Where is the right protected?
The State‘s (note: a state refers to a nation state) duty to protect the rights of defenders is derived from each
State‘s primary responsibility and duty to protect all human rights, as
established in:
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 2),
- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 2),
- The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Article 3),
- The European Convention on Human Rights (Article 1),
- The African Charter on Human and Peoples‘ Rights (Article 1), and
- The American Convention on Human Rights (Article 1).
The right to be protected and the Declaration on human rights defenders
The State‘s duty to protect human rights defenders is provided for in
the preamble to the Declaration as well as in its articles 2, 9 and 12:
Article 2 1. Each State has a prime responsibility and duty to protect,
promote and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms, inter
alia, by adopting such steps as may be necessary to create all
conditions necessary in the social, economic, political and other
fields, as well as the legal guarantees required to ensure that all
persons under its jurisdiction, individually and in assohe violation of those rights. […]
Article 12 1. […] 2. The State shall take all necessary measures to
ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone,
individually and in association with others, against any violence,
threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination,
pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her
legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present
Declaration. 3. In this connection, everyone is entitled, individually
and in association with others, to be protected effectively under
national law in reacting against or opposing, through peaceful means,
activities and acts, including those by omission, attributable to States
that result in violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as
well as acts of violence perpetrated by groups or individuals that
affect the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
As the Declaration on human rights defenders contains a series of
principles and rights that are based on human rights standards enshrined
in other legally binding international instruments, such as the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the State‘s duty
to protect all human rights includes the protection of the rights of
human rights defenders. Thus, for instance, the right to life, the right
to privacy, and the rights to freedom of association and expression
should be protected from violations not only by State agents, but also
by private persons or entities. This duty should apply at all times
(A/65/223, para. 31).
What does the right to be protected entail?
State’s obligation to protect
ciation with
others, are able to enjoy all those rights and freedoms in practice. 2.
Each State shall adopt such legislative, administrative and other steps
as may be necessary to ensure that the rights and freedoms referred to
in the present Declaration are effectively guaranteed. Article 9 1. In
the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the
promotion and protection of human rights as referred to in the present
Declaration, everyone has the right, individually and in association
with others, to benefit from an effective remedy and to be protected.
States bear the primary responsibility for protecting individuals,
including defenders, under their jurisdiction, regardless of the status
of the alleged perpetrators (A/HRC/13/22, para. 42). The State‘s duty to
protect the rights of defenders from violations committed by States and
non-State actors is derived from each State‘s primary responsibility
and duty to protect all human rights, as enshrined in article 2 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which establishes
the obligation of States to guarantee to all individuals within their
territories and subject to their jurisdiction the rights recognized in
the Covenant without discrimination (A/65/223, para. 30).
The obligation to protect and the principle of non-discrimination
Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women establishes guarantees of basic human
rights and fundamental freedoms for women: ―States Parties shall take in
all fields, in particular in the political, social, economic and
cultural fields, all appropriate measures, including legislation, to
ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of
guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and
fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men.
The obligation on States to protect includes both negative and positive
aspects. On the one hand, States must refrain from violating human
rights. According to the Human Rights Committee: ―States Parties must
refrain from violation of the rights recognized by the Covenant, and any
restrictions on any of those rights must be permissible under the
relevant provisions of the Covenant. Where such restrictions are made,
States must demonstrate their necessity and only take such measures as
are proportionate to the pursuance of legitimate aims in order to ensure
continuous and effective protection of Covenant rights. In no case may
the restrictions be applied or invoked in a manner that would impair the
essence of a Covenant right.
On the other hand, States should act with due diligence to prevent,
investigate and punish any violation of the rights enshrined in the
Declaration. In other words, States should prevent violations of the
rights of defenders under their jurisdiction by taking legal, judicial,
administrative and all other measures to ensure the full enjoyment by
defenders of their rights; investigating alleged violations; prosecuting
alleged perpetrators; and providing defenders with remedies and
reparation (A/65/223, para. 34). Examples of actions or omissions which
contravene the State´s duty of due diligence include the failure to
provide effective protection to defenders at risk who have documented
attacks and threats by non-State actors or who have been granted interim
protection measures by regional human rights mechanisms (A/65/223,
para. 35).
