rights violations which took place throughout Ukraine since 29 November 2013, and now call upon you to extend the mandate of the International Criminal Court investigations (taking into account events in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine) and to ratify the Rome Statute, in order to encourage such investigations, as an essential part of bringing peace to the country.

We welcome the repeated pledges of Ukrainian authorities to investigate all human rights violations committed since 29 November 2013 and hold those accountable, throughout the country and irrespective of which side the violator belongs to in the ongoing armed conflict in East Ukraine. The current situation of impunity must end.

The International Criminal Court is the only international body able to not only document grave human rights violations, amounting to core international crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide), but also investigate individuals responsible for such crimes. In order to restore peace and strengthen trust into State institutions, those responsible for such human rights violations have to be held accountable. We have for a long time called for a comprehensive reform of the judicial system in the country, which still remains to be initiated. Unfortunately, the national judicial system now shows its limits and in our view it is clear that it does not have the adequate knowledge, independence and resources to investigate all human rights violations since 29 November 2013 throughout the country.

Therefore, it is necessary to activate the international justice system, based on the complementarity principle, to guarantee that investigation into core international crimes committed by all parties in Ukraine, including by members of law enforcement and State agents, is credible and transparent, bringing those responsible to justice.

The Court’s jurisdiction should however not be limited in time, as it is now. On 17 April 2014, the Government of Ukraine indeed lodged a declaration under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC over crimes committed on its territory from 21 November 2013 to 22 February 2014.[3] We now call upon the Government to issue a declaration extending ICC jurisdiction from 21 November 2013 until the date of the entry into force of the Rome Statute for Ukraine.

We also call upon the authorities in Ukraine to accede to the Rome Statute as soon as possible. By doing this, Ukraine will make an important step to permanently depart from the culture of impunity that is prevailing.

In addition to the investigation into human rights violations, and action taken to end the use of violence in the country, Ukraine needs to undertake a massive reform of its legislation and practice in many fields. Ukraine’s law enforcement agencies have needed radical reform for a long time now: It is not about changing the names of institutions and units or about window-dressing, but about systemic changes, starting from the principles for establishing and structuring enforcement agencies, and ending with approaches to evaluating their performance.

We therefore support Ukraine’s efforts to propose a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council’s on-going session, although we deeply regret the draft resolution’s silence about the role of civil society in the country and the need for an investigation by the Court.

In Ukraine, human rights NGOs have proven their strong commitment to the rule of law and the respect of all human rights for all people, as well as their high level of professionalism and excellence. No country can build a sustainable future without full inclusion of civil society in decision-making, especially Ukraine in its present situation. Furthermore, States and leaders in all sectors of society must acknowledge publicly the important and legitimate role of human rights defenders in the promotion of human rights, democracy and rule of law, and avoid stigmatisation, as stated by the Human Rights Council resolution 22/6 of 21 March 2013.

Finally, we also welcome the reference in the draft resolution on Ukraine at the Human Rights Council to the extremely worrying human rights situation in Crimea and join Ukrainian authorities, the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and other international voices, in condemning the enforcement of legislation of the Russian Federation on the territory of Crimea, at variance with the United Nations General Assembly resolution 68/262.

The role of civil society is essential in documenting human rights violations in Crimea and providing support to victims of such violations. A field mission has been launched by Ukrainian and Russian human rights defenders in co-operation, with which we expect full cooperation by all governmental agents in Ukraine.

On this background, we call upon you Mr President and the Government, with no further delay, to issue a declaration to extend the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court from 21 November 2013 until the date of Ukraine’s accession to the Rome Statute either through appeal of the competent body of the Government or by adopting the Draft Law #4081a.

We further call upon you to:

  • Take all necessary measures to support the work of human rights NGOs, journalists and bloggers and other media, including by investigating any threats, intimidation, harassment and violence against them, including arbitrary detentions, abductions, attacks and killings;
  • Strongly and publicly acknowledge the important and legitimate role of human rights defenders in the promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law as an essential component of ensuring their protection; In line with United Nations Human Rights Council resolution 22/6 of 21 March 2013, paragraph 5
  • Ensure that the reform process in the country, as well as all dialogue about the future of the country, is inclusive and transparent, giving space to civil society.

