Victims of Torture, Unilateral Coercive Measures, Reprisals Must Be Protected from Persistent Abuses, Third Committee Hears in Rights Discussion
Rapporteur on Torture Calls Heinous Crime Inhuman, Degrading Abuse of Power
Delegates stressed the need to protect the independence of judges and the right to freedom of expression as well as victims of torture, unilateral coercive measures and reprisals, as the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) continued its debate on human rights today.
Among the nine independent experts and special mandate holders to present their findings during interactive dialogues, Dr. Alice Jill Edwards, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, emphasized that torture is an extreme abuse of power, adding that inhuman or degrading harm is carried out every day and, at times, routinely.
Highlighting the increasing use of technology in law enforcement and military operations, she underscored the need for alternatives to confession‑oriented criminal justice systems, which have been found to incentivize abusive and coercive interrogation tactics.
During the ensuing dialogue, the representative of Ukraine said mass killings, executions and torture in cities like Bucha shook the world’s consciousness. The recent report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine details mass war crimes committed by Russian Federation troops in Ukraine, including executions and torture, as part of Moscow’s consistent tactics of terror.
The representative of the United States strongly condemned torture in Xinjiang by China, in Ukraine by the Russian Federation forces, and in the Syrian Arab Republic and Iran by State authorities, urging States to abide by international obligations to end this heinous crime.
In rebuttal, the Russian Federation’s delegate said Western countries continue to use double standards and lecture others, while staying silent about their own human rights problems. He pointed to violations at the United States prison at Guantanamo Bay and those of Ukrainian military personnel, who have tortured to death civilians showing sympathy for his country.
Similarly, the representative of China rejected statements by the United States as well as accusations highlighting abuses at Xinjiang, stressing that these are the product of coercion by the West. Pointing to Guantanamo Bay and experts’ calls to close the prison, he said there is no best way to promote human rights, only better ways.
Addressing a further concern, Alena Douhan, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights, said developments in cybertechnology underline the need to assess their legality and humanitarian impact. Unilateral measures can be taken by States and regional organizations in response to malicious cyber activity, she added, but only if they are allowed by the law of international responsibility.
The representative of Zimbabwe underscored the Special Rapporteur’s visit to his country in 2021 to assess such measures, citing her finding that they have a negative impact on the people and Government and stressing her call to lift them. “In a time when the world needs solidarity, it’s disturbing to see the increase of unilateral coercive measures”, he said, emphasizing their impact on poverty, inequality, water sanitation and development.
In the same vein, the representative of Cuba, stating that unilateral coercive measures violate a broad range of human rights, emphasized that nothing justifies exposing people to their impact on development. Cuba’s case is “representative” in this regard, he said, referring to the six decade‑long economic and financial blockage by the United States. During the pandemic, many tools used by international organizations were inaccessible to Cuba because of the embargo, he added.
Also briefing the Third Committee today was Lara Blanco Rothe, Deputy Director of the Sustainable Development Unit, Executive Office of the Secretary‑General; Suzanne Jabbour, Chair of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; and Diego García‑Sayán, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
Ilze Brands Kehris, Assistant Secretary‑General for Human Rights Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), introduced 17 reports from the Secretary‑General and the OHCHR to the Committee.
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Monday, 17 October, to continue its consideration of promotion and protection of human rights.
Interactive Dialogues: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Ilze Brands Kehris, Assistant Secretary‑General for Human Rights Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), introduced 17 reports of the Secretary‑General and the OHCHR, starting with “Status of the human rights treaty body system” (document A/77/279), which highlights the Chairs’ agreement to establish an eight-year schedule for reviewing States parties’ reports in compliance with their treaty obligations. The report on the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund on Contemporary Forms of Slavery (A/77/230) notes the 850 grants awarded in over 100 countries; in 2022, 43 grants were awarded to ensure services for victims of slavery, child and forced marriage, and forced, bonded and child labour. The report on the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (A/77/231) highlights $200 million disbursed in over 120 countries; in 2022, the Fund awarded 184 annual grants, reaching over 46,000 survivors and their families in 92 countries.
Providing an update pursuant to resolution 76/175 on “Ensuring equitable, affordable, timely and universal access for all countries to vaccines in response to the COVID‑19 pandemic,” she said despite the unprecedented rollout of COVID‑19 vaccines worldwide, their distribution has been unequal. Vaccine hesitancy is a global threat beyond COVID‑19, resulting in the largest backslide in vaccinations in three decades, she cautioned, adding that disruptions of the routine immunization of children may risk the resurgence of diseases such as polio or measles. The “pandemic treaty” currently under discussion should provide for a global approach to the development and distribution of vaccines, medicines and treatments. The report on reprisals for cooperation with the United Nations (A/77/262/Corr.1; contained in A/HRC/51/47) illustrates the persistent high number of acts of reprisals against those who cooperate with the United Nations, and addresses the risks faced by women. The report on the right to development (A/77/202; contained in A/HRC/51/22) analyses how application of this right could have prevented various impacts of the pandemic and guided global response.