State’s responsibility for the acts of non-State actors
In the context of human rights violations by third parties, the
obligation to protect, first, involves ensuring that defenders do not
suffer from violations of their rights by non-State actors. Failure to
protect could, in particular circumstances, engage the State‘s
responsibility (A/65/223, para. 29). For instance, acts and omissions
committed by non-State actors under the instructions, control or
direction of the State can, under certain circumstances, give rise to
State responsibility. One example of a situation might be where a State
creates or equips armed groups, such as paramilitaries or armed bands,
and instructs them to attack human rights defenders. In this instance,
the paramilitaries could be considered de facto State organs, and the
commission of acts in breach of international law against defenders
could be attributed to the State (A/65/223, para. 41).
In cases involving non-State actors — including private companies and
illegal armed groups — it is paramount that prompt and full
investigations are conducted and perpetrators brought to justice.
Failure by States to prosecute and punish such perpetrators is a clear
violation of article 12 of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.
Addressing the issue of impunity is a key step to ensuring a safe
environment for defenders (A/HRC/13/22, para. 42).
State responsibility in relation to actions and omissions of non-State
actors as 2 ICCPR General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General
Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant,
CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, 26 May 2004, para. 6.
Declaration on human rights defenders provided in article 12, paragraph
3, of the Declaration has been reiterated by numerous human rights
bodies, including the Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights. The rights enshrined in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right to life and
freedom of association and expression, should be protected from
violations not only by State agents, but also private persons or
entities (A/HRC/13/22, para. 43).
Responsibility of non-State actors
Although States bear the primary responsibility for protecting human
rights defenders, it is necessary to recall that the Declaration on
Human Rights Defenders is addressed not only to States and human rights
defenders, but to everyone. It is set forth in article 10 of the
Declaration that, ―no one shall participate, by act or by failure to act
where required, in violating human rights and fundamental freedoms
(A/HRC/13/22, para. 44 and A/65/223, para. 2). In addition, the
Declaration reaffirms the responsibility of everyone not to violate the
rights of others, encompassing the responsibility of non-State actors to
respect the rights of human rights defenders, in the preamble as well
as in articles 11, 12.3 and 19 (A/65/223, para. 22).
Accordingly, all non-State actors, including armed groups, the media,
faith-based groups, communities, companies and individuals should
refrain from taking any measures that would result in preventing
defenders from exercising their rights. On the contrary, non-State
actors can, and should, play a preventive role by promoting the
Declaration as well as the rights and activities of human rights
defenders (A/65/223, para. 22).
In relation to private national or transnational corporations, the
mandate refers to the responsibility of companies to respect human
rights, as emphasized by the Special Representative of the
Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational
corporations and other business enterprises, Mr. John Ruggie, in his
report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/8/5), submitted in 2008. The
Human Rights Council endorsed the Special Representative‘s policy
framework for business and human rights, as elaborated in his report.
The framework rests on the three principles of ―protect, respect and
remedy‖: the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third
parties, including businesses; the corporate responsibility to respect
human rights; and the need for more effective access to remedies.4 The
Human Rights Council later emphasized that transnational corporations
and other business enterprises have a responsibility to respect
encompasses people, organizations, groups and corporations not composed
of State agents or not being State organs (A/65/223, para. 1).
On March 2011, the Special Representative, Mr. John Ruggie issued the
―Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights", for the consideration
of the UN Human Rights Council at its June 2011 session. The Principles
delineate ―how States and businesses should implement the UN ‗Protect,
Respect and Remedy‘ Framework in order to better manage business and
human rights challenges.‖
See http://www.business-humanrights.org/SpecialRepPortal/Home/Protect-Respect-Remedy-Framework/GuidingPrinciples.
Commentary to the human rights (see Human Rights Council resolution
8/7).5 Consequently, business enterprises also have a responsibility to
respect the rights of human rights defenders (A/65/223, para. 23).
The mandate has also stated that discharging the responsibility to
respect human rights requires due diligence. This concept, which is
derived from, but should be distinguished from, a State‘s due diligence
responsibility, should be understood to mean that companies must ensure
that their activities do not infringe upon the rights of others,
including human rights defenders. This implies that companies should
identify and prevent human rights violations against defenders that may
result from their activities and operations. Companies should engage
with human rights defenders while implementing the four components of
the human rights due diligence standard, as elaborated by the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General on business and human rights
(A/65/223, para. 25).