Sincerely,

Human Rights House Kyiv (on behalf of the following NGOs):

  • Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement (Association UMDPL)
  • Centre for Civil Liberties
  • Human Rights Information Center
  • Institute of Mass Information
  • Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
  • La Strada Ukraine
  • NGO “For Professional Journalism” – Svidomo
  • Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union

Education Human Rights House Chernihiv (on behalf of the following NGOs):

  • Chernihiv Public Committee of Human Rights Protection
  • Center of Humnistic  Tehnologies “AHALAR”
  • Center of Public Education “ALMENDA”
  • Human Rights Center “Postup”
  • Local Non-governmental Youth organizations М’АRТ
  • Transcarpathian Public Center
  • Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union

Azerbaijan Human Rights House (on behalf of the following NGOs):

  • Association for Protection of Women’s Rights – APWR
  • Azerbaijan Human Rights Centre (AHRC)
  • Institute for Peace and Democracy
  • Human Rights Centre
  • Legal Education Society
  • Legal Protection and Awareness Society
  • Media Rights Institute
  • Public Union of Democracy Human Rights Resource Centre
  • Women’s Association for Rational Development (WARD)

Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House in exile, Vilnius

  • Belarusian Association of Journalists
  • Belarusian PEN Centre
  • Belarusian Helsinki Committee

Human Rights House Belgrade (on behalf of the following NGOs):

  • Belgrade Centre for Human Rights
  • Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, Serbia
  • Human Rights House Belgrade and Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights –YUCOM

Human Rights House London (on behalf of the following NGOs):

  • Index on Censorship
  • Vivarta

Human Rights House Tbilisi (on behalf of the following NGOs):

  • Article 42 of the Constitution
  • Caucasian Centre for Human Rights and Conflict Studies (CAUCASIA)
  • Georgian Centre for Psychosocial and Medical Rehabilitation of Torture Victims
  • Media Institute
  • Human Rights Center
  • Union Sapari – Family Without Violence

Human Rights House Oslo (on behalf of the following NGOs):

  • Human Rights House Foundation
  • Norwegian Helsinki Committee
  • Health and Human Rights Info

Human Rights House Voronezh (on behalf of the following NGOs):

  • Charitable Foundation
  • Civic Initiatives Development Centre
  • Confederation of Free Labor
  • For Ecological and Social Justice
  • Free University
  • Golos
  • Interregional Trade Union of Literary Men
  • Lawyers for labor rights
  • Memorial
  • Ms. Olga Gnezdilova
  • Soldiers Mothers of Russia
  • Voronezh Journalist Club
  • Roronezh – Chernozemie
  • Youth Human Rights Movement

Human Rights House Yerevan (on behalf of the following NGOs):

  • Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly – Vanadzor
  • Journalists’s Club Asparez
  • Public Information and Need of Knowledge – PINK

Human Rights House Zagreb (on behalf of the following NGOs):

  • APEO / UPIM Association for Promotion of Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities
  • B.a.B.e.
  • CMS – Centre for Peace Studies
  • Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past
  • GOLJP – Civic Committee for Human Rights
  • Svitanje – Association for Protection and Promotion of Mental Health

The Rafto House in Bergen – Norway (on behalf of the following NGOs):

  • Rafto Foundation, Norway

The House of the Helsinki Foundation For Human Rights – Poland (on behalf of the following NGOs):

  • Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Poland

Copies have been sent to:

  • Mr Oleksandr Turchynov, Chairman of Verkhovna Rada
  • Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe
  • Private Office of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe
  • Chairman of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
  • OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine
  • OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
  • United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine
  • Delegation of the European Union in Ukraine
  • Subcommittee on Human Rights of the European Parliament
  • Diplomatic community in Kyiv, Brussels, Geneva and Strasbourg
  • Various ministries of foreign affairs and parliamentary committees on foreign affairs

 

About the Human Rights House Network (www.humanrightshouse.org)

The Human Rights House Network (HRHN) unites 87 human rights NGOs joining forces in 18 independent Human Rights Houses in 13 countries in Western Balkans, Eastern Europe and South Caucasus, East and Horn of Africa, and Western Europe. HRHN’s mandate is to protect, empower and support human rights organisations locally and unite them in an international network of Human Rights Houses.