The report on the promotion and protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Africans and of people of African descent against excessive use of force and other human rights violations by law enforcement officers through transformative change for racial justice and equality (A/77/205; contained in A/HRC/51/53) addresses systemic racism and advances accountability for victims, including for the legacies of the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism. The report on the human rights of migrants (A/77/212; contained in A/HRC/50/52) illustrates how situations of vulnerability can be associated with the drivers of migration and exacerbated or alleviated by State laws and practices. The report on moratorium on the use of the death penalty (A/77/274) addresses conditions of detention of persons on death row as well as the disproportionate impact of the use of the death penalty on vulnerable persons, and highlights initiatives for advancing its abolition.
She also introduced these additional thematic reports: the report on Missing persons (A/77/245); the Role of Ombudsman and mediator institutions in the promotion and protection of human rights (A/77/248); Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (A/77/287); the Question of human rights in the administration of justice (A/77/364); and combatting intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief (A/77/487).
Turning to country-specific situations, she introduced the report on the Human rights situation in the temporarily occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine (A/77/220), which highlights arbitrary arrests, violations of fair trial rights and torture of Crimean residents, enforced disappearances and unlawful population transfers. The report on the Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (A/77/247) examines the country’s isolation from the international community and expresses concern at the increasing repression of civil and political rights, including access to information and the use of new technologies to suppress access to foreign media. The report on the Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/77/575) notes that access to justice through State institutions remains severely impeded, compounding an existing environment of impunity. The report also notes an increase of executions, including for drug-related offenses, and reiterates concerns about the continued imposition of the death penalty for child offenders.
During the interactive dialogue, delegates discussed the human rights of civil society, including human rights defenders, when they engage with the United Nations. Defenders are often subject to threats, restrictive legislation, surveillance and cyberattacks, some representatives emphasized, asking about measures to promote accountability. Others rejected “accusations” about their countries’ treatment of defenders, which is biased and politicized, they said.
The representative of the United States condemned efforts to repress the voice of civil society. Pointing to the Assistant Secretary‑General’s report, which includes 42 countries where human rights defenders have faced intimidation online and offline, he said this disturbingly relied on online platforms during the COVID‑19 pandemic. Calling on States to support civil society’s in engaging with the Organization, he asked how countries could enhance measures to hold accountable State actors who block such access.
The representative of the European Union, speaking in its capacity as observer, expressed support for the resolution on moratorium of the death penalty and the one on advancement of women. She called on States to address all incidents and patterns of reprisals against human rights defenders where they occur. She also underscored that threats defenders are supplemented by restrictive measures and fake news laws, aimed at silencing civil society, political opposition and independent media. Inviting States to sign the joint statement by Ireland on reprisals, she asked the Assistant Secretary‑General if she has noted progress toward universal support for her work in such issues.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that the report contains fabrications, representing an infringement of sovereignty and interference in the internal affairs of sovereign, independent States. Rejecting allegations against his country aimed at attacking its image and destroying its social system, he rejected country specific reports and mechanisms reflecting politization and double standards for human rights. Addressing accusations by the European Union, he invited the Bloc to focus its priority on human rights issues in its own homeland.
The representative of Belarus, stressing the importance of continuing work on disinformation and unilateral coercive measures, expressed disagreement with the “reprisals report”. It rewrites outdated, distorted data that has been repeatedly repudiated, he said. Referring to organizations whose activity is prohibited in Belarus, as they have cooperated with the United Nations, he said “there is no such evidence (for that), and there can’t be”.
The representative of Iran said that the principles of fairness, prevailing justice, non-discrimination and avoiding politicization should be duly respected, especially in drafting United Nations reports. Her country considers parallel recording mechanisms unnecessary and unconstructive, she affirmed, adding that Iran’s comments have been ignored regarding women, freedom of expression, the death penalty and other issues.
The representative of Ukraine, pointing to the report of the Secretary‑General on the Situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine (A/77/220), said this testifies to “the severely destructive impacts of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on the situation of human rights in Crimea”. The occupied peninsula was used as a springboard for the offensive on mainland Ukraine she added, pointing also to the Russian Federation’s mobilization of Crimea Tartans.
Responding, Ms. Brands-Kehris said addressing reprisals, having this discussion and bringing a related report to this Committee is a major milestone. She underscored the attention brought to it by both Geneva and New York, emphasizing the need to raise awareness and obtain cross-regional support in this endeavor. While acknowledging progress in improving coordination within the Organization on reporting about reprisals, she stressed the role of States in translating such work effectively into practice. Welcoming any events that can be organized to continue the discussion and raise support for the resolution, she encouraged States to engage directly. The General Assembly should lead by explicitly ensuring zero tolerance for reprisals and exhibiting good practices, she said.
Also speaking were representatives of Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Canada, United Kingdom, Azerbaijan, the Syrian Arab Republic and Ireland.
Disability Inclusion
Lara Blanco Rothe, Deputy Director of the Sustainable Development Unit, Executive Office of the Secretary-General, presented the Secretary-General’s third report on mainstreaming disability inclusion within the Organization, including through the implementation of the United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy. Since 2019, the year the Strategy was launched, “there has been a near 100 per cent increase by entities meeting the benchmarks of the Strategy from 16 per cent to 30 per cent”, she said, adding that 130 country teams have reported for the second year in a row and are reporting along similar lines. Yet with 70 per cent of the benchmarks not being met across the system, there is still a long way to go, she said.
Stressing that an increasing number of entities and country teams are explicitly integrating disability inclusion in their strategic plans and budgets, she pointed to the Business Operations Strategy 2.0. Rolled out across all country teams, it has common services related to disability-inclusive human resource practices, digital and physical accessibility and capacity development. Noting progress, she underscored that “the Strategy has mobilized a great deal of interest in building capacity and knowledge of staff on disability inclusion”, and that both system-wide and more targeted initiatives have been developed and rolled out from 2021 to 2022 to address this gap. While the number of peace operations implementing and reporting on the Strategy has doubled since 2017, she noted that peace operations are meeting only 17 per cent of the Strategy’s benchmarks. Underscoring that there are aspects of the Strategy which can be achieved by staff with limited financial resources, she stressed that States’ support underpins the success of the Strategy, potentially impacting positively one billion people with disabilities worldwide.
During the ensuring interactive dialogue, the representative of Finland commended progress on implementing the United Nations Disability Policy and measures for persons with disabilities in the past several years. She inquired about the slower rate of policy integration in peace operations and if awareness-increasing trainings will become mandatory across all United Nations bodies.
The representative of New Zealand echoed her colleague in welcoming progress on the Policy, announcing that her country will co-lead the Third Committee bi-annual resolution on the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. She also acknowledged the multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination that people with disabilities face, asking what steps Member States can take to complement United Nations actions in addressing the rights of people with disabilities.
Stressing the importance of addressing different needs of persons with disabilities, the representative of Syria said additional services require additional resources, adding that his country continues to suffer under unilateral coercive measures. He asked how the United Nations can avoid sanctions so the Government can care for persons with disabilities. Their numbers have increased with the war in his country, he said, noting that physical rehabilitation programs cannot accommodate them. Responding to the query of Finland, Ms. Rothe said progress has been made in strategy implementation in peace operations since her initial findings that they were lagging in 2018. She added that agencies working in the humanitarian sector have improved integration of benchmarks from 15 per cent in 2015 to 40 per cent in 2021. Her Office aims to strengthen disability inclusion in humanitarian response plans, conflict settings and disaster risk management in 2022. She added that her Office is working on making the launch of the two training modules mandatory. Member States can complement actions by appealing for vigilance during this time of global crises, she said, stressing the need for resources and discussions of disability inclusion in the Fifth Committee. To Syria’s question, she said the country team in his nation is integrating measures and has proposed several relevant measures.
Torture
CLAUDE HELLER, Chair of the Committee against Torture, presenting his annual report, noted that Sudan and Suriname were the last two States to accede to ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Committee held its 71st session using remote technologies, while subsequent sessions were held in person in Geneva. He criticized the refusal of the Nicaraguan authorities to submit written responses to the list of questions approved in December 2020 as well as their delegation’s absence during considerations of the second progress report. He rejected the terms of their 2022 letter in which the Foreign Minister of Nicaragua questioned the legitimacy of the Committee. Expressing concern that some Member States have not abided by their obligations to present their reports, as required by article 19 of the Convention, he noted delays by 29 States.
Stressing that delays in country reviews due to COVID-19 have led to delays in public consideration of the presented reports, he commended State parties for their timely submission of information and comments. Under article 22, the Committee examined 70 individual complaints and adopted 45 decisions, he said, highlighting the high volume of work due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences. Some 212 individual complaints had to be examined, he noted, adding that the backlog will be impossible to make up for given delays as well as current working methods. He emphasized significant progress in terms of strengthening the process of treaty bodies, as approved by the Chair of the Committee last year.
During the ensuing interactive dialogue, delegates pointed to national mechanisms and efforts to prevent and address torture, discussing specific cases, either spotlighting abuses or rejecting accusations.