Harmonizing domestic legal frameworks with the Declaration
States should harmonize their domestic legal frameworks with the
Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. To enhance the protection of
defenders and ensure that the rights and freedoms referred to in the
Declaration are guaranteed, it is paramount that States review their
national legal frameworks and abolish legal or administrative provisions
impeding the work and activities of defenders (A/HRC/13/22, para. 63).
In this context, States should verify that their security legislation,
including their intelligence and counter-intelligence legislation, is
not used to impede the work of defenders. States should also translate
and disseminate the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and organize
training for law enforcement officials and judges on the rights
contained in the Declaration (A/HRC/13/22, para. 64).
Protection measures and programs
States have developed different measures and protection programmes to
ensure the personal safety of human rights defenders at imminent risk.
Many States use their witness protection programs as their only
mechanism to ensure the protection of human rights defenders at risk.
However, the mandate has stressed that witness protection programs are
not sufficient to provide for the safety of defenders since in most
cases they have not been designed for that purpose and do not take the
specific needs of human rights defenders into account (A/HRC/13/22,
paras. 71, 73 and 74).
Other States have put in place protection mechanisms and measures at the
national level to contribute to the physical protection of defenders.
The corporate responsibility to respect human rights (see A/HRC/14/27,
paras. 54-78) is recognized in soft-law instruments such as the
Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational
Enterprises and Social Policy and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,
and it constitutes one of the commitments that companies undertake when
joining the United Nations Global Compact (A/65/223, para. 24).
Measures range from establishing specialized investigative units for
crimes against human rights activists, setting up an early warning
system, providing police protection and bodyguards, and establishing
programmes for emergency placement of defenders in another region or
country (A/HRC/13/22 paras. 77, 79, 81 and 82 and E/CN.4/2006/95, para.
45).
Many of these measures and mechanisms, however, have received some
criticism with regard to their efficiency and sustainability. For
example, the outcome of the risk assessments has reportedly failed to
match, in several instances, the real situation of vulnerability faced
by the defenders requesting protection. Furthermore, protective measures
have, on some occasions, failed to address the specificities of the
profile of defenders pertaining to gender, ethnic affiliation,
leadership position and place of residence (A/HRC/13/22/Add.3, para.
111). There have also been cases in which the bodyguards assigned for
the protection of defenders have reportedly spied on them and
transmitted information to the intelligence agency (Ibid., para. 112).
Human rights defenders have also raised concerns about the privatization
of the protection measures, which would allow members of private
security companies to provide protection to them. Defenders fear former
paramilitaries could be employed, and could similarly spy on them and
transmit information to intelligence services, in pursuit of economic
benefits (Ibid., para. 113).
Consequently, many defenders have refused police protection as they are
not confident that they would be properly protected. Furthermore, the
large number of Government entities and ministries in charge of
implementation of the programmes often causes confusion and a lack of
confidence within the community of defenders (Ibid., paras. 80, 83 and
E/CN.4/2006/95, para. 56).
Concerning protection measures and programs to protect women defenders
and those working on women‘s rights or gender issues, the information
received indicates that in the vast majority of cases there are no
specific mechanisms in place or, where they do exist, they are often
hampered by a lack of implementation, political will or
gender-sensitivity (A/HRC/16/44, para. 90). More specifically, existing
protection measures and mechanisms are often limited and lack a
gender-specific approach (A/HRC/16/44, para. 92).
A factor reported as hindering the development or implementation of
State-based policies or practices for the protection of women defenders
and those working on women‘s rights or gender issues is the lack of will
on the part of Government authorities, including the police. Government
or police officials may themselves share the prevailing conservative
and patriarchal views of the community in general towards women
defenders and those working on women‘s rights or gender issues, and thus
may have little or no enthusiasm to intervene effectively for their
protection in spite of their obligation to do so (A/HRC/16/44, para.
96). Another factor affecting the efficiency of protection mechanisms is
that they do not recognize non-State actors as part of the group of
perpetrators of violations.
Commentary to the of the rights of women defenders and those working on women‘s rights or gender issues (A/HRC/16/44, para. 92).
While a set of protection mechanisms must be put in place in order to
prevent violations against human rights defenders, the mandate has
underscored that such measures can only represent temporary protection
from an imminent danger. Adequate protection requires a comprehensive
and transversal policy from Governments to establish an appropriate
environment where the legitimacy of the work of human rights defenders
is respected, the legal framework is in line with the Declaration‘s
provisions, and those taking adverse actions against defenders can be
brought to justice (E/CN.4/2006/95, para. 45).
Lastly, in discharging their duty to protect, States parties to
international and regional human rights instruments must also implement
the interim measures provided by international and regional human rights
mechanisms, such as the precautionary measures granted by the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, so as to prevent violations
by non-State actors, including corporations (A/65/223, para. 32).
The obligation to protect in States with a federal structure
The mandate has noted that the federal structure of certain States has
sometimes impeded the prosecution of human rights violations, in
particular those committed against human rights defenders. Regardless of
the structure of a State, federal authorities retain the primary
responsibility to protect human rights defenders and guarantee that
their rights are protected. Federal Governments should therefore take
all necessary measures to ensure that the transfer to States of the
jurisdiction to prosecute and try human rights violations committed
against defenders is effective (A/HRC/13/22, para. 45).
The United Nations treaty bodies have repeatedly stated that the
application of State obligations shall extend to all parts of federal
States without any limitation or exception. States with a federal
structure should therefore ensure that the Declaration on Human Rights
Defenders is fully applicable throughout their territory. Whenever
possible, unified provisions should be adopted and the rights contained
in the Declaration should be directly enforceable by State courts
(A/HRC/13/22, para. 46).
Ending impunity
The mandate is concerned about the paucity of practical initiatives to
physically protect human rights defenders effectively. Only a few
countries have adopted legislation or taken effective measures to put an
end to the numerous and violent attacks against defenders. Impunity
continues to prevail and no specific compensation mechanisms for human
rights violations committed against human rights defenders have been
created (A/HRC/13/22, para. 112). Addressing the issue of impunity, in
line with article 12 of the Declaration, is a key step to ensuring a
safe environment for defenders. The degree of security enjoyed by
human rights defenders will determine the capacity to expose human
rights violations and to seek redress for victims of such violations
(E/CN.4/2006/95, para. 59).
Common restrictions and violations
Since the adoption of the Declaration on Human Rights, many
intergovernmental and non-governmental regional mechanisms for the
protection of defenders have been created and declarations and
resolutions adopted (A/HRC/13/22, para. 69). Despite these achievements,
in every region of the world, defenders, including women human rights
defenders – and often their beloved ones – continue to be subjected to
intimidation, threats, killings, disappearances, torture and
ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, surveillance, administrative and
judicial harassment and more generally, stigmatization by State
authorities and non-State actors. The Special Rapporteur sends an
average of 350 communications to Governments per year, including
allegation letters and urgent appeals. Of these, about one third of the
communications concerned women defenders and those working on women‘s
rights or gender issues (A/HRC/16/44, para. 35).
Defenders face illegitimate restrictions on the exercise of their rights
to freedom of opinion and expression, access to information, access to
funding, and freedoms of association - including registration - peaceful
assembly, and movement. A climate of impunity for violations committed
against defenders prevails in numerous countries. Since the beginning
of her mandate, the Special Rapporteur has identified specific
situations impeding the work of human rights defenders and leading to a
highly insecure environment (A/HRC/13/22, para. 26).
a) Stigmatization: The growing characterization of human rights
defenders as ―terrorists, ―enemies of the State or ―political
opponents by State authorities and State-owned media is a particularly
worrying trend, as it is regularly used to delegitimize the work of
defenders and increase their vulnerability. (A/HRC/13/22, para. 27).
Aside from the ―political‖ stigmatization to which both women defenders
and their male counterparts are subjected in certain contexts, including
accusations of being fronts for guerrilla movements, terrorists,
political extremists, separatists, foreign countries or interests, women
human rights defenders often face further stigmatization by virtue of
their sex or the gender- or sexuality-based rights they advocate. As
noted by the Special Rapporteur, such work can be perceived as
challenging established socio-cultural norms, tradition or perceptions
about the role and status of women in society.
As a result of this, women defenders often find themselves and their
work subjected to stigmatization by both State and non-State actors. A
common accusation directed in particular at those working on women‘s
rights, gender issues, and LGBT rights, is the assertion that these
defenders are somehow advocating or attempting to import ―foreign‖ or
―Western‖ values which contradict national or regional culture. State
agents or representatives are often alleged to be responsible for such
stigmatization (A/HRC/16/44, para. 85).
The mandate has, on repeated occasions, expressed serious concerns in
relation to this phenomenon, since it contributes to the perception that
defenders are legitimate targets for abuse by State and non-State
actors (A/HRC/13/22, para. 27). Acknowledging the work and roles of
groups, organs or individuals in the promotion and protection of human
rights and fundamental freedoms is of primary importance. This is the
first step towards a safe working environment for defenders
(A/HRC/13/22, para. 29).
b) Prosecution of defenders and criminalization of their activities:
States increasingly resort to legal actions to violate the human rights
of defenders denouncing human rights violations. Defenders are arrested
and prosecuted on false charges. Many others are detained without
charge, often without access to a lawyer, medical care or a judicial
process, and without being informed of the reason for their arrest
(A/HRC/13/22, para. 31).
Example In July 2010, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
rights defenders, together with the Special Rapporteur on the
independence of judges and lawyers, sent an urgent appeal regarding the
sentencing of the president of a human rights organization and also a
commissioner of the International Commission of Jurists, to three years
imprisonment. According to information received, a criminal court
started hearing his case on 18 February 2010, on the charges of
―weakening national sentiments and encouraging racist and sectarian
feelings‖, and ―transferring false and exaggerated news that weaken
national sentiments‖ under the penal code. Five subsequent hearings were
conducted on 10 March, 6 April, 4 May, 27 May and 6 June. The final
hearing and sentencing took place on 23 June 2010, and he was sentenced
to three years imprisonment. According to information received, a number
of procedural fair trial guarantees were not complied with during the
trial. The defense lawyers called 11 (eleven) witnesses to testify
during the trial and it is alleged that the President of the criminal
court forbid all defense witnesses from testifying and did not take into
account the evidence submitted by the defense. The conviction was based
on three secret reports of the intelligence service, even though
defence lawyers had presented credible evidence undermining the
authenticity of the reports. Further his lawyers were not allowed to
visit and meet with him in jail without authorization from the bar
association. On several occasions, the bar association refused to allow
his lawyers to visit him in jail. During consultations with his lawyer
there was a prison guard present. This case has previously been
addressed by the Special Procedures Mechanisms in communications dated 3
August 2009 and 10 December 2009. In these communications concern was
raised that the disbarment and criminal charges against this defender
were reportedly related to his peaceful and legitimate activities in
defence of human rights, including as a lawyer. We are yet to receive a
reply to the communications we addressed to the Government
(A/HRC/16/44/Add.1 paras. 2170 to 2174).
Communications issued by the mandate indicate that the judicial
harassment and criminalization of human rights defenders‘ activities by
States‘ authorities has not decreased. Some States tend to
systematically invoke national security and public safety to restrict
the scope of activities of defenders. In many countries, trade
unionists, members of NGOs and social movements face repeated arrests
and criminal proceedings for charges of ―forming criminal gangs,
―obstructing public roads, ―inciting crime, ―creating civil
disobedience or ―threatening the State security, public safety or the
protection of health or morals. Moreover, human rights defenders,
including defence lawyers, providing legal assistance to other defenders
or victims of human rights violations are threatened, denied access to
courthouses and their clients, and arrested and charged under various
criminal provisions. The multitude of arrests and detentions of
defenders also contributes to their stigmatization, since they are
depicted and perceived as troublemakers by the population (A/HRC/13/22,
para. 32).
Some States continue to resort to ambiguous security laws to arrest and
detain human rights defenders, often without charges. In some States,
national intelligence and security services have the power to detain
human rights defenders without charge for a prolonged period of time. In
some instances, agents of intelligence and security services are
granted immunity from prosecution, and can therefore commit human rights
violations against defenders in total impunity. Defenders may also face
arrests, detention and harsh sentences, including the death penalty,
under various State secret laws. The Special Rapporteur is concerned
that legislation on State secrets often lacks clarity on what
constitutes a State secret and that States frequently resort to such
legislation to silence defenders and political opponents. The activities
of defenders are also often criminalized and their freedom of
association and expression violated through the use of extremely broad
provisions of criminal codes (A/HRC/13/22, para. 34).
Analysis of the communications sent by the mandate also reveals a
worrying trend of criminalization of the activities carried out by women
human rights defenders and those working on women‘s rights or gender
issues throughout the world. Many communications reported arrests and
further acts of criminalization including criminal investigations,
charges, trials, and sentences varying from fines to administrative
detentions to lengthy prison terms (A/HRC/16/44, para. 70). Allegations
of irregularities relating to due process and fair trial procedure are
commonplace (A/HRC/16/44, para. 71).
Those at risk include women defenders working on the rights of religious
and national minorities; women‘s rights, including family planning and
reproductive rights; housing rights; democratic reform; impunity for
alleged use of torture; women defenders working on human rights issues
related to conflict; pro-democracy advocates; those denouncing
violations to the European Court of Human Rights; and women journalists.
In other countries, those most at risk appear to be women activists for
indigenous rights along with other women community leaders, campesino
and rural activists, environmentalists, and lawyers (A/HRC/16/44, para.
73, 77 and 79).
The prevalence of the alleged use of torture, as well as other forms of
ill-treatment and mistreatment of women human rights defenders and those
working on women‘s rights or gender issues while in detention is
alarming (A/HRC/16/44, para. 81). In some countries, there is a a
worrying trend of the alleged committal of women defenders to
psychiatric institutions, wherein they may be subjected to forced
medication, as a form of punishment for their work, along with other
forms of mistreatment such as assaults and beatings or sleep deprivation
(A/HRC/16/44, para. 82).
c) Role of non-State actors: These past few years, the safety of
defenders has been increasingly threatened by a growing number of
non-State actors in a climate of impunity (A/HRC/13/22, para. 38).
Individuals acting on their own or as part of groups, whether in
collusion with States or not, have been increasingly involved in attacks
on human rights defenders. Guerillas, private militias, vigilante
groups and armed groups have been implicated in violence against
defenders, including beatings, killings and various acts of intimidation
(A/HRC/13/22, para. 39).
Private companies have also been directly or indirectly involved in acts
of violence against defenders. In this regard, the mandate has
underlined the situation of defenders working on economic, social and
cultural rights, who are increasingly vulnerable, since their work is
not always recognized as human rights work (A/HRC/13/22, para. 39).
Private corporations have allegedly been impeding the activities of
defenders working, inter alia, on labour rights, the exploitation of
natural resources, the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities
(A/65/223, para. 9). In certain countries, attacks have been perpetrated
against defenders who supported indigenous communities affected by gold
and silver mining by transnational companies (A/65/223, para. 15).
Also, in several cases brought to the attention of the Special
Rapporteur, it has been alleged that local authorities had colluded with
the private sector or that private companies had aided and abetted the
commission of violations against human rights defenders (A/65/223, para.
11).
In addition, community leaders and faith-based groups are increasingly
resorting to the stigmatization of, and attacks against, defenders
working on issues such as the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender persons (A/HRC/4/37/Add.2, para. 32), violence against women
and domestic violence. In numerous instances, defenders have been
threatened with ostracism or pressured to stop their work in defence of
human rights. Furthermore, the information received shows that women
human rights defenders working in the area of domestic violence and
other types of violence against women are often pressured by the family
members of victims or threatened by the perpetrators or their own family
members to drop cases (A/65/223, para. 16).
In some parts of the world, the media has been involved in violations
committed against human rights defenders, notably in relation to
violations of their right to privacy. In certain States, human rights
defenders have been subjected to denigration campaigns in the press
(although sometimes the perpetrators were State-owned outlets). The
mandate strongly condemns such stigmatization, which often causes
defenders to be portrayed as ―troublemakers and consequently
legitimizes attacks against them (A/65/223, para. 17).
The mandate has been made aware of cases in which newspapers have
directly incited homophobia or portrayed defenders working on lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender rights as homosexuals (A/65/223, para.
18). Stereotypical portrayals and insults have also been used against
women defenders working on issues such as rape, domestic violence and
female genital mutilation (A/65/223, para. 19). Example In 2009, the
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, together
with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right
to freedom of opinion and expression, sent an urgent appeal regarding
physical attacks against two members of an organization working with
sexual minorities and a media campaign against human rights defenders
who work with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI)
human rights organizations. According to the information received, a
newspaper published an article, self-described as a 'killer dossier',
listing the names of several human rights defenders and other LGBTI
people. The article contained pictures, names, physical descriptions,
details about professions and places of residence, negative stereotyping
and accusations of ―spreading the gay and lesbian vice in schools‖.
This was followed by a public petition presented to Parliament by an NGO
requesting new laws providing harsher punishment for homosexuality.
This NGO has taken the lead in organising an anti-LGBTI campaign and
fomenting anti-LGBTI sentiments. 
This campaign--which TV, radio and
printed media echoed--is fostering a climate of hostility and is
encouraging attacks against LGBTI defenders. Following this campaign,
LGBTI defenders have reportedly been the subject of an increased level
of harassment and threats, including death threats, and killing. Such a
smear campaign will further incite hatred and violence against human
rights defenders and members of the LGBTI community (A/HRC/13/22/Add.1,
paras. 2314 to 2320).
d) Sexual violence and rape: Violations faced by women defenders may
take a gender-specific form, ranging from verbal abuse based on their
sex, to sexual abuse and rape. Cases of the latter are particularly
prevalent in situations of conflict, which are often characterized by an
environment of complete impunity for perpetrators (A/HRC/16/44, para.
24). Sexual assaults, including instances of gang rape in detention of
LGBT activists, have also been reported. The alleged perpetrators of
these acts were mostly unknown/ unidentified but also included members of the police, military, armed groups, or local members of the community (A/HRC/16/44, para. 87).
In certain cultural and social contexts, issues relating to rape and
sexual abuse of women remain taboo. Women working on such issues,
including victims seeking redress, organizations representing victims or
granting them shelter, and organizations working with sex workers,
among others, often face a hostile response from both society and State
as a result of their work (A/HRC/16/44, para. 88). Further, in certain
contexts, if a woman human rights defender is subjected to rape or
sexual abuse as a result of her work, she may be perceived by her
extended family as having brought shame on both the family and the wider
community.8 Indeed, even when no rape or sexual abuse has occurred,
women defenders are often subjected to stigmatization and ostracism by
community leaders, faith-based groups, families and communities who
consider them to be jeopardizing religion, honour or culture through
their work (A/HRC/16/44, para. 24).
Good practices and recommendations
- Respecting defenders’ rights. States should respect and protect the
rights of human rights defenders in accordance with the Declaration on
human rights defenders (A/65/223, para. 63).
- Protection and recognition for defenders most exposed to attacks and
violations. States should make more efforts to recognize and protect
women human rights defenders and defenders working to promote economic,
social and cultural rights, as well as those working to uphold the
rights of minorities, indigenous peoples and lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender people. Those defenders need specific and enhanced
protection, as well as targeted and deliberate efforts to make the
environment in which they operate a safer, more enabling and more
accepting one (A/63/288 Annex, para. 8).
- Providing legitimacy to the work of defenders. States should refrain
from stigmatizing the work of human rights defenders. Recognition of the
status and role of human rights defenders and the legitimacy of their
activities in public statements is the first step to preventing or at
least reducing threats and risks against them (A/HRC/13/22, para. 114
a).
- Harmonizing domestic laws with the Declaration. States should consider
adopting the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders as a part of
domestic legislation and establish focal points for human rights
defenders within the office of the Head of State or Government, or other
relevant ministries. (A/HRC/13/22, para. 114 a). The mandate also calls
on States to disseminate Declaration on human rights defenders not only
among State agents but also to individuals, groups and organs of
society and other non-State actors, including faith-based groups, the
media, private and State-owned companies (A/65/223, para. 62).
- Enacting legislation on the protection of defenders. States should
adopt national and provincial laws on the protection of human rights
defenders, with a specific reference to the work of women human rights
defenders. These laws should be developed in consultation with civil
society and on the basis of technical advice from relevant international
agencies (A/HRC/13/22/Add.2, para. 97).
- Guidelines for protection programs. States can use the following
minimum guidelines regarding protection programmes for human rights
defenders (A/HRC/13/22, para. 113 and 111):
a) Human rights defenders should be consulted throughout the setting up or review of protection programmes;
b) The structure of a protection programme should be defined by law;
c) In federal States, the structure of a protection programme should be
defined by federal legislation. The administration of such a programme
should be overseen by the Federal Government even in cases where it is
in practice administered by States;
d) Protection programmes should include an early warning system in order
to anticipate and trigger the launch of protective measures. Such a
system should be managed centrally and risk assessments should involve
different groups of human rights defenders;
e) Specific trainings on human rights, gender issues and on the
Declaration on Human Rights Defenders should be a prerequisite for the
selection of police and other law enforcement officials that would be
involved in the programme;
f) The physical protection of defenders should not be outsourced to
third parties unless they are properly trained. Their selection and
recruitment should be made with the consultation of human defenders;
g) Adequate financial resources should be devoted to such programmes. In
this regard, a better assessment of the security needs of human rights
defenders will enable States to better cost such programmes. Third
States should contribute to the development or review of sustainable and
well-financed protection programmes.
h) Protection programmes and measures should address the specificities
of the profile of defenders pertaining to gender, ethnic affiliation,
leadership position and place of residence.
i) The Government should fully guarantee that personnel assigned to the
protection of human rights defenders do not gather information for
intelligence purposes. Any ongoing illegal intelligence activities
targeting human rights defenders should stop immediately
(A/HRC/13/22/Add.3 paras. 157 and 159);
- Protection of women human rights defenders and those working on
women’s rights or gender issues. States should use the following
recommendations (A/HRC/16/44, para. 109):
a) Publicly acknowledge the particular and significant role played by
women defenders and those working on women‘s rights or gender issues in
the consolidation and advancement of plural and inclusive societies as a
first step to the prevention or reduction of the risks that they face;
b) Protect women defenders and those working on women‘s rights or gender
issues from violations perpetrated by State and non-State actors by
acknowledging such violations and by offering effective security
measures;
c) Ensure that violations against women defenders and those working on
women‘s rights or gender issues committed by State and non-State agents
are promptly and impartially investigated and that those responsible are
punished in an appropriate manner. Fighting impunity is essential for
the security of this group of defenders;
d) Specifically involve women defenders and those working on women‘s
rights or gender issues in any consultation with human rights defenders,
whether it be in the context of protection programmes or otherwise;
e) Ensure that programmes for the security and protection of human
rights defenders integrate a gender perspective and address the specific
risks and security needs of women defenders and those working on
women‘s rights or gender issues;
f) Promote projects to improve and further develop the documentation of
cases of violations against women defenders and those working on women‘s
rights or gender issues;
g) Increase material resources for the immediate protection of women
defenders and those working on women‘s rights or gender issues and make
sure that they can be mobilized in a flexible manner to guarantee their
effective physical and psychological protection; and
h) Ensure that cases of sexual violence against defenders are attended
to by personnel who are qualified from a gender perspective. The victim
must be consulted during each step of the process.
- Implementing interim protection measures. States should implement the
interim measures of protection granted by international and regional
human rights mechanisms to human rights defenders by, inter alia, taking
immediate steps to provide them with appropriate protection (A/65/223,
para. 64).
- Accountability of non-State actors. Non-State actors and private
entities should abide by the Declaration on human rights defenders and
refrain from endangering the safety of defenders and/or impeding their
work (A/HRC/13/22, para. 44 and A/65/223, paras. 53 and 54).
- Accountability of national and transnational corporations. National
and transnational corporations should (A/65/223, paras. 56 to 60):
a) Involve and consult with human rights defenders when carrying out country assessments;
b) Develop national human rights policies in cooperation with defenders,
including monitoring and accountability mechanisms for violations of
the rights of defenders;
c) Fully implement the recommendations of the Special Representative of
the Secretary-General on business and human rights on the corporate
responsibility of respect;
d) Act with due diligence and ensure that their activities will not
infringe the rights of others, including human rights defenders;
e) Promote the role and activities of human rights defenders.
- The role of national institutions. National human rights institutions
are encouraged to prioritize the protection of human rights defenders on
their agenda and establish focal points for human rights defenders, to
play an important role in fostering the dissemination of the Declaration
and to investigate complaints made by human rights defenders
(A/HRC/13/22, para. 114 c).
- The role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is encouraged to
develop a comprehensive strategy to protect human rights defenders,
including against threats and reprisals by non-State actors (A/65/223,
para. 80).