The Human Rights House Kyiv and the Education Human Rights House Chernihiv are members of HRHN. 10 independent Ukrainian human rights NGOs are members of both Human Rights Houses.

The Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF), based in Oslo (Norway) with an office in Geneva (Switzerland), is HRHN’s secretariat. HRHF is international partner of the South Caucasus Network of Human Rights Defenders and the emerging Balkan Network of Human Rights Defenders.

HRHF has consultative status with the United Nations and HRHN has participatory status with the Council of Europe.

 

Vietnamese bloggers launch online network to push for human rights

16 Dec 2013 | Digital Freedom, Vietnam

(Photo: Shutterstock)

(Photo: Shutterstock)

Vietnam has so far this year locked up more internet bloggers than in 2012. Vietnamese bloggers were therefore quick to react when, along with China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Cuba, the communist country was elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for 2014-2016 term by creating and launching a new instrument for free expression: the Network of Vietnamese Bloggers (NVB).

The network aims to ensure that the Vietnamese government implements its obligations and commitments to the UNHRC through actions rather than mere political statements. Stating that, as Vietnam’s membership to the UNHRC means that all of its 90 million citizens are now members of the Council, the NVB will strive to uphold core values in the promoting and protection of human rights.

In order to do this it believes that Vietnam should:

  • Agree to the 7 UN requests not yet met by the Vietnamese government which would allow UN delegates to visit Vietnam to investigate alleged human rights violations,
  • End torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment of any and all Vietnamese citizens,
  • Release those currently imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their freedom of expression and other rights based on core and universal values of UN treaties,
  • Repeal vaguely-worded laws and decrees which are arbitrarily interpreted,
  • End the state monopoly on media and publishing, ensure that all individuals and organisations are entitled to establish media agencies and publishing house,
  •  Remove firewalls that bar users accessing social media networks.

Chi Dang, Director of Overseas Support for the Free Journalist Network in Vietnam, stated that it was crucial that the launch of the network had international support as this has “proven to provide effective protection for our bloggers on the ground”.

The launch of the network will coincide with the International Human Rights Day on December 10.

This article was published on 16 Dec 2013 at indexoncensorship.org

Guest Post: Hate speech laws in Canada: one step back, two steps forward?

18 Jul 2013 | Americas, Canada, Politics and Society

This year has seen significant developments in Canada’s hate speech legislation, say attorneys Ryder Gilliland and Adam Lazier.

(Wikipedia)

(Wikipedia)

In February, the Supreme Court released its decision Whatcott v. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission), largely upholding the constitutionality of the hate speech provision in the province of Saskatchewan’s human rights statute.

Bill Whatcott is a conservative Christian campaigner who was fined $17,500 dollars in 2005 for distributing hate materials. His case rumbled through the courts until February, when the Supreme Court ruled against him.

In June, however, Parliament voted to repeal a hate speech provision in the federal human rights legislation. This is a significant legislative change, but whether provincial legislatures and courts will follow suit is very much an open question.

The regulation of hate speech in Canada

Hate speech in Canada is regulated in two ways. Section 319 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to wilfully promote or publicly incite hatred. A violation of Section 319 carries serious consequences, including imprisonment for up to two years. Someone charged criminally under Section 319 has a number of defences available, including “truth”, and that the statements were in the public interest and the accused reasonably believed them to be true.