The representative of the United States, condemning torture, urged States to abide by international obligations to end this crime. She referred to torture in Xinjiang by China, in Ukraine by the Russian Federation forces, and in the Syrian Arab Republic and Iran by State authorities. She asked how the Committee can help to ensure accountability for those using torture and other human rights violations as tools of repression.
The representative of the European Union, speaking in its capacity as observer, encouraged States which have not ratified the Convention against Torture to do so as a matter of priority. State parties reporting to the Committee is crucial for implementation of the Convention, as is follow up for concluding observations, she said. She asked what the main challenges are for States in proving information on follow-up measures to concluding observations and what the working group means to review in the future to strengthen this procedure.
The representative of the Russian Federation said his country complies with its international obligations, stressing that Western countries continue to use double standards and lecture others, while staying silent about their own human rights problems. These include the United States’ Guantanamo Bay prison and the United Kingdom’s “despotic treatment” of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange as well as his potential sentence in the United States to 175 years in prison. “This is not even torture, this is sadism,” he said. Also, he said Ukrainian military personnel have tortured to death civilians showing sympathy to his country. He asked if international human rights mechanisms will resolve such issues.
The representative of China said his country is currently drafting its seventh report for the Committee. Rejecting statements by the United States and accusations towards Xinjiang, he said these are the product of coercion by the West. Pointing to Guantanamo Bay and experts’ calls to close the prison, he said there is no best way to promote human rights, only better ways.
Responding, Mr. Heller said his Committee, has paid special attention to reprisals and will designate one of its members to follow up on such issues. On accountability, he stressed that if the Committee has information that involves or will lead to a situation where torture is systematically used, the Committee can launch a confidential investigation procedure. On specific recommendations, he said States have a year to fulfil them. Stressing that the Committee is not a political organization, he pointed to initiatives to assist States in submitting their reports. As the world faces crises in human rights, he asked States to consider the lack of financial and material resources treaty bodies are experiencing.
Also speaking were the representatives of Saudi Arabia, Chile, Mexico and Denmark.
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
SUZANNE JABBOUR, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, said that, although some of her Committee’s work in assisting and advising States went online using digital tools during the pandemic, the Subcomittee was able to resume visits last year. Listing visits to Bulgaria, Brazil, Tunisia, Argentina, Lebanon, Türkiye and Ecuador, she said the Subcommittee is a visiting mechanism at its heart. Without such visits, she added, the Subcomittee cannot effectively carry out its on-the-ground work in assessing situations in places of detention, proposing concrete recommendations and opening up constructive and cooperative dialogue with authorities as well as supporting the National Preventative Mechanisms themselves.
Highlighting achievements, she said that a visit to Brazil following the Government’s significant curtailment of resources contributed to the country’s Federal Supreme Court overturning the President’s decree. Visits to Tunisia and Türkiye resulted in productive dialogues with concerned leaders and authorities. Though the Subcommittee has been able to conduct eight or nine visits per year, the number should be from 12 to 15, she said. Emphasizing that it is the States’ responsibility to provide the Subcommittee with appropriate resources and has been since they adopted and ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OP-CAT) 20 years ago, she called on representatives of States to provide her Subcommittee with the required support to continue its unique mandate to prevent torture and ill-treatment around the world.
In the ensuing interactive dialogue, the representative of the European Union, speaking in its capacity as observer, noted an increasing crackdown on peaceful protesting and freedom of association. She also observed that health‑care professionals have a critical role to play in both preventing and holding States accountable for torture. To that end, she asked how Ms. Jabbour’s Subcommittee and National Preventative Mechanisms could be strengthened to ensure that medical professionals follow rules and instructions while documenting torture.
The representative of Lebanon asked about the financial situation of the fund linked to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.
The representative of the United Kingdom affirmed her support for the convention and its optional protocol, adding that the Government makes sure no one is subjected to torture, punishment or degrading treatment through international programming with organizations like the Association for the Prevention of Torture, the Death Penalty Project and Reprieve. Noting the usefulness of her government’s ongoing contact with the Subcommittee, she asked what States can do between visits.
The representative of Denmark highlighted the importance of the Méndez Principles on effective interviewing for investigations and information‑gathering. Affirming that National Preventative Mechanisms have a crucial role in promoting them, she asked what concrete actions the Subcommittee might take to promote the principles and turn them into a practical tool for the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.
Responding, Ms. Jabbour said that the work of her Subcommittee is unique among treaty bodies, as it conducts visits to States to supervise and verify that mechanisms to prevent torture are implemented in detention centres and that international and local laws are respected. Visits require resources, she said, and called on States to double their support for her Subcommittee, lamenting that it is currently unable to fulfil its preventative mandate due to lack of resources. To Lebanon’s question, she responded that the voluntary fund linked to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture was established to help States in implementing recommendations from her Subcommittee and the National Preventative Mechanisms. In 2022 it was funded $380,000 and in 2023 will suffer from a deficit, she said, calling on States to replenish the fund.
To the United Kingdom’s question, she said that dialogue between her Subcommittee and Member States is a best practice, adding that there is always a rapporteur in contact with Member States before, during and following field visits. Responding to Denmark, she said that the principles for the prevention of torture are the core of her agency’s work, stressing that ensuring the presence of lawyers and medical professionals during the initial investigation of detained persons is critical, as torture usually occurs during this stage, but that medical and psychological evaluations should continue throughout detention. She called on States to adopt the Istanbul Protocol to train their medical and human resources staff tasked with documenting instances of torture.
ALICE JILL EDWARDS, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, described torture as an extreme form of abuse of power. “It is cruelty, plain and simple, with effects that are life-altering, intergenerational and hard to repair”, she said. Despite many sensational forms of torture, the most common incidents falling within the class of prohibited conduct include inhuman or degrading harm that is carried out every day and, at times, routinely. However, an act of torture is an erga omnes violation, she said, calling on States to root out torture in all forms. Calling the persistence of torture “a litmus test for the state of our world”, she pointed to a wide number of countries who are taking both small and bold actions to build torture-proof societies. Yet even in those countries, there will be incidents, setbacks, lapses, challenges and areas for improvement, she noted, adding that there is no perfect State.
Stressing the importance of feminist and equality-focused methods with a view to ensuring representation, she detailed the programme of her work: addressing root causes of torture and other inhuman treatment to prevent incidents or patterns; seeking justice and accountability for victims and survivors; and promoting international law. Outlining her upcoming reports, she drew attention to good practices concerning national criminalization, investigation and prosecution of torture offenses as well as strategies for tackling root causes of torture. She detailed her engagement in discussions on the regulation of the manufacture, trade and use of equipment which by design or application causes unnecessary or disproportionate pain or suffering. Highlighting the increasing use of technology in law enforcement and military operations, which has both positive and troublesome uses, she underscored the need for alternative means to confession-oriented criminal justice systems, which have been found to incentivize abusive and coercive interrogation tactics.
When the floor opened for questions and comments, the representative of Chile, on behalf of 63 countries, stressed that the principle of effective interviewing and interrogation constitutes an essential step in the shift towards respect of human rights in all stages of the criminal justice process. The representative of Ghana, on behalf of six States leading the Convention against Torture Initiative, namely Chile, Denmark, Fiji, Indonesia, Morocco, and his own country, called for the eradication of torture, including through international cooperation.
The representative of the United States urged the Special Rapporteur to implement a survive‑centred approach to her work. She condemned torture committed by Russian Federation forces in Ukraine, by the Government of Syria in Iran and by China’s authorities in Xinjiang.
The representative of Ukraine said mass killings, executions and torture in cities like Bucha shook the world’s consciousness. The recent report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine details mass war crimes committed by Russian Federation troops in Ukraine, including executions and torture, as part of Moscow’s consistent tactics of terror.
The representative of Myanmar warned that the military junta has been unleashing heinous crimes in a widespread and systematic manner since the illegal coup. He pointed to the recently published traumatic experience of a journalist during military interrogation; detained at the airport, he was blindfolded, repeatedly beaten and raped. The victims of military torture include people from multiple backgrounds, from lawyers and journalists to students, he said, drawing attention to 12,000 people who remain in military detention.
The representative of the Russian Federation noted that the allegations of the United States against his country’s own crimes sound cynical. He asked why Ukraine is refusing to provide the names of the families of those whose bodies were discovered in Bucha. “Is it not because this would establish the truth and the true perpetrators?” he asked.
The representative of China voiced concern over police brutality in the United States and other Western countries, including abuse of prisoners in detention centres. To this end, she called on the Special Rapporteur to investigate cases of torture in Guantanamo Bay.
The representative of Iran said it is time for the self‑appointed human rights guardians to address the deep human rights challenges of their own people, such as racism, torture and gun violence in the United States.
Ms. Edwards, responding, detailed safeguards developed, such as soft law instruments, guidelines, transparency and accountability. Pointing to her gender‑based and feminist approach, she underscored the importance of listening to women and girls, rather than making assumptions about their needs. During her country visits, she will be using States’ recommendations and providing technical advice on specific issues, she stressed, noting that the added value of the Special Rapporteur is being on the ground and working closely with the Government.
The representative of Algeria, addressing the statement made by the representative of Morocco, accused that country of disseminating erroneous information on the Western Sahara.
Also speaking were representatives of Indonesia, Luxembourg, Pakistan, Denmark, India, Georgia and Morocco. An observer for the Sovereign Order of Malta and the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as an observer, also spoke.
Unilateral Coercive Measures
ALENA DOUHAN, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights, said the development of cybertechnologies underlines the need to assess their legality and humanitarian impact. Digital technologies are changing all aspects of human life and international law, including the scope, subjects, means and methods of international and unilateral sanctions, she said. Noting that they are used as responses to the cyber means for terrorist financing and malicious cyber activity”, she added that some unilateral sanctions focus on the cyber world by preventing access to public online platforms, blocking trade in software or in information and communications equipment, blocking social media accounts and listing cryptocurrencies. She expressed regret that “the use of unilateral sanctions in response to or with the use of digital means raises numerous concerns in international law”. Unilateral measures can be taken by States and regional organizations in response to malicious cyber activity or use of cyber means only to the extent they are allowed by the law of international responsibility, she said, adding that measures shall not violate any obligation under human rights or humanitarian law. Absence of consensus on malicious activity in cyber space and the need to provide proper attribution to individuals, companies and States, result in the growing misuse of this term, she noted, adding that “targeted actions are used as a substitute for criminal prosecution for cybercrimes, without any possibility for a fair trial or the presumption of innocence”. Further, she said that some unilateral sanctions in the cybersphere target entire populations of targeted countries, affecting their human rights and representing discrimination against targeted societies. Any unilateral measures against activities of the media, social networks and social platforms can occur only if they do not violate international obligations of States, including freedom of the press, freedom of access to information and freedom of expression, and only if they comply with articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other norms of international law, she said.
In the ensuing interactive dialogue, delegates emphasized the impact of multilateral coercive measures on Governments, peoples and their human rights. Several States asked for such measures to be removed, considering their negative impact on development.
The representative of Zimbabwe pointed to the Special Rapporteur’s visit to his country in 2021, when she assessed the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the people and their rights, including the right to development. She concluded that such measures have a negative impact on the people and Government, stressing the Special Rapporteur’s call to lift them. “In a time when the world needs solidarity, it’s disturbing to see the increase of unilateral coercive measures”, he added, emphasizing their impact on poverty, inequality, water sanitation, and development.
The representative of the Russian Federation, noting that digital technologies are changing all aspects of human life and international law, recognized that some unilateral sanctions in the cybersphere ‑ preventing access to satellites, the Internet, software, publicly available information and communication platforms and services – target populations of concerned countries and constitute discrimination. He cited examples of countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, and European Union, which limited the media outlets of the Russian Federation in 2022. When the Russian Federation responded by restricting access to Western media, the European Union condemned such an act, he said, defining the issue an “example of double standards”.
The representative of Cuba, saying that unilateral coercive measures violate a broad range of human rights, affirmed that nothing justifies exposing people to their impact, on development. Cuba’s case is “representative” in this regard, he said, referring to the six decade-long economic and financial blockage by the United States. During the pandemic, many tools used by international organizations were not accessible to Cuba because of the embargo, he added.
The representative of Azerbaijan noted that States have reaffirmed their positions against unilateral coercive measures as tools to exercise political, economic or financial pressures against other countries, particularly developing countries. “Under no circumstances should people be deprived of the means of development,” she added.
The representative of Belarus noted that when unilateral coercive measures are introduced there is no legal humanitarian impact assessment. He expressed concern over the difficulty of appealing against the illegitimate decision to introduce such measures against States and private companies, state bodies, officials and individuals.
Responding, Ms. DUHAN, stressed that unilateral sanctions threaten the achievement of all Sustainable Development Goals, including the elimination of poverty, the provision of decent labour, the establishment of clever cities, water and energy supplies, the right to education and access to peace and justice. Citing Google, she said that media platforms and software development companies and businesses providing Internet services do not enjoy judicial competence and should exercise due diligence obligations to guarantee their activity does not violate fundamental human rights. She invited the Security Council to initiate discussions, at least at the level of the Arria formula, on the use of unilateral sanctions in response to malicious activity in cyber space that can be considered a threat to international peace and security. Encouraging the Human Rights Committee to initiate a review of its general comment on freedoms of opinion and expression, she said that limitations on the freedom of expression online should be taken only in full conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Also speaking in the dialogue were representatives of the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela, Pakistan, Nicaragua, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Malaysia, South Africa, China and the Syrian Arab Republic.
Freedom of Opinion and Expression
IRENE KHAN, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression said her report focused on forms of information manipulation — namely disinformation, propaganda and hate speech — during armed conflicts, and the roles, responsibilities and responses of States and social media companies. “The information environment has become a dangerous theatre of war in the digital age,” she said, pointing to the use by States and armed groups of digital technology and social media to weaponize information, sow confusion, incite hate and violence as well as discredit human rights defenders and journalists. Adding that this is not a new practice in wartime, she expressed concern over the speedy spread and scale of disinformation and propaganda targeting vulnerable and marginalized groups of civilians. She stressed that people are at their most vulnerable and in need of trustworthy information in armed conflict, lamenting that they are most often targeted by manipulated information or internet shutdowns during these periods.
Social media plays a dual role in modern conflicts, she said, providing vital information, but also enabling the spread of disinformation, propaganda and hate speech. She noted that many State-controlled media are “super‑spreaders” of propaganda and disinformation. Further, disagreement about what is disinformation and hate speech exacerbates matters when factual reporting, independent media or even United Nations reports are undermined as “fake news”. This new paradigm exposes gaps in international law and facilitates human rights violations, she said.
Affirming that the right to information is a fundamental human right, she called on States to protect the freedom of expression, which she said also includes the right to seek, receive and spread diverse sources of information. In times of armed conflict, it is a “survival rights” issue, she added. To that end, countering disinformation is vital, she stressed, warning that the use of counter‑terrorism laws to restrict speech or censor critical voices erodes the public trust needed to resolve conflicts and protect civilians. Turning to social media platforms, she called on companies to ensure they act within United Nations guidelines, invest in understanding local contexts and improve their transparency and accountability. In the same vein, international humanitarian human law must adapt to protect freedom of expression and opinion in armed conflict as well as extraterritorial application of human rights to ensure accountability for disinformation that threatens human rights across borders, she said.
In the ensuing interactive dialogue, the representative of the Netherlands, associating with the European Union, noted that disinformation has been present for millennia but has gained new currency in the digital age. He asked the Special Rapporteur how States, civil society and digital companies can work together to tackle disinformation during armed conflicts, without undermining the right to freedom of expression.
Along similar lines, the representative of Austria, associating with the European Union, condemned restrictions to information and Internet shutdowns, as they aggravate the propaganda situation, target civilian populations and inhibit reporting by human rights defenders and journalists. To this end, he called on social media companies to collect and preserve online evidence of violations during conflict. He proceeded to ask the Special Rapporteur about best practice examples.
The representative of the United States voiced concern over increased use of censorship, unlawful surveillance, State‑controlled media and prosecution of journalists. He warned that the Kremlin has engaged in coordinated disinformation campaigns to create false pretexts for its further invasion of Ukraine. President Vladimir V. Putin and his Government are controlling the Russian media environment, including banning public access to social media and cracking down on all media outlets in the country. He asked the Special Rapporteur about measures to counter such violations to freedom of expression.
The representative of Myanmar cautioned that the freedom of expression and opinion in his country is in crisis following the illegal military coup. Using State-owned media, the Myanmar military continues to spread propaganda and incite violence. He asked the Special Rapporteur about the most effective response to address disinformation spread by the military in his country.
The representative of Pakistan, drawing attention to illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir, underscored that India has been using disinformation as a weapon to subjugate the Kashmiri people and perpetuate its occupation of the disputed territory.
Responding, the representative of India condemned yet another attempt by Pakistan to misuse the United Nations platform to promote its agenda, and rejected malicious references made to Jammu and Kashmir, which is an integral part of India.
Meanwhile, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that the Special Rapporteur has the freedom to be creative, but should be more careful studying the basic facts, rather than promoting Western propaganda cliches, such as those about the freedom of speech in his country. He voiced concern over the practice of well‑known networks that are operating under the pretext of protecting the freedom of speech, while allowing for hateful attacks, including open calls to kill Russians. This year, not far from Moscow, agents of the Ukrainian special services exploded the car of Darya Dugina, a Russian journalist who was not engaged in combat, he recalled.
IRENE KHAN, responding to questions and comments, underscored the careful assessment of information in her report. There is not a single region free from problems highlighted in the report, she asserted, noting that those who feel their situation did not get adequate coverage should send her an invitation to visit their countries and provide her with access to all stakeholders. States — as primary duty bearers of human rights — have a particular responsibility to protect freedom of opinion and expression. Firstly, they must refrain from making the problem worse by contributing to disinformation; they must regulate social media, ensuring that social media companies incorporate human rights standards into their content; and follow the United Nations guidelines on human rights. The killing of a journalist is the most egregious form of censorship that needs to be addressed, she stressed, calling for an independent investigation of such crimes. She emphasized the importance of countering hate speech and violence at the community level. Pointing to a paradigm shift that is taking place in the information ecosystem, she called for an innovative approach to ensure that social media regulation encourages companies to respect human rights. It means no censorship but enforcing corporate compliance with human rights standards, she added.
Also speaking were representatives of Switzerland, Luxembourg, Sweden (on behalf of Nordic and Baltic countries), Australia, Portugal, Slovakia (associating with the European Union), Poland (associating with the European Union), Belgium, Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Israel, Ireland (associating with the European Union), Canada, France, Saudi Arabia, China, Syria, Iran and Morocco. The representative of the European Union spoke in its capacity as observer. An observer for the Sovereign Order of Malta also made a statement.
DIEGO GARCÍA-SAYÁN, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, presented his last report and identified several fundamental challenges, such as authoritarianism, corruption and access to justice for all. He noted that authoritarian temptations and practices seek to concentrate Power and eliminate counterweights, which ensure independent judiciary. Beyond these factors, he highlighted promoting just and peaceful societies, eradicating gender violence, protecting human rights, including the right to health, education or a healthy environment as some of the general interest topics for the judicial system, where it can take cross-cutting actions.
Outlining the second fundamental challenge ‑ a relationship between corruption and justice systems ‑ he highlighted the devastating consequences of corruption on human rights and on institutional structures, which lead to the concentration of Power and lack of transparency in public administration. He noted that justice plays a key role in facing corruption if it acts independently. In this regard, he highlighted the constructive role of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, asserting that the fight against organized crime and corruption must be tackled on the basis of independent and impartial justice systems.
Turning to the third fundamental challenge, he addressed access to justice for all, underscoring the need to ensure progress in closing the gap in this field by 2030. He noted that in this specific area of access, three specific fundamental issues must be considered ‑ gender and the administration of justice, indigenous peoples and the use of new technologies in the administration of justice. He proposed that 50 per cent of high positions in the judiciary and in the offices of prosecutors be occupied by women.
He further noted that implementation of new technologies in the administration is being explored by legal administrations around the world. This development means effective use of these technologies could make universal access to justice possible. However, this should be done by closing the digital gap and broadening access to justice infrastructure, including information and communication technology tools, which would get rid of the legal backlog.
During the ensuring interactive dialogue, the representative of Liechtenstein asked what measures States could adopt to increase access to careers in the highest levels of the judiciary for women.
The representative of the Russian Federation said he disagreed with conclusions related to gender equality in judicial systems, noting that in his country, everyone has equal opportunities and that no one has their opportunities curtailed or receives any advantage based on their race, sex, social status or anything else. Everyone is evaluated based on their qualifications, he said, adding that gender equality is achievable by giving everyone the same opportunities and undoing stereotypes.
The representative of the United States affirmed that lawyers must perform their duties without threats by State or non-State actors and condemned threats to lawyers’ work in Belarus, the Russian Federation and China. He asked what the best recourse is in countries that lack a free press and the State bears the most responsibility for attacks against lawyers.
To counter, the representative of China rejected the statement made by the United States, stating that judges are responsible for their own decisions in the country. The Government ensures that they work in a safe environment and has enacted regulations as well as relief and guarantee mechanisms to that end. Pointing to the All China Lawyers Association that protects the right to practice, he said that lawyers operate without interference from any organizations or individuals.
The representative of Saudi Arabia said that a fair trial is guaranteed in her country and that the judiciary is working on increasing female lawyers. In 2019, there was a 740 per cent increase in legal licences granted to women and in 2020, some 100 female registrars were appointed.
In response, Mr. García-Sayán highlighted the undeniable and increasing trend toward authoritarian regimes impeding access to justice and the independence of lawyers. While the phenomenon is not pervasive, many examples in specific countries exist. He added that in other historical periods, authoritarianism controlled the military, while today it attempts to control justice, stressing the need to strengthen lawyers’ rights. Affirming that justice plays a central role in promoting or deterring investments, he decried that it is not prioritized in state budgets over infrastructure and called for States to properly budget for a robust and independent judiciary. This is why 6 billion people have no access to justice, he said. Underscoring the importance of the United Nations Compact on Corruption, which is directly related to human rights, he called on States to incorporate this view. To Liechtenstein’s point, he said women have a place in the highest judiciary bodies and called on States to implement proactive policies to that end. Some women are more highly qualified than their male counterparts, but do not occupy the highest positions. Often this is because of material circumstances, such as the double burden of family and work, he said. Recalling his experience as a judge, he said that women judges provide experience and a perspective on life that enriches the legal word, but there are clear limits to their access. Otherwise, he added, he would agree with the Russian Federation that no actions were necessary. “In a world of diplomacy where major diplomatic decisions have more to do with investment and international trade, justice is very important,” he said.
Also speaking during the interactive dialogue were representative of Peru, Romania, and the United Kingdom. The representative of the European union in its capacity as an observer also spoke.