Hate speech is also prohibited by human rights legislation at both the federal and provincial levels. Human rights legislation carries less serious consequences than the criminal law provisions, but a respondent to a human rights claim has far fewer defences available. Human rights complaints are decided by administrative tribunals rather than courts.

Both types of hate speech legislation have been challenged in court as violations of Canada’s constitutional protection for freedom of expression. These challenges have not met with much success. Although the Supreme Court struck down an antiquated “false news” law used to prosecute holocaust denier Ernst Zundel (R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731), it has upheld the constitutionality of the criminal offence of wilfully promoting hatred (R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697).

In Whatcott, the Supreme Court largely upheld a hate-speech prohibition in Saskatchewan’s human rights legislation, despite that the provision does not even allow a defence of truth (2013 SCC 11).

The repeal of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

 Just four months after the Whatcott decision parliament voted to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the “CHRA”), the federal equivalent to the Saskatchewan law at issue in Whatcott. The repeal comes into effect after one year.

Section 13, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990, prohibits anyone from repeatedly communicating hate speech over the telephone or internet. The Tribunal can punish contraventions by ordering that the speaker financially compensate the victim. (A provision allowing the Tribunal to also order a $10,000 “penalty” as well was struck down by a 2012 Federal Court decision).

Human Rights Laws: A blunt instrument for regulating speech

Canada’s criminal hate speech laws arguably have a minimal impact on freedom of expression rights, as there is a high burden of proof and there are numerous defences available, including the defence of “truth”. It seems unlikely that mainstream media will be prosecuted, much less prosecuted successfully, under Section 319 of the Criminal Code.

Human rights hate speech laws are different. There are far fewer protections for respondents in human rights cases and the mainstream media has recently had to defend against human rights complaints. Thus, they appear to be a potentially dangerous incursion into free speech territory.

Hate speech laws in human rights legislation rest on a tenuous and sometimes artificial distinction between hate speech and other speech. In the context of libel law, for instance, a speaker has a constitutional right to defences for truth, fair comment, and responsible communication in the public interest. Once statements are classified as “hate speech” in the context of a human rights complaint, however, they lose that protection – a human rights tribunal may order compensation even if the statement is true, and even if it was made in good faith on a matter of public interest.

The line between hate speech and the merely offensive is slippery at best. Whatcott and earlier Supreme Court decisions define hate speech as statements that tend to expose people to “unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation and vilification” on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, which includes things like race, religion, and sexual orientation. However, human rights legislation doesn’t require that anyone prove the statements at issue actually caused hatred. This leaves tribunals and courts guessing about whether the statements at issue could have that effect, or whether they are just “offensive comments or expressions of dislike”.

This combination of strict laws with a slippery definition of hate speech puts everyone’s expression at risk, not just that of extremists. In a recent British Columbia case, the Human Rights Tribunal found that a stand-up comic had engaged in “discriminatory” speech by insulting audience members based on their sexual orientation. The decision was recently upheld by on judicial review (Ismail v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2013 BCSC 1079).

Media organisations have successfully defended against hate speech complaints brought before human rights tribunals, but have incurred significant legal expenses along the way. The imprecise definition of hate speech makes it difficult for the media to assess its risk before publication, and therefore risks chilling debate.

More broadly, freedom of expression relies on courts and legislatures accepting the importance of the “marketplace of ideas”; the notion that society is best served when ideas, even hateful ideas, are disproven through public debate. The “marketplace of ideas” concept formed part of the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision to recognize the responsible communication defence in libel law in 2009 (Grant v. Torstar Corp, 2009 SCC 61). “In the course of debate,” the Court wrote then, “misconceptions and errors are exposed. What withstands testing emerges as truth”.

Hate speech laws in the human rights context, and court decisions that uphold them, are inconsistent with concept of a marketplace of ideas. They threaten free speech. It is encouraging to see parliament repealing section 13 of the CHRA. The question now is who will follow.

Ryder Gilliland is a Toronto-based attorney at Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP and an executive member of Ad IDEM, the Canadian Media Lawyers Association.

Adam Lazier is an attorney with Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP.

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK