Search Tips
sorted by
330 shown of 1365 entities
Sustainable development and freedom of expression
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2023
- Document code
- A/HRC/53/25
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Gendered disinformation and its implications for the right to freedom of expression
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2023
- Document code
- A/78/288
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Reinforcing media freedom and safety of journalists in the digital age
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2022
- Document code
- A/HRC/50/29
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Disinformation and freedom of opinion and expression during armed conflicts
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2022
- Document code
- A/77/288
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Disinformation and freedom of opinion and expression
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2021
- Document code
- A/HRC/47/25
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Gender justice and freedom of opinion and expression
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2021
- Document code
- A/76/258
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Academic freedom
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2020
- Document code
- A/75/261
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Disease pandemics and the freedom of opinion and expression
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2020
- Document code
- A/HRC/44/49
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Artistic Freedom of Expression
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2020
- Document code
- A/HRC/44/49/Add.2
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Online hate speech
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2019
- Document code
- A/74/486
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Surveillance and human rights
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2019
- Document code
- A/HRC/41/35
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Overview of submissions received
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2019
- Document code
- A/HRC/41/35/Add.3
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Summary of an expert's consultation
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2019
- Document code
- A/HRC/41/35/Add.4
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Artificial Intelligence technologies and implications for the information environment
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2018
- Document code
- A/73/348
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Online content regulation
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2018
- Document code
- A/HRC/38/35
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Supplementary annex accompanying the thematic report
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2018
- Document code
- A/HRC/38/35/Add.1
- Date added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2016
- Document code
- A/HRC/32/38
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2013
- Document code
- A/HRC/23/40
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2010
- Document code
- A/HRC/14/23
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2015
- Document code
- A/HRC/29/32
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The role of digital access providers
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2017
- Document code
- A/HRC/35/22
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2016
- Document code
- A/71/373
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The right to access information
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2013
- Document code
- A/68/362
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
Protection of journalists and media freedom
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2012
- Document code
- A/HRC/20/17
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
Hate speech and incitement to hatred
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2012
- Document code
- A/67/357
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2015
- Document code
- A/70/361
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
Access to information in international organizations
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2017
- Document code
- A/72/350
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
Protection of journalists and press freedom
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2010
- Document code
- A/65/284
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2014
- Document code
- A/HRC/26/30
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The right of the child to freedom of expression
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2014
- Document code
- A/69/335
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2011
- Document code
- A/HRC/17/27
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2011
- Document code
- A/66/290
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- Where rule of law prevails, Governments and Government officials stay accountable to their citizens through a variety of mechanisms. Too often, however, accountability is a chimera, and nowhere is this more evident than in situations where authorities withhold information from the public. Without freedom to access information of all kinds — in particular when Governments withhold information from the public and its judicial, legislative and media mechanisms — abuses may take place, policies affecting the general welfare may not be tested and improved and overall public engagement and participation diminishes, often by design. By contrast, information-rich environments help promote good decision-making and meaningful public debate, building credibility for public institutions. Even if implementation may not always meet the highest standards, Governments have recognized this fundamental point, at the intersection of good, open government and the human right of access to information, recognizing that the credibility of public authorities depends on their willingness to engage with those who fund their work and elect their key officials — the members of the public.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- A key escrow system permits individual access to encryption but requires users to store their private keys with the Government or a "trusted third party". Key escrows, however, have substantial vulnerabilities. For instance, the key escrow system depends on the integrity of the person, department or system charged with safeguarding the private keys, and the key database itself could be vulnerable to attack, undermining any user's communication security and privacy. Key escrow systems, rejected (along with back-door access) after significant debate in the United States in the so-called Crypto Wars of the 1990s, are currently in place in several countries and have been proposed in others. In 2011, Turkey passed regulations requiring encryption suppliers to provide copies of encryption keys to government regulators before offering their encryption tools to users. The vulnerabilities inherent in key escrows render them a serious threat to the security to exercise the freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- The permissible limitations on the right to privacy should be read strictly, particularly in an age of pervasive online surveillance - whether passive or active, mass or targeted - regardless of whether the applicable standards are "unlawful and arbitrary" under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, "arbitrary" under article 12 of the Universal Declaration, "arbitrary or abusive" under article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights, or "necessary in a democratic society" under article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (see A/HRC/13/37, paras. 14-19). Privacy interferences that limit the exercise of the freedoms of opinion and expression, such as those described in this report, must not in any event interfere with the right to hold opinions, and those that limit the freedom of expression must be provided by law and necessary and proportionate to achieve one of a handful of legitimate objectives.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- Surveillance of human rights defenders in many countries has been well documented. On these occasions, human rights defenders and political activists report having their phone calls and e-mails monitored, and their movements tracked. Journalists are also particularly vulnerable to becoming targets of communications surveillance because of their reliance on online communication. In order to receive and pursue information from confidential sources, including whistleblowers, journalists must be able to rely on the privacy, security and anonymity of their communications. An environment where surveillance is widespread, and unlimited by due process or judicial oversight, cannot sustain the presumption of protection of sources. Even a narrow, non-transparent, undocumented, executive use of surveillance may have a chilling effect without careful and public documentation of its use, and known checks and balances to prevent its misuse.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur notes that, in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and which is officially and lawfully proclaimed in accordance with international law, a State may derogate from certain rights, including the right to freedom of expression. However, derogations are permissible only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation and only when and for so long as they are not inconsistent with its obligations under international law. Moreover, there are certain non-derogable rights, as outlined in article 4(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Hence, a journalist should never, under any circumstances, be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life, subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, imprisoned merely on the grounds of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation, held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence at the time when it was committed, denied recognition as a person before the law, or denied the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- In addition, the protection of personal data represents a special form of respect for the right to privacy. States parties are required by article 17(2) to regulate, through clearly articulated laws, the recording, processing, use and conveyance of automated personal data and to protect those affected against misuse by State organs as well as private parties. In addition to prohibiting data processing for purposes that are incompatible with the Covenant, data protection laws must establish rights to information, correction and, if need be, deletion of data and provide effective supervisory measures. Moreover, as stated in the Human Rights Committee's general comment on the right to privacy, "in order to have the most effective protection of his private life, every individual should have the right to ascertain in an intelligible form, whether, and if so, what personal data is stored in automatic data files, and for what purposes. Every individual should also be able to ascertain which public authorities or private individuals or bodies control or may control their files."
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 62b
- Paragraph text
- [Member States should:] Participate actively in the development of policies that advance everyone’s right to freedom of information;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- International organizations must open themselves up to greater public scrutiny and participation if they are to thrive. Their leaders seem to recognize this, as is evident in their extensive websites, professional (if underresourced) communications offices and the public presence of a great number of officials of intergovernmental organizations in social, broadcast and print media. However, apart from a handful of exceptions noted herein, this recognition on their part does not generally lead to policies that promote and regularize the exercise of the right to information. Why this is so is not difficult to understand: with perhaps the exception of the work of the Security Council and the Secretary-General, and high-level ministerial meetings of Heads of State and Government, intergovernmental organizations generally conduct their day-to-day operations far from the media’s gaze, a situation that changes only in the event of scandal or abuse. The absence of that gaze, and the haze generated by large and difficult to penetrate bureaucracies, means that officials generally do not feel the pressure to release information. This, however, is a mistake.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- Like Governments, intergovernmental organizations should establish an explicit and comprehensive legal framework that recognizes a right to information applicable throughout the entire organization and its subsidiary organs. Any access policy should, explicitly or implicitly, promote disclosure of information in the public interest — that is, information to which the public has a right of access because of the benefit it would provide to understanding of the work of the organization. Information should be defined broadly to include all records, documents, data, analyses, opinions and processes, regardless of the media in which it is held, in keeping with the principle that individuals have a right to information and ideas of all kinds, subject only to narrow non-disclosure rules. The policy should be uniform across the organization, and should be written in plain language. It should also be binding, precluding the organization from withholding information on any basis found outside the policy itself. For instance, WFP generally recognizes a wide range of categories of information, capturing all sorts of media, and emphasizes the policy as a “directive” to be carried out by senior management.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- During the period of normative expansion in the establishment and work of human rights bodies, States were also adopting legislation to implement the right to information, while many incorporated a right to information as a matter of constitutional law. At the domestic level, States have increasingly opened up the workings of government as a matter of law, if not always achieving the best implementation practices. Nevertheless, the environment of confidentiality and withholding that tends to prevail within bureaucracies and in political leadership around the world remains difficult to eliminate. A prevailing exclusion of national security information from right-to-information legal frameworks encourages a tendency to look at disclosures, even those of the highest public interest without meaningful harm to governmental interests, as contrary to “the national interest”. Such attitudes put significant negative pressure on access-to-information laws, and they may have a spill-over effect beyond traditional national security environments. In short, while the legal framework for access to information has improved globally, open government still faces significant barriers in terms of overcoming attitudes and instilling implementation practices.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- From the early days of the mandate’s work, Special Rapporteurs have elaborated on the right to information. In only the second report of the mandate, the Special Rapporteur highlighted the “vitally important” roles served by the right to information (E/CN.4/1995/32, para. 135), and the 1998 report emphasized that “the right to access to information held by the Government must be the rule rather than the exception”. The 1998 report also noted a specific right to information about “State security” and, in a notable statement, raised concerns about government prosecution of civil servants who disclose “information which has been classified”, adding that Governments “continue to classify far more information than could be considered necessary”. By this the Special Rapporteur meant that Governments should only withhold material in which “serious harm to the State’s interest is unavoidable if the information is made public and that this harm outweighs the harm to the rights of opinion, expression and information”. He concluded, “The tendency to classify or withhold information on the basis of, for example, ‘Cabinet confidentiality’ is too often the practice, which adversely affects access to information” (E/CN.4/1998/40, paras. 12 and 13).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- The industry’s human rights impacts are frequently global, affecting users even in markets beyond those served by the company concerned. For example, surveillance of a single Internet exchange point in the United States may capture large streams of communications among Americans and foreigners, and even those entirely among foreigners. Similarly, security vulnerabilities in network design affect all users who rely on the compromised network for digital access, including users located far away from the network. Accordingly, companies should identify and address the broader implications of their activities for freedom of expression generally, in addition to their impacts on customers or rights holders in the markets they operate. To be sure, the manner in which they account for their impacts may vary according to their size, resources, ownership, structure and operating context (Ibid., principle 14). For example, all providers should vet user data requests for compliance with a minimum set of formalities, regardless of the origin of the request or the user affected. But while a multinational provider may have dedicated teams vetting requests, a small or medium-size provider may task its legal or public policy teams to perform the same function.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- IXPs handle an enormous volume of Internet traffic that may be filtered or intercepted at government request. The growing number of censorship and surveillance incidents involving IXPs indicates that they are major access choke points, even if their precise role is unclear. For example, in 2013, the manner in which access to YouTube was blocked in Pakistan indicated that the platform was filtered by IXPs, rather than ISPs, through a method known as “packet injection”. According to a leaked internal memo of a multinational ISP operating in Ecuador, users were unable to access Google and YouTube in March 2014 because the private Association of Internet Providers of Ecuador — which runs two of the major IXPs in the country — was “blocking access to certain Internet websites by request of the national Government”. The revelations of mass surveillance conducted by the United States National Security Agency have raised concern among technologists that the agency is intercepting a significant proportion of domestic and foreign Internet traffic by targeting United States IXPs. In September 2016, the world’s largest Internet exchange point, which is based in Germany, challenged legal orders issued by the country’s intelligence agency to monitor international communications transiting through its hub.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- These competing considerations have led to variations in regulatory approaches. In India, public concern over Facebook’s Free Basics culminated in a ban on any arrangement that “has the effect of discriminatory tariffs for data services being offered or charged to the consumer on the basis of content”. Restrictions on zero rating are in effect in Chile, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Japan. In contrast, the United States, followed later by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), adopted guidelines involving a case-by-case approach. States that adopt a case-by-case approach should carefully scrutinize and, if necessary, reject arrangements that, among other things, zero-rate affiliated content, condition zero rating on payment or favour access to certain applications within a class of similar applications (for example, zero rating certain music streaming services rather than all music streaming). Additionally, States should require meaningful corporate disclosures about network traffic management practices. For example, Chile requires ISPs to disclose Internet access speeds, price or speed differentials between national and international connections, and related service guarantees.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- Direct access to Internet and telecommunications networks enables authorities to intercept and monitor communications with limited legal scrutiny or accountability. Technological advances have enhanced the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to obtain a direct connection to networks without the involvement or knowledge of the network operator. During the 2014 general election in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, intelligence authorities allegedly obtained direct access to the country’s major telecommunications networks to intercept the communications of over 20,000 people, including politicians, activists, government officials and journalists. Many targets were also sent a transcript of their phone calls. In India, it appears that authorities are developing a Central Monitoring System programme that would enable “electronic provisioning of target numbers by government agency without any manual intervention from telecommunications service providers on a secure network.” These activities do not appear to be provided by law, lacking both judicial authorization and external oversight. Furthermore, the risks they pose to the security and integrity of network infrastructure raise proportionality concerns.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- International human rights law establishes the right of everyone to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, and through any media of his or her choice (see Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 19; and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 19). The Human Rights Council and General Assembly have reiterated that the freedom of expression and other rights apply online (see Council resolutions 26/13 and 32/13; General Assembly resolution 68/167; and A/HRC/32/38). The Human Rights Committee, previous mandate holders and the Special Rapporteur have examined States’ obligations under article 19 of the Covenant. In short, States may not interfere with, or in any way restrict, the holding of opinions (see art. 19 (1) of the Covenant; and A/HRC/29/32, para. 19). Article 19 (3) of the Covenant provides that States may limit freedom of expression only where provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals (see Human Rights Committee general comment No. 34 (2011); A/71/373; and A/HRC/29/32).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- Under article 2 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, States parties must ensure that persons whose rights under the Covenant have been violated have an effective remedy. The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights anticipate that corporations should provide remedial and grievance mechanisms that are legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, rights-compatible, transparent, based on dialogue and engagement, and a source of continuous learning. There is limited guidance, however, as to how these elements should be operationalized or assessed in the context of information and communications technology. For example, improper removal of web links from search results might require the search engine to reinstate such links. It is, however, unclear how complaint or appeals mechanisms should be designed and implemented to ensure that such removals are effectively flagged, evaluated and remedied. A search engine's highly dispersed customer base further complicates design issues. It is also unclear whether companies should provide additional remedies, like financial compensation for lost revenue during the period of removal, or guarantees of non-repetition.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- Intermediaries are increasingly required to assess the validity of State requests and private complaints against general legal criteria, and remove or delink such content based on such assessments. For example, the Cybercrime Act, 2015 of the United Republic of Tanzania only exempts hyperlink providers from liability for information linked provided that they "immediately remove[ ] or disable[ ] access to the information after receiving an order to do so from the relevant authority". In the context of copyright, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of the United States of America exempts providers of "online services and network access" from liability for third party content only if they respond "expeditiously to remove, or disable access to the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity" upon notice of such infringement. These notice and takedown frameworks have been criticized for incentivizing questionable claims and for failing to provide adequate protection for the intermediaries that seek to apply fair and human rights-sensitive standards to content regulation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- State demands to remove content are often based on such rationales as defamation, blasphemy, election-related regulations, harassment or hate speech, incitement, intellectual property, obscenity and indecency, terrorist recruitment or "glorification", the protection of national security and public safety, child protection and the prevention of gender-based attacks. Problems long connected to freedom of expression but increasingly complicated in the digital age have also attracted State regulation, including the "right to be forgotten" and pluralism and diversity (for example, network neutrality). Intermediaries themselves establish and enforce terms of service designed to address many of these concerns, for legal, commercial and other reasons. Many of these issues raise questions about the appropriate balance between freedom of expression and other human rights (for example, privacy, non-discrimination). While content regulations are often restrictive in nature, they may also require the transmission of Government-mandated or approved messages, or prohibit differential pricing for content and content delivery services.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 57a
- Paragraph text
- [Among steps that I would encourage are the following:] Review and, where necessary, revise national laws. National legislation increasingly adopts overly broad definitions of key terms, such as terrorism, national security, extremism and hate speech, that fail to limit the discretion of executive authorities. Legislation often limits the role of judicial or independent and public oversight. Proponents often give limited demonstration of how new legal rules are necessary to protect legitimate interests and proportionately address specific threats, and the legislative process often limits public engagement and debate. I would urge all States considering new legislation to ensure that their laws meet these requirements, and I encourage States to implement regular public oversight of laws that implicate freedom of expression to ensure that they meet the tests of legality, legitimacy and necessity. Where possible, States should not only adopt legal frameworks but also implement training, particularly among independent oversight bodies, of the principles of freedom of expression;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- Human rights law places a high value on the individual's ability to hold beliefs and practise religious faith. The Human Rights Council has raised concerns about discrimination and violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief (see Council resolution 16/18). Yet neither article 18, on freedom of religion, conscience or belief, article 19 nor article 20 (2) of the Covenant protects religions, institutions or beliefs as such. The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has noted that the right to freedom of religion or belief has sometimes been misperceived as protecting religions or belief systems in themselves (see A/HRC/31/18, para. 13), when it in fact protects individuals holding or expressing those beliefs. In paragraph 48 of its general comment No. 34, the Human Rights Committee emphasized that prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with article 19. Nor, the Committee noted, would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- Several States penalize sedition or treason in their laws, targeting critics. Malaysia, for instance, has continued to defend its ongoing prosecution of individuals on the basis of a law that criminalizes seditious words or tendencies, arguing that the law promotes "national harmony". In practice, however, dozens of individuals have been detained or subject to prosecution under the Sedition Act merely for expression critical of the Government. Swaziland detained activists on sedition charges following criticism of the monarchical system of government. India has pursued charges against individuals, including a folk singer accused of writing lyrics critical of local government, on the grounds of section 124 A of its Penal Code, which prohibits expression that may cause "hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection" towards the Government. The Gambia has prosecuted a journalist on the grounds of "sedition" and the "publication of false news with intent to cause fear and alarm to the public" under Gambian law. Jordan has detained and prosecuted an academic for allegedly posting anti-Government comments on his Facebook page on the grounds of "undermining the political regime in the Kingdom".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 8
- Paragraph text
- The "duties and responsibilities" under article 19 (3) appear nowhere else in the Covenant. Only in the preamble is it emphasized that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the Covenant. The language in the Covenant and in article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not identify duties or responsibilities of individuals to the State, but to other individuals and the communities in which they live, an acknowledgement that the only legitimate restrictions are those demonstrably grounded in and necessary for the protection of the rights of other individuals or a specific public interest. It is not unusual for States to highlight an individual's duty in order to bolster expansive limitations on the right to freedom of expression. However, the phrase "duties and responsibilities" adds nothing to claims for support of a State's powers of restriction. By no measure does the language prioritize the State over the rights enjoyed by individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- States, international organizations, corporations and civil society groups should promote online security. Given the relevance of new communication technologies in the promotion of human rights and development, all those involved should systematically promote access to encryption and anonymity without discrimination. The Special Rapporteur urgently calls upon entities of the United Nations system, especially those involved in human rights and humanitarian protection, to support the use of communication security tools in order to ensure that those who interact with them may do so securely. United Nations entities must revise their communication practices and tools and invest resources in enhancing security and confidentiality for the multiple stakeholders interacting with the Organization through digital communications. Particular attention must be paid by human rights protection mechanisms when requesting and managing information received from civil society and witnesses and victims of human rights violations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- States should not restrict encryption and anonymity, which facilitate and often enable the rights to freedom of opinion and expression. Blanket prohibitions fail to be necessary and proportionate. States should avoid all measures that weaken the security that individuals may enjoy online, such as backdoors, weak encryption standards and key escrows. In addition, States should refrain from making the identification of users a condition for access to digital communications and online services and requiring SIM card registration for mobile users. Corporate actors should likewise consider their own policies that restrict encryption and anonymity (including through the use of pseudonyms). Court-ordered decryption, subject to domestic and international law, may only be permissible when it results from transparent and publicly accessible laws applied solely on a targeted, case-by-case basis to individuals (i.e., not to a mass of people) and subject to judicial warrant and the protection of due process rights of individuals.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Some States and regional courts have moved towards imposing responsibilities on Internet service providers and media platforms to regulate online comments by anonymous users. Ecuador, for instance, in its Organic Communications Law, requires intermediaries to generate mechanisms to record personal data to allow the identification of those posting comments. In Delfi v. Estonia (application No. 64569/09), the European Court of Human Rights upheld an Estonian law that imposes liability on a media platform for anonymous defamatory statements posted on its site. Such intermediary liability is likely to result either in real-name registration policies, thereby undermining anonymity, or the elimination of posting altogether by those websites that cannot afford to implement screening procedures, thus harming smaller, independent media. The recently adopted Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, drafted by a coalition of civil society organizations, provide a sound set of guidelines for States and international and regional mechanisms to protect expression online.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Corporations in a variety of sectors play roles in advancing or interfering with privacy, opinion and expression, including encryption and anonymity. Much online communication (and virtually all of it in some countries) is carried on networks owned and operated by private corporations, while other corporations own and manage websites with substantial user-generated content. Others are active players in the surveillance and spyware markets, providing hardware and software to Governments to compromise the security of individuals online. Others develop and provide services for secure and private online storage. Telecommunications entities, Internet service providers, search engines, cloud services and many other corporate actors, often described as intermediaries, promote, regulate or compromise privacy and expression online. Intermediaries may store massive volumes of user data, to which Governments often demand access. Encryption and anonymity may be promoted or compromised by each of these corporate actors.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 13
- Paragraph text
- The "dark" side of encryption and anonymity is a reflection of the fact that wrongdoing offline takes place online as well. Law enforcement and counter-terrorism officials express concern that terrorists and ordinary criminals use encryption and anonymity to hide their activities, making it difficult for Governments to prevent and conduct investigations into terrorism, the illegal drug trade, organized crime and child pornography, among other government objectives. Harassment and cyberbullying may rely on anonymity as a cowardly mask for discrimination, particularly against members of vulnerable groups. At the same time, however, law enforcement often uses the same tools to ensure their own operational security in undercover operations, while members of vulnerable groups may use the tools to ensure their privacy in the face of harassment. Moreover, Governments have at their disposal a broad set of alternative tools, such as wiretapping, geo-location and tracking, data-mining, traditional physical surveillance and many others, which strengthen contemporary law enforcement and counter-terrorism.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- The Internet has profound value for freedom of opinion and expression, as it magnifies the voice and multiplies the information within reach of everyone who has access to it. Within a brief period, it has become the central global public forum. As such, an open and secure Internet should be counted among the leading prerequisites for the enjoyment of the freedom of expression today. But it is constantly under threat, a space - not unlike the physical world - in which criminal enterprise, targeted repression and mass data collection also exist. It is thus critical that individuals find ways to secure themselves online, that Governments provide such safety in law and policy and that corporate actors design, develop and market secure-by-default products and services. None of these imperatives is new. Early in the digital age, Governments recognized the essential role played by encryption in securing the global economy, using or encouraging its use to secure Government-issued identity numbers, credit card and banking information, business proprietary documents and investigations into online crime itself.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- The need for a vibrant and critical debate, with no restrictions on the form or content of political expression, has been explored in depth by the European Court of Human Rights, which has emphasized that "the limits of permissible criticism are wider with regard to the Government than in relation to a private citizen, or even a politician". The State authorities may adopt, "in their capacity as guarantors of public order", penalties for defamation that are proportionate to the injury but only where the accusations are "devoid of foundation or formulated in bad faith". The reference to public order suggests that discretion of a government to restrict potentially defamatory statements against it should be limited to situations in which public order is threatened: While freedom of expression is important for everybody, it is especially so for an elected representative of the people. He represents his electorate, draws attention to their preoccupations and defends their interests. Accordingly, interferences with the freedom of expression of an opposition member of parliament, like the applicant, call for the closest scrutiny on the part of the Court.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 70
- Paragraph text
- In the case of sexual exploitation, for example, advances in technology, including faster Internet connections and new ways of transmitting material that circumvent Internet service providers, have facilitated the sharing of images involving child abuse. Cybergrooming also involves the use of the Internet, this time to "befriend" and facilitate online sexual contact or a physical meeting with a child or young person for the purpose of committing sexual abuse. Offenders often use online forums such as chat rooms, social networking sites and instant messaging for this purpose; these "deconstruct traditional boundaries of privacy" and result in children being exposed to risks. Lastly, cyberbullying is understood as the psychological bullying and hazing by adults or other children through information and communications technologies. Cyberbullying can take various forms, including threats and intimidation, harassment, cyberstalking, vilification and defamation, exclusion or peer rejection, impersonation, unauthorized publication of private information or images, and manipulation. This is particularly problematic for groups that are already considered vulnerable in society.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Youth
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- Generally, legislation has not kept pace with the changes in technology. In most States, legal standards are either non-existent or inadequate to deal with the modern communications surveillance environment. As a result, States are increasingly seeking to justify the use of new technologies within the ambits of old legal frameworks, without recognizing that the expanded capabilities they now possess go far beyond what such frameworks envisaged. In many countries, this means that vague and broadly conceived legal provisions are being invoked to legitimize and sanction the use of seriously intrusive techniques. Without explicit laws authorizing such technologies and techniques, and defining the scope of their use, individuals are not able to foresee - or even know about - their application. At the same time, laws are being adopted to broaden the breadth of national security exceptions, providing for the legitimization of intrusive surveillance techniques without oversight or independent review.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- The right to privacy is often understood as an essential requirement for the realization of the right to freedom of expression. Undue interference with individuals' privacy can both directly and indirectly limit the free development and exchange of ideas. Restrictions of anonymity in communication, for example, have an evident chilling effect on victims of all forms of violence and abuse, who may be reluctant to report for fear of double victimization. In this regard, article 17 of ICCPR refers directly to the protection from interference with "correspondence", a term that should be interpreted to encompass all forms of communication, both online and offline. As the Special Rapporteur noted in a previous report, the right to private correspondence gives rise to a comprehensive obligation of the State to ensure that e-mails and other forms of online communication are actually delivered to the desired recipient without the interference or inspection by State organs or by third parties.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- In many countries, existing legislation and practices have not been reviewed and updated to address the threats and challenges of communications surveillance in the digital age. Traditional notions of access to written correspondence, for example, have been imported into laws permitting access to personal computers and other information and communications technologies, without consideration of the expanded uses of such devices and the implications for individuals' rights. At the same time, the absence of laws to regulate global communications surveillance and sharing arrangements has resulted in ad hoc practices that are beyond the supervision of any independent authority. Today, in many States, access to communications data can be conducted by a wide range of public bodies for a wide range of purposes, often without judicial authorization and independent oversight. In addition, States have sought to adopt surveillance arrangements that purport to have extra-territorial effect.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 108
- Paragraph text
- Only if the information released is related to the above principles should the person be considered a whistle-blower and, therefore, bear no liability.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 102
- Paragraph text
- The effectiveness of national legislation on the right to information depends on the establishment and implementation of procedures that ensure that access is rapid, inexpensive and not unduly burdensome.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 101
- Paragraph text
- National laws should establish the right to lodge complaints or appeals to independent bodies in cases in which requests for information have not been dealt with properly or have been refused.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 100
- Paragraph text
- Alternative laws establishing additional grounds for secrecy must be revised or revoked in order to ensure that they meet the norms on access to information.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 84
- Paragraph text
- In some cases, the continued use of parallel national laws and regulations justifying multiple grounds for secrecy, some predating the adoption of the laws regulating access to information, continues to hamper information access.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 76g
- Paragraph text
- [The core principles include:] Open meetings. In line with the notion of maximum disclosure, legislation should establish a presumption that meetings of governing bodies are open to the public;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- Described below are the principles developed to guide the design and implementation of national legislation on access to information, in addition to common obstacles to the implementation of such laws.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur considers that the Tshwane Principles provide a key tool for States to ensure that national laws and practices regarding the withholding of information on national security grounds fully comply with international human rights standards.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- The Inter-American Court has recently has found that violations of the right to know the truth can be a breach of the right to access information set forth in article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which recognizes freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- Lastly, ensuring accountability for what is reported in the media also remains important. For example, the open journalism paradigm promoted by the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland encourages two-way interaction between journalists and the audience online, which has reinserted journalists' willingness to engage in debate and be accountable for what they do into the core of journalism. At the very minimum, media outlets and journalists should adopt voluntary ethical codes and standards that do not allow hate speech and promote high standards of professional journalism, in addition to establishing independent and self-regulatory bodies to elevate standards of journalism and to ensure the accountability of all media professionals. Self-regulatory bodies should be seen not only as an exercise in policing and dispute resolution, but also as an opportunity to involve society at large in debates about the role and contribution of the media, to monitor the state of the media, to advocate professional journalism and to promote media literacy. Such bodies can also play a proactive and exemplary role in setting and reinforcing ethical standards for online content and the social media.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is thus concerned that without Internet access, which facilitates economic development and the enjoyment of a range of human rights, marginalized groups and developing States remain trapped in a disadvantaged situation, thereby perpetuating inequality both within and between States. As he has noted previously, to combat situations of inequality it is critical to ensure that marginalized or disadvantaged sections of society can express their grievances effectively and that their voices are heard. The Internet offers a key means by which such groups can obtain information, assert their rights, and participate in public debates concerning social, economic and political changes to improve their situation. Moreover, the Internet is an important educational tool, as it provides access to a vast and expanding source of knowledge, supplements or transforms traditional forms of schooling, and makes, through "open access" initiatives, previously unaffordable scholarly research available to people in developing States. Additionally, the educational benefits attained from Internet usage directly contribute to the human capital of States.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur notes that multi-stakeholder initiatives are essential to deal effectively with issues related to the Internet, and the Global Network Initiative serves as a helpful example to encourage good practice by corporations. Although only three corporations, namely Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, have participated in this initiative so far, the Special Rapporteur welcomes their commitment to undertake a human rights impact assessment of their decisions, including before entering a foreign market, and to ensure transparency and accountability when confronted with situations that may undermine the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Google's Transparency Report is an outcome of such work, and provides information on Government inquiries for information about users and requests for Google to take down or censor content, as well as statistical information on traffic to Google services, such as YouTube. By illustrating traffic patterns for a given country or region, it allows users to discern any disruption in the free flow of information, whether it is due to Government censorship or a cable cut.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- States' use of blocking or filtering technologies is frequently in violation of their obligation to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, as the criteria mentioned under chapter III are not met. Firstly, the specific conditions that justify blocking are not established in law, or are provided by law but in an overly broad and vague manner, which risks content being blocked arbitrarily and excessively. Secondly, blocking is not justified to pursue aims which are listed under article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and blocking lists are generally kept secret, which makes it difficult to assess whether access to content is being restricted for a legitimate purpose. Thirdly, even where justification is provided, blocking measures constitute an unnecessary or disproportionate means to achieve the purported aim, as they are often not sufficiently targeted and render a wide range of content inaccessible beyond that which has been deemed illegal. Lastly, content is frequently blocked without the intervention of or possibility for review by a judicial or independent body.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- In addition, the Special Rapporteur emphasizes that due to the unique characteristics of the Internet, regulations or restrictions which may be deemed legitimate and proportionate for traditional media are often not so with regard to the Internet. For example, in cases of defamation of individuals' reputation, given the ability of the individual concerned to exercise his/her right of reply instantly to restore the harm caused, the types of sanctions that are applied to offline defamation may be unnecessary or disproportionate. Similarly, while the protection of children from inappropriate content may constitute a legitimate aim, the availability of software filters that parents and school authorities can use to control access to certain content renders action by the Government such as blocking less necessary, and difficult to justify. Furthermore, unlike the broadcasting sector, for which registration or licensing has been necessary to allow States to distribute limited frequencies, such requirements cannot be justified in the case of the Internet, as it can accommodate an unlimited number of points of entry and an essentially unlimited number of users.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Families
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- International criminal law prohibits direct and public incitement to commit genocide under article 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, article 25, 3 (e), of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, article 4, 3 (c), of the statute of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and article 2, 3 (c), of the statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Incitement to commit genocide has historically been justified as a criminal offence owing to the particularly reprehensible nature of genocide as "the crime of crimes". Indeed, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has repeatedly underscored the "utmost gravity" of the crime of direct and public incitement to genocide, and has stressed that the media as a key tool used by extremists in Rwanda to mobilize and incite the population to genocide, a view which led it to deny an application by Georges Ruggiu for early release.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 71
- Paragraph text
- Keeping the above in mind, the Special Rapporteur strongly emphasizes the importance of promoting and providing support to projects which seek to ensure the access to information and communication. In this regard, the global project "One Laptop per Child" is a good initiative. As stated in the most recent report of the Special Rapporteur to the Human Rights Council, this kind of initiative helps to spread the availability of ICT in developing countries. The project, supported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and several partners, has benefited not just children, but their families as well, since one of the essential aspects of the permanently connected laptop is its free use at home, which allows the child and the family to increase their access to information and to the outside world. Two important elements of these laptops are that they can be charged by solar or mechanical power; and they have been designed to provide an engaging wireless network, which allows the laptops to be connected automatically to others nearby.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Families
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- There are, however, some encouraging initiatives to promote broadband Internet connection at the national level. Sweden, for example, was the first European country to develop a broadband policy in 1999, with the Government aiming to provide broadband in rural and remote areas where there is no market incentive to do so. In Brazil, the Government has been active in developing programmes that make broadband Internet access available to people in lower income brackets. For example, the e-government citizens' support service (GESAC) was set up in early 2002 for the purpose of increasing social inclusion by promoting digital inclusion, with the use of wireless technologies, such as satellite and WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access), to roll out broadband to poorly served areas. The Government also operates a network of community telecentres that offer Internet access free of charge. Through GESAC, the Government aims to ensure that all of Brazil's 5,565 municipalities have at least one broadband access point.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities outlines general principles to which States that have ratified the Convention should adhere, including full and effective participation and inclusion in society and accessibility (article 3, paras. (c) and (f)). The Convention further stipulates that States should "promote the availability and use of new technologies, including information and communications technologies, mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies, suitable for persons with disabilities, giving priority to technologies at an affordable cost" (article 4, para. 1 (g)), and "promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and communications technologies and systems, including the Internet" (article 9, para. 2 (g)). To ensure fulfilment of these obligations, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has recommended the following principles for ICT accessibility: equal access, functional equivalency, accessibility, affordability and design for all.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Persons with disabilities
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- Like the former Commission on Human Rights, the Human Rights Council has regularly expressed concern regarding attacks against journalists in resolutions on freedom of expression, including the most recent resolution on the issue, adopted in October 2009 (Council resolution 12/16), in which the Council expressed its continuing concern that threats and acts of violence, including killings, attacks and terrorist acts, particularly directed against journalists and other media workers in situations of armed conflict, have increased and are not adequately punished, in particular in those circumstances where public authorities are involved in committing those acts. The Council called upon States to ensure that victims of such violations have an effective remedy, to investigate effectively threats and acts of violence, including terrorist acts, against journalists, including in situations of armed conflict, and to bring to justice those responsible in order to combat impunity. It also called on all parties to armed conflict to respect international humanitarian law, and to allow, within the framework of applicable rules and procedures, media access and coverage, as appropriate, in situations of international and non international armed conflict.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Hence, as civilians, all journalists, whether accredited to or embedded with the forces involved, attached to adversary forces or operating unilaterally, are provided with comprehensive protection under international humanitarian law during armed conflict, provided they do not directly participate in hostilities. The Special Rapporteur would like to discourage the granting of special protection or special status to journalists under international law, as this would necessitate the formulation of a precise definition of journalists as a protected category and the clearer identification of journalists in armed conflict, both of which could potentially lead to significantly decreased protection for journalists. The former might require journalists to be duly accredited and recognized by some public authority, thus increasing interference by the State, and the latter might place journalists in further danger, since many are targeted precisely because they are journalists, as explained above. Thus, the Special Rapporteur firmly believes that existing standards are sufficient, but that respect for and the implementation of such standards must be strengthened.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with individuals' enjoyment of rights. While article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permits States to impose certain limitations on the right to freedom of expression, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that, all too often, States invoke this provision to justify undue interference with journalists' right to freedom of expression to prevent them from exposing corruption or misconduct by the Government or powerful private entities, or from reporting on other politically sensitive issues. Even though such limitations may be provided by law as required by article 19(3), in many cases the provisions are vague and ambiguous and are accompanied by harsh sentences, including imprisonment, and disproportionate fines. The Special Rapporteur would like to remind States that limitations on the right to freedom of expression must be the exception, rather than the rule. Further details regarding the criteria which must be met when States attempt to limit the right to freedom of expression are set out in the Special Rapporteur's most recent report to the Human Rights Council.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Although reporting from situations of armed conflict significantly increases the risks to their lives, more journalists are, in fact, killed in non-conflict situations than are killed during armed conflict. Indeed, the Special Rapporteur would like to underscore the fact that the majority of casualties are not international war correspondents, but local journalists working in their own countries, mostly in peacetime, covering local stories. As highlighted in the joint statement issued by the Special Rapporteur and the three regional rapporteurs on freedom of expression, the Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that journalists reporting on social problems, including organized crime or drug trafficking, voicing criticism of Government or the powerful, or reporting on human rights violations or corruption are at particular risk. Another factor that often places journalists at risk is reporting on environmental matters, electoral processes, demonstrations or civil disorder. The Special Rapporteur also notes that in at least 4 of every 10 cases in which journalists were murdered, the victims had reported receiving threats before they were killed.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 63c
- Paragraph text
- [Civil society organizations, the media and members of the public should:] Share information with other organizations and with the Special Rapporteur about the experience of engaging with intergovernmental organizations in the development of access policies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 63b
- Paragraph text
- [Civil society organizations, the media and members of the public should:] Make requests for information from intergovernmental organizations as soon as possible, even before the development of access policies, in order to determine the way in which they currently handle such formal requests;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 63a
- Paragraph text
- [Civil society organizations, the media and members of the public should:] Engage directly and seek a formal role with intergovernmental organizations in the process of development of access to information policies, including by identifying for them the key areas of interest in information;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 62c
- Paragraph text
- [Member States should:] Focus on ensuring the broadest possible access to information, only seeking to protect from disclosure State-generated information that could be withheld under international human rights law, in particular article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- Not every organization with an access-to-information policy deals with exceptions in the same way, but a fundamental problem with many is that they do not provide a basis for disclosure in the public interest (which UNDP does provide). For instance, while the policy of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) largely follows along the lines of UNDP, it fails to include a public interest test to provide for disclosure, even in situations where non-disclosure may be permitted. UNESCO has recently adopted a policy that, while noting a commitment to transparency (and despite its role in the United Nations system in promoting access to information), includes similar restrictions as UNDP. However, like UNFPA, it does not provide a public interest override, such that material normally subject to non-disclosure could be released. If an organization does not provide a public interest test, its exceptions appear rigid and likely to result in barriers to transparency. As part of any public interest test, organizations should include a strong presumption that information about threats to the environment, health or human rights and information revealing corruption should be released because of heightened public interest in such information. This would be consistent with emerging norms governing State access to information policies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- The UNDP information disclosure policy provides a good example of how to approach exceptions. Its policy, which notes that the organization operates in contexts of “crisis, conflict or humanitarian disasters” that pose challenges to UNDP operations and Member State interests, identifies several categories of information deemed confidential and “not available to the public”. Not all of the categories of exceptions are entirely appropriate, such as “[c]ommercial information where disclosure would harm either the financial interests of UNDP or those of third parties involved” or “[i]nformation which, if disclosed, in UNDP’s view would seriously undermine the policy dialogue with Member States or implementing partners”. (These exceptions are found in the policies of other intergovernmental organizations as well.) Both categories seem overbroad and subject to undue discretion of the organization. Nonetheless, recognizing this potential for overbreadth and potentially illegitimate non-disclosure in paragraph 12 of its information disclosure policy, UNDP provides that it could disclose even “confidential” information “if it determines that the overall benefits and public interest of such disclosure outweighs the likely harm to the interest(s) protected by the exception(s)”. Such authority rests not only in UNDP itself but in the independent panel created to oversee such decisions.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- Public disclosure should also involve the following points: first, the institutions themselves should engage on a regular basis with members of the public, typically through civil society organizations, to ensure that they are making public all relevant and valuable information. For instance, in its submission for the present report, the International Service for Human Rights highlighted the kinds of information that it believes to be in the public interest and how OHCHR could improve its proactive disclosures. Regular dialogue with civil society organizations would enable all intergovernmental organizations to be efficient in the disclosure of information, and would likely reduce the resources devoted to such requests. Second, disclosed information must be shared in a way that is easily searched and analysed. Third, in an age of surveillance and information insecurity, all organizations must take steps to ensure both the security of their information systems and of the individuals who may be seeking access to them. I have already raised the issue of digital insecurity at OHCHR, including in my 2015 report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/29/32, para. 37). The OHCHR website, and the website of the United Nations itself, remain unencrypted (as do many other institutions), potentially deterring those concerned about the privacy of their online searches from seeking information.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- Access information policy at UNEP is focused on a policy of maximum disclosure and openness. Its policy defines the type of information it can disclose, which is any information relating to UNEP and in its possession, and includes established exceptions, consistent with relevant rules and practices of the United Nations, for example, how to handle sensitive information and classification. UNEP has a specific information request mechanism that includes information on how to frame a request, and to whom. Furthermore, it specifies that if there is an exception of concern, the officer handling the request shall seek guidance from a senior legal officer. UNEP has a timeline for handling requests, indicating that receipt of a request must be acknowledged within 5 days, a response within 30 days, and a response to an information appeal within 60 days. The policy contains a fee structure, under which most information is released free of charge, except for printing costs. It requires a reason for the denial of a request for information and establishes an appeals mechanism, made up of a panel of two members of UNEP and one outside representative. In addition, the policy includes a public interest override test according to which UNEP will release information if the benefits of disclosure outweigh potential harm.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Sixteen institutions made submissions for the compilation of the present report, which I supplemented with interviews and consultations. Despite extensive outreach, dozens of intergovernmental organizations and agencies within the United Nations system did not respond to the mandate’s call for submission. I was particularly disappointed not to receive a submission from the Secretariat of the United Nations Headquarters in New York. While organizations that did not make any submission may have some kind of access-to-information policy in place, 10 organizations that made submissions have formal access-to-information, disclosure or transparency policies; two are currently drafting policies; one does not have a formal access-to-information policy but provides access through an array of its policies; and three do not have any information access policies. Based on research, it appears that most international organizations lack binding policies to protect and promote the right of access to information. Put another way, based on my research, with a few notable exceptions, intergovernmental organizations have failed to create mechanisms that can penetrate their opacity and enable easy access to their operations. Most egregiously, the United Nations does not have an access-to-information policy that applies to every department and specialized agency; it does not even have ad hoc standards for response to access-to-information requests.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- It bears re-emphasizing that article 19 of the International Covenant guarantees everyone the right to seek and receive information of all kinds, regardless of frontiers. At a minimum, States are obligated not to stand in the way of members of the public receiving information from organizations like the United Nations and its departments and agencies, absent a demonstration of the legitimate application of the limitations found in article 19 (3) of the Covenant. One can go a step further and highlight the broad consensus that States are obligated not only to avoid illegitimate restrictions on access to information but that they should create enabling environments for all rights under article 19 of the Covenant. While intergovernmental organizations clearly enjoy an independent personality under international law, their main policies and legal norms are often the result of the decisions of their Member States. As such, States should encourage the creation of environments that include access to information not merely because of some legalistic approach to intergovernmental organizations and the responsibility of the United Nations but because their citizens — all citizens, everywhere — should enjoy the right to information of all kinds regardless of frontiers, including information about intergovernmental organizations and the United Nations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- Transparency within intergovernmental organizations advances the same objectives that underlie the expansion of freedom of information and open government initiatives. As noted in the submission of the Centre for Law and Democracy, such organizations are public institutions, performing governmental functions, much as States do. Members of the public can only seriously engage with the critical issues pursued by intergovernmental organizations when they have access to information about them. In the context of multilateral institutions, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly noted that for “civil society to engage effectively in global decision-making, the right to access information is indispensable” (A/69/365, para. 15). In countries where intergovernmental organizations do extensive work, whether it involves peacekeeping or development assistance or human rights, to name a few areas, genuine engagement and participation means the ability to gain current information about the work of such missions. It means having mechanisms of public accountability so that individuals can determine whether the organizations are serving their interests or those of the organization itself, including, possibly, corporations, local leaders or corrupt participants in public life.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 81
- Paragraph text
- The intersection of State behaviour and corporate roles in the digital age remains somewhat new for many States. One profitable way forward, at both the international and domestic levels, would involve the development of national action plans on business and human rights in order to establish meaningful avenues for all categories of the digital access industry to identify and address their respective human rights impacts.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 80
- Paragraph text
- The protective role that States may exercise over the private sector can only go so far. They should not be promoting the economic gain of private entities over users’ rights to freedom of opinion and expression. Thus, States should prohibit attempts to assign priority to certain types of Internet content or applications over others for payment or other commercial benefits.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- Remedies may include both financial and non-financial means (Ibid., principle 27). When freedom of expression is impaired, appropriate remedies may include access to grievance mechanisms and information about the violation and guarantees of non-repetition. Users whose accounts have been wrongly suspended may want the satisfaction of being heard and provided with explanations and assurances of non-repetition.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- Companies have an interest in operating in a legal environment that is human rights compliant, consistent due process and rule of law norms. Companies should explore all legal options for challenging requests that are excessively intrusive — such as requests for shutdowns of entire services or platforms, website takedowns that are clearly targeted at criticism or dissent or customer data requests that cover broadly unspecified users.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- Companies should be quick to adapt due diligence processes to changes in circumstances or operating context. For example, risk assessment should continue after the design phase and at regular intervals throughout the life cycle of the product or service, taking into account factors such as technology and infrastructure changes and associated security vulnerabilities, alterations in consumer behaviour, and modifications of the legal, political and social environment where companies operate.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Due diligence processes should critically examine at least applicable local and international laws and standards, including potential conflicts between local laws and human rights; freedom of expression and privacy risks embedded in the company’s products and services; strategies to mitigate and prevent these risks; limits on the effectiveness of these strategies given the company’s legal, regulatory or operating environment; and the potential to promote human rights throughout the company’s operations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- Due diligence processes enable a digital access provider to identify, prevent and mitigate the human rights impacts of its activities (see A/HRC/17/31, annex, principle 19). While one-size-fits-all due diligence approaches are neither possible nor advisable, human rights impact assessments provide a means of assessing and addressing risks to freedom of expression and privacy. Due diligence involves at least the following.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- To operationalize its human rights commitments, the digital access industry should allocate appropriate resources to at least the practices described below. Although these principles are evaluated in the context of digital access, they also bear relevance to other sectors of the digital economy, such as social media, commerce, surveillance and search.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- Some evidence suggests that vendors may provide support for government censorship and surveillance. In a case pending before United States courts, Cisco has been accused of designing, implementing and helping to maintain a Chinese surveillance and internal security network known as the Golden Shield. (Cisco denies those allegations.) In Ethiopia, human rights groups found that ZTE Corporation had designed and installed a customer management database for Ethio Telecom that enabled intrusive surveillance.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- IXPs enable the exchange of Internet traffic between and among networks managed by different providers within a country or region. This form of interconnection prevents local or regional Internet traffic from taking long and circuitous international routes, thus enhancing the speed and efficiency of Internet connectivity. IXPs may be established by Internet infrastructure companies as part of a broader suite of services sold to providers or operated as non-profit or volunteer organizations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- A growing number of providers are establishing arrangements with media and other content-producing companies that threaten net neutrality and are lobbying intensely for concessions on net neutrality standards. For example, as European regulators were developing net neutrality guidelines, 17 major providers in the region issued the “5G Manifesto”, warning that “excessively prescriptive” guidelines would delay their investment in 5G, the next generation of mobile Internet connection.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Zero rating arrangements may provide users with limited Internet access in areas that would otherwise completely lack access. However, broader Internet access may still remain out of reach for users, trapping them in permanently walled online gardens. The assumption that limited access will eventually ripen into full connectivity requires further study. It may be dependent upon factors such as user behaviour, market conditions, the human rights landscape and the regulatory environment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Environment
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- Duration and geographical scope may vary, but shutdowns are generally disproportionate. Affected users are cut off from emergency services and health information, mobile banking and e-commerce, transportation, school classes, voting and election monitoring, reporting on major crises and events, and human rights investigations. Given the number of essential activities and services they affect, shutdowns restrict expression and interfere with other fundamental rights.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- The failure to explain or acknowledge shutdowns creates the perception that they are designed to suppress reporting, criticism or dissent. Reports of repression and State-sanctioned violence in the wake of network disruptions have led to allegations that some States exploit the darkness to commit and cover up abuses. In Sudan, for example, Internet access was shut down for several hours during a deadly crackdown on demonstrators protesting fuel price hikes in September 2013.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- The government actions described below often fail to meet the standards of human rights law. Moreover, a lack of transparency pervades government interferences with the digital access industry. Failures of transparency include vague laws providing excessive discretion to authorities, legal restrictions on third party disclosures concerning government access to user data and specific gag orders. The lack of transparency undermines the rule of law as well as public understanding across this sector.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- Despite multiple reform attempts, transparency concerning government requests is still lacking. While there has been some improvement in transparency reporting concerning government requests for user information, there is far less information available about the volume and nature of government requests to restrict or remove content. It is unclear whether such statistics are even retained. State restrictions on private disclosures of relevant information can be a major obstacle to corporate transparency. Several States prohibit disclosures concerning government requests for content removal or access to user data. India, for example, prohibits online intermediaries from disclosing details of government orders to block access to Internet content, as well as any action they take in response to such orders. The British Investigative Powers Bill would prohibit telecommunication service providers from disclosing, among other things, "the existence and contents" of government orders to retain customers' communications data. In other States, ambiguous laws and regulations make it difficult for corporations to determine what kinds of information they are permitted to disclose. In South Africa, for example, private disclosures of government requests for customers' data are prohibited, but it is unclear whether the same restriction extends to content removal requests.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- Since the Special Rapporteur reported on the importance of encryption and anonymity for protecting freedom of opinion and expression, government pressure on corporations to compromise the security of their customers' digital devices, communications and information has grown. A range of private entities, from hardware manufacturers to e-mail services to messaging services, have been taking measures to develop and implement technologies that enhance user security, anonymity and privacy. These measures include end-to-end encryption for digital communications, disk encryption and timely software updates to close security loopholes. In response, States are seeking to compel companies to create or exploit technical loopholes in their products and services on their behalf. In the United States, for example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation applied to a federal court to compel Apple to create software that facilitates access to a suspect's iPhone in a terrorism investigation. The Investigative Powers Bill introduced before the British Parliament on 1 March 2016 would authorize intelligence services to apply for a warrant that requires private entities to "secure interference with any equipment for the purpose of obtaining communications […] equipment data and any other information".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 30
- Paragraph text
- International legal instruments do not explicitly address how States and other actors should maintain a free and open Internet, nor may regulation by law always be an appropriate approach. Indeed, Internet governance is not the sole province of specialized bodies or Governments. Most recently, the World Summit on the Information Society emphasized the continuing importance of a governance approach that integrates government, corporate and civil society, academic and technical stakeholders and expertise (see General Assembly resolution 70/125). In the context of global trade, non-discrimination principles established under international agreements administered by the World Trade Organization may require States to restrict or otherwise regulate non-neutral services. The World Intellectual Property Organization has also faced growing demands from member States for advice on legislative frameworks that enable them to implement treaty obligations in digital environments. Regional bodies, such as the African Union, the European Commission and the Organization of American States seek to ensure that global Internet policy is formulated and implemented in a manner that takes into account the laws, particularities and concerns of their respective regions.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- Article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows for restrictions on the freedom of expression (but not on the freedom of opinion under article 19 (1)). According to article 19 (3), any restriction, to be legitimate, must be provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others or the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. Any restriction must be precise enough and publicly accessible in order to limit the authorities' discretion and provide individuals with adequate guidance (see the Human Rights Committee's general comment No. 34 (2011) on article 19: freedoms of opinion and expression). To be necessary, a restriction must be more than merely useful, reasonable or desirable. It is also well established that necessity requires an assessment of proportionality (see A/HRC/29/32). Proportionality requires demonstrating that restrictive measures are the least intrusive instrument among those which might achieve their protective function and proportionate to the interest to be protected (see general comment No. 34). When restrictions fail to meet the standard of article 19 (3), individuals enjoy the right to an effective remedy under article 2 (3) of the Covenant.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- Government repression of artists of all sorts persists. For instance, the mandate holder has sent communications to the Islamic Republic of Iran pertaining to the detention of a graphic artist who made a drawing in protest against the banning of family planning, the detention and flogging sentence of human rights defenders for collections of poetry, the detention of two musicians and a film-maker for "propaganda against the State" and "insulting the sacred" through the production of underground music, and the detention of individuals for appearing in a video protesting a State ban on women watching sports in stadiums. The Egyptian Penal Code provides a basis for restricting artists in its article 98, which subjects to penalties "whoever exploits and uses the religion in advocating and propagating orally, in writing or by any other method, extremist thoughts with the aim of instigating sedition or division, or disdaining and contempting any of the heavenly religions or prejudicing national unity and social peace". Qatar detained a poet for criticizing the Amir of Qatar and praising the Tunisian revolution in poems. Saudi Arabia imposed the death sentence, later commuted, on a poet for apostasy. In Cuba, an artist was detained on the basis of a charge of intending to release two pigs named after Raul and Fidel Castro during an artistic demonstration.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- Article 2 (1) of the Covenant requires States to ensure the protection of individuals in the face of such assaults by non-State actors on rights, obligated as they are to respect and ensure respect for all human rights. However, States also need to be cautious not to provide any kind of support in their own laws and actions for the effort to strike down those who hold contrary beliefs. Yet many States still adopt or implement laws that permit them to punish individuals for expression seen to criticize belief. In 2015, for instance, Myanmar amended the Criminal Code to penalize "speech intended to cause religious outrage which insults, or attempts to insult, religion or religious belief" (see A/HRC/31/71, annex I). Saudi Arabia has harshly punished individuals for expression of religious beliefs contrary to national legislation. In 2014, Brunei Darussalam enacted a law that would subject those who insult Islam to capital punishment, which the Government did not deny in its response. Blasphemy and apostasy laws worldwide not only restrict expression but give support to those who would attack others for religious views. Such laws exist not only in the Middle East and South and South-East Asia, where they are prevalent, but also in Europe and the Americas.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- Perhaps most concerning is that Governments often fail to provide measures of protection and accountability that can deter attacks on journalists. The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights presented alarming statistics involving killings, kidnappings and other forms of aggression against journalists in the Americas, with extremely limited accountability despite some efforts to create special mechanisms for the protection of journalists. Messages from the most senior leadership matter, as I have pointed out in the wake of threatening comments made by the leaders of Thailand and the Philippines. The widespread failure to hold perpetrators accountable for attacks on journalists suggests the absence of concern for the role that journalists play in democratic societies. My communications have highlighted reports and allegations of the failure of accountability in, among other places, South Sudan, where journalists have been killed and disappeared; Mexico, where journalists have been murdered and accountability is inconsistent; the Philippines, which after nearly seven years has not concluded its investigations and prosecutions against those responsible for the massacre of journalists in Maguindinao; and the Russian Federation, where there are multiple reports of journalists who have been murdered and the perpetrators not held to account.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- Closely related to these grounds are charges under lese-majesty laws and both criminal and civil defamation. Thailand, for instance, regularly detains and prosecutes people on the grounds of criticizing the royal family, imposing sentences that may reach to decades. The Government argues that the law "gives protection to the rights or reputations" of members of the royal family "in a similar way libel law does for commoners", without acknowledging the high value placed on expression directed towards matters of politics, governance and public life. National laws also allow such prosecutions in other societies with royal families, such as in the Netherlands. Just as such laws that criminalize criticism of government officials or royalty are manifestly inconsistent with freedom of expression, and unjustifiable under article 19 (3), so too are laws that criminalize insults or criticism of foreign officials. In 2016, the Representative on Freedom of the Media of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe urged Governments to repeal laws that shield foreign leaders from criticism solely because of their function or status. I share the concern of the Human Rights Council with respect to the "abuse of legal provisions on defamation and criminal libel" (see Council resolution 12/16) and believe that any criminal penalties or excessive civil penalties for defamation are generally inconsistent with article 19 and should be repealed.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- States often assert vague prohibitions on "advocacy of hatred" that do not amount to incitement under article 20 of the Covenant or meet the requirement of necessity under article 19 (3) thereof (see A/67/357). In an exchange with the Government of Pakistan, I raised concerns that recent legislation aims to limit "extremism" and "hate speech" without specifically defining either term. The Government responded as follows: "We firmly believe that for combating extremism, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, should be prohibited by law." While that statement accurately reflects article 20, the legislation itself would penalize the dissemination of information "that advances or is likely to advance inter-faith, sectarian or racial hatred", seemingly regardless of whether such dissemination constitutes incitement. European human rights law also fails to define hate speech adequately, a point emphasized in the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Sajó and Tsotsoria in the Delfi v. Estonia judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 2015. The dissenting judges stated that even in the context of the prohibition of incitement, there is a very real risk that States will regulate online expression without demonstrating that the elements of incitement have been met in an online environment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Public order is often used by States to justify measures to counter violent extremism. The measures adopted are rarely drawn narrowly enough to satisfy the necessity or proportionality criteria. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism has urged Governments to address the problems of extremism with precise definition and proportionate measures. He criticized Human Rights Council resolution 30/15 on human rights and preventing and countering violent extremism as it may "allow some Governments to qualify non-violent actions that are critical of the Government as violent extremism" (see A/HRC/31/65, para. 27). In 2016, in an annual joint declaration, United Nations and regional freedom of expression experts expressed deep concerns that programmes to counter violent extremism fail to meet international standards. Legislation recently adopted in the Russian Federation broadly criminalizes statements conveying support for "the ideology and practices of terrorism". In Kyrgyzstan, article 11 of the Law on Countering Extremist Activity prohibits the dissemination of extremist materials that call for or justify activities that, among other things, are defined as a "breach of national dignity" or "the carrying out of mass disorders".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- Yet States often treat national security or public order as a label to legitimate any restriction. The Human Rights Council recognized this problem in 2008 in its resolution 7/36, stressing the need to ensure that invocation of national security, including counter-terrorism, is not used unjustifiably or arbitrarily to restrict the right to freedom of opinion and expression. One way to resist unjustifiable or arbitrary invocation of either justification is to insist that Governments demonstrate the risk that specific expression poses to a definite interest in national security or public order, that the measure chosen complies with necessity and proportionality and is the least restrictive means to protect the interest, and that any restriction is subject to independent oversight. In 2016, I shared with a federal judge in the United States of America how article 19 may be used to assess proposals to gain access to the content of encrypted personal digital devices. In my letter to the Court, I noted that alternative measures were available to the Government to conduct its investigation into the 2015 massacre in San Bernardino, California, and that the proposed order would implicate the security and freedom of expression of what would likely be a vast number of people (and would thus be disproportionate).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- While the present report does not draw conclusions about corporate responsibilities for communication security, it is nonetheless clear that, given the threats to freedom of expression online, corporate actors should review the adequacy of their practices with regard to human right norms. At a minimum, companies should adhere to principles such as those laid out in the http://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdfGuiding Principles http://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdfon Business and Human Rights, the Global Network Initiative's Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy, the European Commission's ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue Guiding Principles. Companies, like States, should refrain from blocking or limiting the transmission of encrypted communications and permit anonymous communication. Attention should be given to efforts to expand the availability of encrypted data-centre links, support secure technologies for websites and develop widespread default end-to-end encryption. Corporate actors that supply technology to undermine encryption and anonymity should be especially transparent as to their products and customers.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- Discussions of encryption and anonymity have all too often focused only on their potential use for criminal purposes in times of terrorism. But emergency situations do not relieve States of the obligation to ensure respect for international human rights law. Legislative proposals for the revision or adoption of restrictions on individual security online should be subject to public debate and adopted according to regular, public, informed and transparent legislative process. States must promote effective participation of a wide variety of civil society actors and minority groups in such debate and processes and avoid adopting such legislation under accelerated legislative procedures. General debate should highlight the protection that encryption and anonymity provide, especially to the groups most at risk of unlawful interferences. Any such debate must also take into account that restrictions are subject to strict tests: if they interfere with the right to hold opinions, restrictions must not be adopted. Restrictions on privacy that limit freedom of expression - for purposes of the present report, restrictions on encryption and anonymity - must be provided by law and be necessary and proportionate to achieve one of a small number of legitimate objectives.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- The debate on this issue highlights a critical point: requiring encryption back-door access, even if for legitimate purposes, threatens the privacy necessary to the unencumbered exercise of the right to freedom of expression. Back-door access has practical limitations; the exploitation of intentional weaknesses could render encrypted content susceptible to attack, even if access is provided with the sole intention of allowing government or judicial control. Governments certainly face a dilemma when their obligation to protect freedom of expression is in conflict with their obligations to prevent violations of the right to life or bodily integrity, which are put at risk by terrorism and other criminal behaviour. But other recourses are available to States to request the disclosure of encrypted information, such as through judicial warrants. In such situations, States must demonstrate that general limitations on the security provided by encryption would be necessary and proportionate. States must show, publicly and transparently, that other less intrusive means are unavailable or have failed and that only broadly intrusive measures, such as backdoors, would achieve the legitimate aim. Regardless, measures that impose generally applicable restrictions on massive numbers of persons, without a case-by-case assessment, would almost certainly fail to satisfy proportionality.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- Some States have implemented or proposed implementing so-called back-door access in commercially available products, forcing developers to install weaknesses that allow government authorities access to encrypted communications. Some Governments have developed or purchased tools to allow such access for domestic surveillance purposes. Senior officials in the United Kingdom and the United States appear to advocate requiring back-door access. States supporting such measures often claim that a legal framework for back-door access is necessary to intercept the content of encrypted communications. Governments proposing back-door access, however, have not demonstrated that criminal or terrorist use of encryption serves as an insuperable barrier to law enforcement objectives. Moreover, based on existing technology, intentional flaws invariably undermine the security of all users online, since a backdoor, even if intended solely for government access, can be accessed by unauthorized entities, including other States or non-State actors. Given its widespread and indiscriminate impact, back-door access would affect, disproportionately, all online users.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- The trend lines regarding security and privacy online are deeply worrying. States often fail to provide public justification to support restrictions. Encrypted and anonymous communications may frustrate law enforcement and counter-terrorism officials, and they complicate surveillance, but State authorities have not generally identified situations - even in general terms, given the potential need for confidentiality - where a restriction has been necessary to achieve a legitimate goal. States downplay the value of traditional non-digital tools in law enforcement and counter-terrorism efforts, including transnational cooperation. As a consequence, the public lacks an opportunity to measure whether restrictions on their online security would be justified by any real gains in national security and crime prevention. Efforts to restrict encryption and anonymity also tend to be quick reactions to terrorism, even when the attackers themselves are not alleged to have used encryption or anonymity to plan or carry out an attack. Moreover, even where the restriction is arguably in pursuit of a legitimate interest, many laws and policies regularly do not meet the standards of necessity and proportionality and have broad, deleterious effects on the ability of all individuals to exercise freely their rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- Necessity also implies an assessment of the proportionality of the measures limiting the use of and access to security online. A proportionality assessment should ensure that the restriction is "the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve the desired result". The limitation must target a specific objective and not unduly intrude upon other rights of targeted persons, and the interference with third parties' rights must be limited and justified in the light of the interest supported by the intrusion. The restriction must also be "proportionate to the interest to be protected". A high risk of damage to a critical, legitimate State interest may justify limited intrusions on the freedom of expression. Conversely, where a restriction has a broad impact on individuals who pose no threat to a legitimate government interest, the State's burden to justify the restriction will be very high. Moreover, a proportionality analysis must take into account the strong possibility that encroachments on encryption and anonymity will be exploited by the same criminal and terrorist networks that the limitations aim to deter. In any case, "a detailed and evidence-based public justification" is critical to enable transparent public debate over restrictions that implicate and possibly undermine freedom of expression (see A/69/397, para. 12).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- A full exploration of the role of corporations to protect their users' security online is beyond the scope of the present report, which is focused on State obligations. However, it remains important to emphasize that "the responsibility to respect human rights applies throughout a company's global operations regardless of where its users are located, and exists independently of whether the State meets its own human rights obligations" (see A/HRC/27/37, para. 43). At a minimum, corporations should apply principles such as those laid out in the http://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdfGuiding Principles http://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdfon Business and Human Rights, the Global Network Initiative's Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy, the European Commission's ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue Guiding Principles, which encourage corporations to commit to protect human rights, undertake due diligence to ensure the positive human rights impact of their work and remediate adverse impacts of their work on human rights. In the future, the Special Rapporteur will focus on the roles corporations should play in preserving individual security to exercise freedom of opinion and expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- Through any media: Articles 19 of the Universal Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were drafted with the foresight to accommodate future technological advances (A/HRC/17/27). The States parties to the Covenant chose to adopt the general phrase "through any other media" as opposed to an enumeration of then-existing media. Partly on this basis, international mechanisms have repeatedly acknowledged that the protections of freedom of expression apply to activities on the Internet. Regional courts have likewise recognized that protections apply online. The European Court of Human Rights, in discussing the similar protection of expression in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, has indicated that the forms and means through which information is transmitted and received are themselves protected, since any restriction imposed on the means necessarily interferes with the right to receive and impart information. In this sense, encryption and anonymity technologies are specific media through which individuals exercise their freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- The right to freedom of expression under article 19 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expands upon the Universal Declaration's already broad guarantee, protecting the "freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". A significant accumulation of jurisprudence, special procedure reporting, and resolutions within the United Nations and regional human rights systems underscores that the freedom of expression "is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights and freedoms and constitutes a fundamental pillar for building a democratic society and strengthening democracy" (Human Rights Council resolution 25/2). The Human Rights Council, the General Assembly and individual States regularly assert that individuals enjoy the same rights online that they enjoy offline. The present report will not repeat all the elements of this consensus. In the context of encryption and anonymity, three aspects of the text deserve particular emphasis (see paras. 23-26 below).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- Encryption and anonymity provide individuals and groups with a zone of privacy online to hold opinions and exercise freedom of expression without arbitrary and unlawful interference or attacks. The previous mandate holder noted that the rights to "privacy and freedom of expression are interlinked" and found that encryption and anonymity are protected because of the critical role they can play in securing those rights (A/HRC/23/40 and Corr.1). Echoing article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifically protects the individual against "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence" and "unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation", and provides that "everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks". The General Assembly, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and special procedure mandate holders have recognized that privacy is a gateway to the enjoyment of other rights, particularly the freedom of opinion and expression (see General Assembly resolution 68/167, A/HRC/13/37 and Human Rights Council resolution 20/8).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- Encryption and anonymity, separately or together, create a zone of privacy to protect opinion and belief. For instance, they enable private communications and can shield an opinion from outside scrutiny, particularly important in hostile political, social, religious and legal environments. Where States impose unlawful censorship through filtering and other technologies, the use of encryption and anonymity may empower individuals to circumvent barriers and access information and ideas without the intrusion of authorities. Journalists, researchers, lawyers and civil society rely on encryption and anonymity to shield themselves (and their sources, clients and partners) from surveillance and harassment. The ability to search the web, develop ideas and communicate securely may be the only way in which many can explore basic aspects of identity, such as one's gender, religion, ethnicity, national origin or sexuality. Artists rely on encryption and anonymity to safeguard and protect their right to expression, especially in situations where it is not only the State creating limitations but also society that does not tolerate unconventional opinions or expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- Basic structural gaps in international organizations leave whistle-blowers at risk in ways that those who report wrongdoing in national systems may avoid. In particular, nearly all international organizations are opaque to the public, which has limited access to information, and few have effective policies on access to information. As bureaucratically dominated organizations, they avoid the strict scrutinization by the press that is often found in national contexts, and they are naturally isolated from direct contact with members of the public or the press. They are, moreover, subject to reputational demands in order to maintain financial and political support of Governments. Furthermore, persons who report wrongdoing have limited access to independent systems of justice. They generally lack access to national courts when complaining about retaliation, and the human rights bodies are unlikely to apply protection in the face of retaliation. The immunities enjoyed by international organizations in national and other external jurisdictions result in minimal legal pressure on the organizations to respond effectively to allegations of wrongdoing. The mechanisms themselves generally face substantial problems of independence because of those structural barriers.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- States may find it appropriate to apply specific rules to public national security disclosures. To be consistent with article 19 (3), they should nonetheless strictly adhere to the standard that restrictions be necessary and proportionate to protect national security. National security exclusions have traditionally involved information about ongoing defence plans, weapons systems and communications, critical infrastructure and intelligence operations, sources and methods. States have also long protected sensitive security-related diplomatic activity. National security restrictions on disclosure should apply only in such situations, and disclosure should not be limited in the absence of the Government's showing of "a real and identifiable risk of significant harm to a legitimate national security interest". Law should clearly define what may be withheld from disclosure. A "legitimate national security interest" must be genuine, not a cover for "protection of government or officials from embarrassment or exposure of wrongdoing; concealment of information about human rights violations, any other violation of law, or the functioning of public institutions; strengthening or perpetuating a particular political interest, party, or ideology; or suppression of lawful protests".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- States have long sought to keep secret information that, if disclosed, could undermine efforts to protect the public from grave harms such as terrorism or armed conflict. The protection of confidential information is a necessary by-product of some government activity, and article 19 (3) recognizes the legitimacy of limitations to protect specific interests such as national security. Institutions that operate in national security, such as institutions of defence, diplomacy, internal security and law enforcement, and intelligence, may have a greater claim not to disclose information than other public bodies, but they have no greater claim to hide instances of wrongdoing or other information where the value of disclosure outweighs the harm to the institution. Yet whistle-blower protections are often weak, or simply unavailable, in the area of national security and intelligence. Those who disclose wrongdoing in national security institutions are often subject to retaliation, such as job loss or transfer, denial or revocation of security clearance, and investigation, prosecution and harsh sentencing, and they lack redress because of legal doctrines that support an infrastructure of secrecy. Whistle-blowing’s main function thus loses all force, and while the lack of protection ultimately denies members of the public access to critical information about their Government, national security institutions also lose a tool of accountability.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- Where other mechanisms to disclose information about wrongdoing are unavailable or ineffective, the whistle-blower may disclose information of alleged wrongdoing to external entities, either the media or others in civil society, or by self-publishing. The public-disclosure whistle-blower in such circumstances should be protected. The European Court of Human Rights weighs six factors in assessing the legitimacy of restrictions imposed on those who make public disclosure. Those factors are whether the whistle-blower had available any "competent authority" to which he or she could make disclosure, or "any other effective means of remedying the wrongdoing"; the public interest in the information, which "can sometimes be so strong as to override even a legally imposed duty of confidence"; the information's authenticity, requiring a person to "carefully verify, to the extent permitted by the circumstances, that it is accurate and reliable"; the damage that the public institution may suffer by public disclosure, including whether it outweighs the public's interest in knowing the information; the motive and good faith of the whistle-blower, which could implicate the "level of protection" available; and an evaluation of the proportionality of the penalty imposed upon the whistle-blower.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- Whistle-blowing does not always involve specific individual wrongdoing, but it may uncover hidden information that the public has a legitimate interest in knowing. International authorities and States often provide a general protection for the disclosure of information in the public interest, or disclosure of specific categories of information, or both. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers recommends that States adopt protections for those who report threats or harms to the public interest, which it says "should, at least, include violations of law and human rights, as well as risks to public health and safety and to the environment". Zambian law provides an extensive definition that covers a range of maladministration, abuse of public trust, criminal and disciplinary offences and waste or fraud. The legislation of the United States specifies violations of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; and a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. While the term "public interest" may appear capacious as a basis for whistle-blower protection, a State might define "public interest" as involving information that contributes to public debate, promotes public participation, exposes serious wrongdoing, improves accountability or benefits public safety.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Protection must also counter a variety of contemporary threats. A leading one is surveillance. The ubiquitous use of digital electronics, alongside government capacity to access the data and footprints that all such devices leave behind, has presented serious challenges to confidentiality and anonymity of sources and whistle-blowers. The problem of unintended self-disclosure has been a recurrent feature in the leading cases involving journalistic sources in recent years, in which the Government of the United States of America discovered probable source identities through telephone and e-mail records. Writers themselves report concern that their ability to protect sources is much diminished in the face of surveillance. National and regional courts in Europe have appropriately criticized extralegal approaches to compromising confidentiality. The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, for example, protected the telephone records of a journalist because they were openly instrumental to the identification of those who had provided confidential information. The European Court of Human Rights emphasized the importance of providing "the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference" caused by surveillance. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommends that interception, surveillance and other digital searches "should not be applied if their purpose is to circumvent" source protection.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 18
- Paragraph text
- Today, journalists and other "social communicators" may claim the right of confidentiality for the source. Persons other than journalists inform the public and carry out a "vital public watchdog role". International bodies increasingly use terms more general than "journalist", such as "media professionals" or "media workers". The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights refers to "media practitioners" and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Representative on Freedom of the Media refers to "new participants in journalism". All those terms demonstrate an understanding that those performing the same journalistic functions should enjoy the right to protect sources. The Council of Europe has defined the term "journalist" functionally as "any natural or legal person who is regularly or professionally engaged in the collection and dissemination of information to the public via any means of mass communication". For the purposes of source protection - when, as the Norwegian Supreme Court has noted, the broadest protection should be available - any person or entity involved in collecting or gathering information with the intent to publish or otherwise disseminate it publicly should be permitted to claim the right to protect a source's confidentiality. Regular, professional engagement may indicate protection, but its absence should not be a presumptive bar to those who collect information for public dissemination.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- Effective access to information begins with how Governments categorize, or classify, information as secret or otherwise not subject to disclosure. Over-classification occurs when officials deem material secret without appropriately assessing the public's interest in access to it or determining whether disclosure would pose any risk to a legitimate interest. Secrecy should be imposed only on information that would, if disclosed, harm a specified interest under article 19 (3); even in the event of a risk of harm, a process should be in place to determine whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs that risk. Processes that allow for evaluation of classification decisions, within institutions and by the public, including penalties for over-classification, should be considered and adopted in order to ensure the greatest possible access to information in the public interest. The Swedish Constitution and its Freedom of the Press Act provide perhaps a welcomed translation of the principle of maximum disclosure when it comes to access to information held by public bodies, protecting the right of all public officials to communicate information and, except for specified situations, prohibiting public officials from sanctioning others for communicating information outside their institutions.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- Third, restrictions on access to information must not be left to the sole discretion of authorities. Restrictions must be drafted clearly and narrowly, designed to give guidance to authorities, and subjected to independent judicial oversight (see A/HRC/29/32, paras. 29-33). Layers of internal governmental oversight should ensure that restrictions on access to information meet the standards of article 19 and related national laws.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- Exit polling, where voters are surveyed upon exiting a polling booth, are also considered risky when their results are reported while votes are being counted. Thus, many countries prevent the publication of exit polls until the conclusion of voting.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- Transparency of political financing is a critical prerequisite for any effective democratic process, and a key means of ensuring the equitable protection of free expression rights. Political finance may come either from private financing, in the form of individual campaign contributions or contributions from the private sector, or from public financing, where the Government contributes. Increasingly, States are focusing on regulating political finance to ensure transparency and to attempt to achieve an equal playing field for political parties. There is a general regulatory trend towards the restriction of private financing and the prohibition of donations from foreign States or companies, public authorities and anonymous persons. This is particularly the case given the rise of third-party financing, where individuals, or more often groups or corporate entities, campaign for or against a political party to which they are ostensibly unrelated. Whereas third-party financing can be an important means for private sector groups or civil society organizations to promote their chosen candidates or parties, it can also make it difficult for the voting public to know what interests are exerting influence on particular political parties and candidates.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- State-owned or public media broadcasters bear an extra responsibility to ensure that the political platforms of all candidates and parties across the political spectrum are given coverage. Furthermore, public media sources have an important role in ensuring critical analysis and the availability of countervailing viewpoints. Several national courts have ruled that State-run media have a responsibility to publish replies by critics of the Government to government statements on controversial issues. The Supreme Court of India, for example, recognized the right of reply to political statements in the columns of a government-owned publication. The Court held that a public-sector agency publishing an in-house journal, owing to its status as an instrument of government, had a duty of fairness to its readers, and demanded that both viewpoints be placed before its readers, however limited be their number, to enable them to draw their own conclusions. The media guidelines issued by UNTAC also set out the duty of balance and impartiality in detail. Guideline 8 provides: "Media outlets should give parties, groups or individuals whose views have been misrepresented or maligned by a publication or broadcast the 'right of response' in the same media outlet".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- However, the media must be encouraged to put in place mechanisms to ensure that all media actors adhere to the highest ethical standards of objective reporting, and guarantee equal coverage of political parties in a way that facilitates broad voter education and ensures all parties across the political spectrum are heard.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- It is essential to the protection of freedom of expression during electoral processes that political parities and candidates are free to express ideas and communicate about any issue that they see fit. Unregulated expression and access to information are at their most crucial during times of political change, and any restrictions upon political expression can seriously threaten the democratic process. The European Court of Human Rights has previously spoken out against restraints on political speech, particularly prior restraints. Accordingly, campaign speech should not be regulated or restrained, unless it falls within a well-recognized understanding of restricted expression as recognized under international human rights law. The United Nations Technical Team on the Malawi Referendum has noted that, in order to ensure free political expression during electoral processes, any restrictions on expression must be exceptional and "should not be so vague or broadly defined as to leave an overly wide margin of discretion to the authorities responsible for enforcing the law, since uncertainty over legal boundaries has a dampening effect on the exercise of this right [to freedom of expression] and may encourage discrimination in ... [the restrictions'] application".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- The enjoyment of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral processes can be jeopardized through numerous overlapping legal and practical State measures. In the present section some of the primary threats to freedom of opinion and expression during electoral processes are identified.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- Additionally, in another review, the Committee encouraged the State to thoroughly investigate and prosecute, where appropriate, the use during election campaigns of statements by politicians that would incite racial hatred against persons of minority ethnic origin.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Ethnic minorities
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Similar wording is found in the Windhoek Declaration on Promoting Independent and Pluralistic Media (1991): "an independent, pluralistic and free press is essential to the development and maintenance of democracy in a nation."
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- Accordingly, the Inter-American Court has said, restrictions on political expression during electoral processes undermine the right to freedom of opinion and expression: "everyone must be allowed to question and investigate the competence and suitability of the candidates, and also to disagree with and compare proposals, ideas and opinions, so that the electorate may form its opinion in order to vote."
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 94
- Paragraph text
- Regular attention to violations of the right of children to freedom of expression should be paid by all international human rights protection mechanisms. In particular, the Committee on the Rights of the Child could pursue articles 13 and 17 systematically in its recommendations to States.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 90
- Paragraph text
- States should encourage the use of diverse forms of communication by children in schools, including oral, written and all forms of art. Schools curricula should impart knowledge on social communications, media and journalism.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 89
- Paragraph text
- States should actively promote the right of children to freedom of expression, including access to information, in all settings. Traditional authoritarian attitudes towards children in all spheres, including the home, school and society in general, can be challenged. In particular, the State should pay attention to the creation of channels for child-led activism.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 88
- Paragraph text
- States should pay particular attention to the removal of authoritarian norms and practices within education systems given the centrality of schools in the promotion of children's agency.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 84
- Paragraph text
- States must never forget to keep the goal of the best interest of the child at the forefront of all their public policies. This includes establishing regulatory norms to protect children from harm and, at the same time, ensuring that all norms comply with the international standards related to the right to freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- In recommendations arising from its day of general discussion on "The child and the media", the Committee affirmed the importance of budgetary support from the State to ensure the production and dissemination of books, magazines, music, theatre and other forms of expression for children, and of assistance through international cooperation (CRC/C/15/Add.65, para. 256). Investments in community and public broadcasting often play a central role in the promotion of access to information from a diversity of sources and in the inclusion of children's voices in the media. In Argentina, for example, the Law on Communication and Audiovisual Services establishes the obligation for public broadcasting entities to dedicate programming time to children and other sectors of the population not contemplated by commercial broadcasting. The public entity tasked with overseeing the implementation of the law promotes public hearings, including with children, to discuss communication and audiovisual services. It has also recently supported the promotion of radio activities led by students within their own schools. Moreover, the Ministry of Education of Argentina has supported the establishment of a channel aimed at promoting child-sensitive educational programming, including through the active participation of children in the production of the content.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Most disturbingly, child protection arguments are being used to block access to information on, for example, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues and thereby legitimize discrimination against sexual minorities. In the Russian Federation, amendments to the administrative code and law protecting children from harmful information entered into force in July 2013, outlawing "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations" among children. The Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association publicly expressed concern about that law in a joint statement with other mandate holders. The child protection rationale for the Russian anti-homosexuality law has also been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights in its 2011 case Alekseyev v. Russia. Despite the criticism, other countries have followed suit. In Ukraine, in 2013, it was recommended that a draft law prohibiting "propaganda of homosexual relations" aimed at children be considered by the parliament. In the draft law "propaganda" is defined as any public action aimed at spreading information about same-sex relations. In June 2014, the human rights committee of the parliament of Kyrgyzstan approved a bill criminalizing the dissemination of information "aimed at forming positive attitudes towards non-traditional sexual relations".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- LGBTQI+
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- In some domains, there may be legitimate and understandable concerns for children's safety and well-being in gaining access to some types of information. For example, many countries regulate broadcasting, and television in particular, with a view, among other things, to protecting children. National regulations often include some kind of watershed system, for example, and establish independent bodies to enforce that system. Content generally considered unsuitable for children includes sexually explicit content, violence and offensive language. Regulations can, however, have a significant impact on freedom of the media. Moreover, the definition of what constitutes harmful information is subjective. Accordingly, any regulations aimed at protecting children and the mechanisms adopted to enforce them should be reviewed regularly, in an open and transparent way, in order to prevent the imposition of disproportionate or arbitrary restrictions that curtail the rights of both adults and children. Furthermore, it is crucial to ensure the independence of the bodies tasked with enforcing these regulations - rules regarding membership, for example, should be defined so as to protect them against any interference, in particular by political forces or economic interests.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- This issue has also been addressed by the European Committee of Social Rights, which in 2009 found that the Croatian school curriculum covering sex education discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. The Committee asserted that some statements in the curriculum stigmatized homosexuals and were based upon negative, distorted, reprehensible and degrading stereotypes.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- LGBTQI+
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- In addition to banning information outright, some school curricula present biased accounts of history or prejudiced views of certain groups, such as girls, sexual or ethnic minorities or children with disabilities, which can negatively affect children's freedom to form their own views and instead perpetuate discrimination - a situation raised by various United Nations treaty bodies in their recommendations to States.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Girls
- Persons with disabilities
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- Children's access to cultural activities may also be censored without justification. In the 1993 case Dunduzu Chisiza Jr. v. Minister Kate Kainja, a judge in Malawi upheld the complaint of an actor who had challenged a ban on all plays and other performances by independent groups in public schools as violating freedom of expression. There are also reports of some schools banning music lessons for religious reasons.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- In paragraph 8 of its general comment No. 1, on the aims of education, the Committee on the Rights of the Child stated: Children do not lose their human rights by virtue of passing through the school gates. Thus, for example, education must be provided in a way that respects the inherent dignity of the child and enables the child to express his or her views freely in accordance with article 12 (1) and to participate in school life.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- Children face particular hurdles to the realization of their right to freedom of expression as a result of entrenched paternalistic attitudes that often overstate the risks of allowing children to communicate freely and underestimate their agency. In addition, the rights of children are also affected by all the barriers hampering the freedom of expression of adults.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- Paragraph 1 of the article accords to the child who is capable of forming his or her views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting him or her, and the subsequent right to have those views given due weight in accordance with his or her age and maturity. Paragraph 2 asserts the right of the child to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting him or her.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- The right to receive information is closely linked to the provisions of article 28, according to which States parties recognize the right of the child to education, and article 29, in which it is emphasized that education of the child shall, inter alia, aim at the development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- The scope of the right to freedom of expression is quite wide. According to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, article 13 of the Convention confers a right that can be exercised not only against the State, but also within the family, in the community, at school, in public policy decisions and in society.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 99
- Paragraph text
- Human rights mechanisms should further assess the obligations of private actors developing and supplying surveillance technologies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 97
- Paragraph text
- States must take measures to prevent the commercialization of surveillance technologies, paying particular attention to research, development, trade, export and use of these technologies considering their ability to facilitate systematic human rights violations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Environment
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 95
- Paragraph text
- States should ensure that communications data collected by corporate actors in the provision of communications services meets the highest standards of data protection.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 94
- Paragraph text
- States should raise public awareness on the uses of new communication technologies in order to support individuals in properly assessing, managing, mitigating and making informed decisions on communications-related risks.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 93
- Paragraph text
- States should establish independent oversight mechanisms capable to ensure transparency and accountability of State surveillance of communications.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 90
- Paragraph text
- States should not retain or require the retention of particular information purely for surveillance purposes.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 70
- Paragraph text
- A further initiative preventing communications anonymity is the gradual adoption of policies that require the registration of SIM cards with a subscriber's real name or government-issued identity document. In 48 countries in Africa, laws requiring individuals to register their personal information with their network provider prior to activation of pre-paid SIM cards are reportedly facilitating the establishment of extensive databases of user information, eradicating the potential for anonymity of communications, enabling location-tracking, and simplifying communications surveillance. In the absence of data protection legislation, SIM users' information can be shared with Government departments and matched with other private and public databases, enabling the State to create comprehensive profiles of individual citizens. Individuals are also at risk of being excluded from use of mobile phone services (which may enable not only communication but also access to financial services) if they are unable or unwilling to provide identification to register.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- Individuals are now also required to use their real names online in many States, and to provide official identification in order to establish their identity. In the Republic of Korea, the Information Communications Law, adopted in 2007, required users to register their real names before accessing websites with more than 100,000 visitors per day, ostensibly in order to reduce online bullying and hate speech. The law was recently overturned by the Constitutional Court on the basis that it restricted freedom of speech and undermined democracy. China recently adopted the Decision to Strengthen the Protection of Online Information, requiring Internet and telecommunications providers to collect personal information about users when they sign up for Internet access, landline, or mobile phone service. Service providers allowing users to publish online are required to be able to link screen names and real identities. These real name registration requirements allow authorities to more easily identify online commentators or tie mobile use to specific individuals, eradicating anonymous expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 63
- Paragraph text
- Governments often do not acknowledge the use of such technologies to conduct surveillance, or argue that such technologies are being legitimately employed under the ambit of existing surveillance legislation. Although it is clear that many States possess offensive intrusion software, such as Trojan technology, the legal basis for its use has not been publicly debated in any State, with the exception of Germany. In that context, the province of North Rhine-Westphalia passed legislation in 2006 authorizing the "secret access to an information technology system" (§ 5.2 no. 11, North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act), which was understood to be technical infiltration which is effected either by installing a spy programme or taking advantage of the security loopholes of the system. The German Federal Constitutional Court quashed the law in February 2008, ruling that such measures would only be in conformity with human rights if they were subject to judicial authorization and review, and occurred only in situations where there might be a concrete danger to a predominantly important legal interest.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- A number of the surveillance capabilities listed above fall outside of existing legal frameworks, but have nevertheless been widely adopted by States. Offensive intrusion software such as Trojans, or mass interception capabilities, constitute such serious challenges to traditional notions of surveillance that they cannot be reconciled with existing laws on surveillance and access to private information. These are not just new methods for conducting surveillance; they are new forms of surveillance. From a human rights perspective, the use of such technologies is extremely disturbing. Trojans, for example, not only enable a State to access devices, but also enable them to alter - inadvertently or purposefully - the information contained therein. This threatens not only the right to privacy and procedural fairness rights with respect to the use of such evidence in legal proceedings. Mass interception technology eradicates any considerations of proportionality, enabling indiscriminate surveillance. It enables the State to copy and monitor every single act of communication in a particular country or area, without gaining authorization for each individual case of interception.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- In many cases, national intelligence agencies also enjoy blanket exceptions to the requirement for judicial authorization. For example, in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act empowers the National Security Agency to intercept communications without judicial authorization where one party to the communication is located outside the United States, and one participant is reasonably believed to a member of a State-designated terrorist organization. German law allows warrantless automated wiretaps of domestic and international communications by the State's intelligence services for the purposes of protecting the free democratic order, existence or security of the State. In Sweden, the Law on Signals Intelligence in Defense Operations authorizes the Swedish intelligence agency to intercept without any warrant or court order all telephone and Internet traffic that take place within Sweden's borders. In the United Republic of Tanzania, the Intelligence and Security Service Act 1996 enables the country's intelligence services to conduct any investigations and investigate any person or body which it has reasonable cause to consider a risk or a source of risk or a threat to the State security.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- In many States, communication service providers are being compelled to modify their infrastructure to enable direct surveillance, eliminating the opportunity for judicial oversight. For example, in 2012 the Colombian Ministries of Justice, and Information and Communication Technologies, issued a decree that required telecommunication service providers to put in place infrastructure allowing direct access to communications by judicial police, without an order from the Attorney General. The above-mentioned Uganda's Regulation of Interception of Communications Act 2010 (s3) provides for the establishment of a monitoring centre and mandates that telecommunications providers ensure that intercepted communications are transmitted to the monitoring centre (s8(1)(f)). The Government of India is proposing to install a Centralized Monitoring System that will route all communications to the central Government, allowing security agencies to bypass interaction with the service provider. Such arrangements take communications surveillance out of the realm of judicial authorization and allow unregulated, secret surveillance, eliminating any transparency or accountability on the part of the State.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- Even when judicial authorization is required by law, often it is de facto an arbitrary approval of law enforcement requests. This is particularly the case where the threshold required to be established by law enforcement is low. For example, the Ugandan Regulation of Interception of Communications Act 2010 only requires law enforcement authorities to demonstrate that "reasonable" grounds exist to allow the interception to take place. In such instances, the burden of proof to establish the necessity for surveillance is extremely low, given the potential for surveillance to result in investigation, discrimination or violations of human rights. In other countries, a complex array of laws authorizes access to and surveillance of communications under a range of different circumstances. In Indonesia, for example, the Psychotropic Law, Narcotics Law, Electronic Information and Transaction Law, Telecommunications Law and the Corruption Law all contain communications surveillance components. In the United Kingdom, over 200 agencies, police forces and prison authorities are authorized to acquire communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000. As a result, it is difficult for individuals to foresee when and by which State agency they might be subjected to surveillance.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- The dynamic nature of technology has not only changed how surveillance can be carried out, but also "what" can be monitored. In enabling the creation of various opportunities for communication and information-sharing, the Internet has also facilitated the development of large amounts of transactional data by and about individuals. This information, known as communications data or metadata, includes personal information on individuals, their location and online activities, and logs and related information about the e-mails and messages they send or receive. Communications data are storable, accessible and searchable, and their disclosure to and use by State authorities are largely unregulated. Analysis of this data can be both highly revelatory and invasive, particularly when data is combined and aggregated. As such, States are increasingly drawing on communications data to support law enforcement or national security investigations. States are also compelling the preservation and retention of communication data to enable them to conduct historical surveillance.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- Other Special Procedures mandate holders considered the issue of interferences with the right to privacy. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism studied developments in surveillance practices and technologies that have adversely affected the right to privacy using the justification of combating terrorism. The Special Rapporteur underscored that these measures have not only led to violations of the right to privacy, but have also had an impact on due process rights and the rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of expression. He urged Governments to articulate in detail how their surveillance policies uphold the principles of proportionality and necessity, in accordance with international human rights standards, and what measures have been taken to protect against abuse. The Special Rapporteur also called for the adoption of comprehensive data protection and privacy laws and the establishment of strong independent oversight bodies mandated to review the use of intrusive surveillance techniques and the processing of personal information. He further called for research and development resources to be devoted to privacy-enhancing technologies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Tensions also exist between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression, for example, when information considered to be private is disseminated through the media. In this sense, article 19 (3) provides for restrictions on freedom of expression and information to protect the rights of others. However, as it happens for all permissible limitations to the right to freedom of expression (see below), the principle of proportionality must be strictly observed, since there is otherwise danger that freedom of expression would be undermined. Particularly in the political arena, not every attack on the good reputation of politicians must be permitted, since freedom of expression and information would otherwise be stripped of their crucial importance for the process of forming political opinions, advocating for transparency and combating corruption The international jurisprudence at regional level indicates that in situations of conflict between privacy and freedom of expression, reference should be made to the overall public interest on the matters reported.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- The Human Rights Committee analysed the content of the right to privacy (art. 17) in its General Comment No. 16 (1988), according to which article 17 aims to protect individuals from any unlawful and arbitrary interferences with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence, and national legal frameworks must provide for the protection of this right. This provision imposes specific obligations relating to the protection of privacy in communications, underlining that "correspondence should be delivered to the addressee without interception and without being opened or otherwise read. "Surveillance, whether electronic or otherwise, interceptions of telephonic, telegraphic and other forms of communication, wire-tapping and recording of conversations, should be prohibited." The General Comment also indicates that "the gathering and holding of personal information on computers, data banks and other devices, whether by public authorities or private individuals or bodies, must be regulated by law." At the time this General Comment was adopted, the impact of advances in information and communications technologies on the right to privacy was barely understood.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 105
- Paragraph text
- Public bodies and officials who wilfully obstruct access to information must be held accountable and, when appropriate, sanctioned. The quality of the responses of public bodies to information requests should be monitored periodically.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 98
- Paragraph text
- The adoption of a national normative framework that objectively establishes the right to access information held by public bodies in the broadest possible terms is crucial to give effect, at the national level, to the right to access information. Legislation should be grounded by the principle of maximum disclosure.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 96
- Paragraph text
- In this regard, and based on previous considerations, the Special Rapporteur wishes to recall a number of recommendations that should continue to guide State efforts in the consolidation of norms and practices concerning the realization of the right to information.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 87
- Paragraph text
- Notwithstanding the different historical processes that marked the development of the right to truth and the right to access information, the right to truth should be understood as directly connected to the right to access information, as established by the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 82
- Paragraph text
- There are financial costs related to the collection of information and national laws often allow public institutions to charge fees to the requestor. Some fees can cover costs relating to, for example, applications, searching or copying. The charging of fees for gaining access to information can also, however, be a barrier to such access, in particular for those living in poverty. In the absence of any oversight, some fees can be imposed abusively.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 81
- Paragraph text
- There are concerns regarding the inclusion of unnecessary procedural formalities that unreasonably restrict possibilities for submitting demands for information. This can include, for example, requirements for those who request information to show a specific legal interest or to submit separate requests to each of the multiple entities involved in providing a response to a given request.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 80
- Paragraph text
- The absence of any response by the public authorities responsible for the provision of information is also critical. The lack of mechanisms to monitor independently the compliance of public bodies with regulations on access to information and the lack of specific sanctions for wrongful denial of access or the destruction of information by public officials certainly contribute to the limited enforcement of some national laws.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 79
- Paragraph text
- Unreasonable delays in responding to requests for information are a very frequent concern. National laws often establish the requirement for public institutions to respond to a request without delay, setting in some cases a maximum time frame for response. These deadlines, however, are sometimes not enforced.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 78
- Paragraph text
- The overall lack of capacity to process information is an obvious problem for public institutions. Some public institutions have no human or technical capacity to manage and communicate data adequately. Technological advances notwithstanding, officials are also often unaware of the information stored by the bodies that they service and are unable to locate it.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 76h
- Paragraph text
- [The core principles include:] Disclosure takes precedence. To ensure maximum disclosure, laws which are inconsistent with this principle should be amended or repealed. The regime of exceptions provided for in the freedom of information law should be comprehensive and other laws should not be permitted to extend it;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 76b
- Paragraph text
- [The core principles include:] Obligation to publish. Freedom of information implies not only that public bodies accede to requests for information, but also that they widely publish and disseminate documents of significant public interest, subject only to reasonable limits based on resources and capacity;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 76a
- Paragraph text
- [The core principles include:] Maximum disclosure. National legislation on access to information should be guided by the principle of maximum disclosure. All information held by public bodies should be subject to disclosure and this presumption may be overcome only in very limited circumstances;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 72
- Paragraph text
- Acknowledging the relevance of access to information in democratization and development efforts, international organizations have encouraged the adoption of national norms regulating access to information and produced publications aimed at assisting national processes with, for example, a description of the features of a freedom of information regime and tools for measuring the impact of right to information models.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- The Inter-American Court has also noted that, when a punishable fact is being investigated, the decision to define the information as secret and to refuse to submit it can never depend exclusively on a State body whose members are deemed responsible for committing the illegal act. Thus, what is incompatible with the rule of law and effective judicial protection is not that there are secrets, but rather that they are outside legal control.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- Another serious issue in this context is the lack of outside control and of the possibility to challenge decisions that deny access to information. The authorities usually do not provide specific information on the precise nature of the threat, or on the necessity for and proportionality of such a measure.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- In this context, the Inter-American Court has stated that, in cases of human rights violations, the State authorities cannot resort to mechanisms such as declaring the information an official secret or confidential, or using reasons of public interest or national security, to refuse to supply the information required by the judicial or administrative authorities in charge of the ongoing investigation or proceeding.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Moreover, there must be recourse to a review of a refusal to provide information in national legislation. This review must include a prompt, comprehensive and efficient judicial review of the validity of the restriction by an independent court or tribunal (A/HRC/14/23, para. 79; see also A/HRC/16/48, para. 39).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- When invoking a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, the authorities must demonstrate, in specific and individualized fashion, the precise nature of the imminent threat, as well as the necessity for and the proportionality of the specific action taken. A direct and immediate connection between the expression (or the information to be disclosed) and the alleged threat must be established.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- For a restriction to be necessary, it must be based on one of the grounds for limitations recognized by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and address a pressing public or social need. Any restriction must also be proportionate to the aim invoked and must not be more restrictive than is required for the achievement of the desired purpose or protected right.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- The overarching notion is that all information in the possession of the State belongs to the public, with limited and qualified exceptions that must be justified by State authorities. Nonetheless, the application of limitations to the right to access information on human rights violations raises a number of specific issues that require greater analysis.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur has, in previous reports, examined limitations to the right to freedom of opinion and expression and proposed a set of general principles for determining the conditions that must be satisfied for a limitation or a restriction to freedom of expression to be permissible, which he considers to be generally applicable (A/HRC/14/23, para. 79, and A/67/357, paras. 41-46).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- As with aspects of the right to freedom of expression, the right to access information is subject to limitations. Article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights sets out the areas in which restrictions are permissible. These, and the conditions under which they can be applied, were further addressed in some detail by the Human Rights Committee in its general comment No. 34 (CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 22).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- Lastly, the circulation of false information has been considered in certain cases to be a violation in itself, especially where individuals or groups of individuals have been submitted to odium, stigmatization, public scorn, persecution or discrimination by means of public declarations by public officials.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- Human rights bodies at the global and regional levels have in a number of instances concluded that States should carry out investigations and provide information on serious human rights violations to victims or their family members and, in particular, ensure that those responsible do not go unpunished and that the victims obtain redress through the courts.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- The right to seek and receive information comprises the right of individuals to access general information and, more particularly, information of public interest that can contribute to public debate. Another aspect of this right is that of access by persons to personal data being held by public authorities.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- The set of principles provides also that a people's knowledge of the history of its oppression is part of its heritage and, as such, must be ensured by appropriate measures in fulfilment of the State's duty to preserve archives and other evidence concerning violations of human rights and humanitarian law and to facilitate knowledge of those violations, and that such measures shall be aimed at preserving the collective memory from extinction.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- Global and regional bodies for the protection of human rights have addressed the right to truth both from an individual perspective (the rights of victims and their families to know the truth about violations affecting their lives) and from a collective perspective (the right of society as a whole to know and the obligation of States to inform society of past violations).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Moreover, the existing human rights protection systems, at both the international and regional levels, have on a number of occasions also been confronted with the question of access to information in the context of human rights violations and have, over the years, outlined the obligations of States concerning several aspects of that right.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- The right to truth and the right to access information are clearly interrelated. The right to seek and receive information on human rights violations is not limited to past grave and/or systematic violations; countries that have experienced such situations have, however, faced particular challenges in that regard and, in a number of cases, developed processes and norms to address them.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- A particular dimension of the right to seek and receive information concerns access to information on human rights violations. Such access often determines the level of enjoyment of other rights, is a right in itself and, as such, has been addressed by a number of human rights instruments and documents. It has also been the object of decisions and reports from various human rights mechanisms and bodies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 14
- Paragraph text
- At the national level, the right to truth can be characterized as the right to know, to be informed or to freedom of information. In resolution 12/12, its most recent on the right to truth, the Human Rights Council emphasized that the public and individuals were entitled to have access, to the fullest extent practicable, to information regarding the actions and decision-making processes of their Government.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 94
- Paragraph text
- The adoption of national laws protecting access to information in all regions of the world is a positive step that reflects international human rights principles and norms. These processes, however, have mostly been disconnected from the debate on the right to truth and a number of obstacles to access information relating to past and present human rights violations persist.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 91
- Paragraph text
- Given that the promotion, protection and guarantee of human rights and fundamental freedoms are the ultimate responsibility of any State, there is a greater responsibility in the disclosure of information held by public bodies concerning human rights violations, as identified in the jurisprudence relating to the right to truth.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 95
- Paragraph text
- The presence of such risks deters journalists from continuing their work, or encourages self-censorship on sensitive matters. Consequently, society as a whole may not be able to access important information.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 89
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur remains concerned that laws purported to protect national security or to counter terrorism continue to be used against journalists who report on sensitive or critical matters of public interest, or to force journalists to reveal their sources of information.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 88
- Paragraph text
- Moreover, the Special Rapporteur underscores that public officials, including heads of State and public figures, must tolerate a higher degree of scrutiny than ordinary individuals because of their public functions, and should not be granted a higher level of protection against defamatory statements in media.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 87
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur thus calls on all States to repeal criminal defamation provisions allowing prosecution of authors of media content, as well as to limit civil law penalties for defamation so that it is proportionate to the harm done. He emphasizes that criminal prosecution for defamation inevitably becomes a mechanism of political censorship, which contradicts freedom of expression and of the press.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 86
- Paragraph text
- Many journalists continue to inform the Special Rapporteur that the systematic use of unjustified criminal prosecution or even civil tort prosecution with disproportionate financial sanctions paralyzes journalistic investigation and generates an atmosphere of intimidation, which constitutes a form of judicial harassment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 85
- Paragraph text
- Even in countries where defamation is classified as a civil tort, the financial sanctions imposed may be high and disproportionate, which can bankrupt small and independent media and have adverse consequences on media freedom in a country.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 82
- Paragraph text
- Moreover, any legislation restricting the right to freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and with adequate safeguards against abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- Combating impunity and ensuring the protection of journalists requires strengthening respect for the rule of law and ensuring that the domestic legal framework and institutions promote the right to freedom of expression and support the establishment of free, independent and pluralistic media. The Special Rapporteur notes with concern the continuing existence and application of domestic legislation which criminalize expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- However, during the Special Rapporteur's mission to Mexico in 2010, reservations were expressed regarding the paucity of results achieved by the FEADLE and its tendency to decline competency over certain cases referred to its jurisdiction, due in part to the lack of will on the part of officials to take up cases and implement an adequate work programme, but also due to lack of autonomy and resources, and the fact that acts of violence against journalists are not prohibited under federal law. Although the Special Rapporteur welcomed the work plan which the FEADLE was implementing at the time of his mission to Mexico (A/HRC/17/27/Add.3), he emphasized the importance of immediately creating a national mechanism to protect journalists, designed and implemented through a high-level official and inter-institutional committee, led by a federal authority with the capacity to coordinate between diverse authorities, having its own sufficient resources, and with the participation of journalists and civil society organizations in its design, integration, functioning and evaluation. The Special Rapporteur underlines the importance of such institutions having sufficient autonomy and resources, as well as investigatory powers and the competency to make recommendations to the Government.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- In Mexico, reacting to the seriousness of the situation of journalists in the country, the Federal State established the Special Prosecutor's Office for Crimes against Freedom of Expression (FEADLE) within the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (PGR).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 63
- Paragraph text
- Additionally, the Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned by harassment of online journalists and bloggers, such as illegal hacking into their accounts, monitoring of their online activities, arbitrary arrests and detention, and the blocking of websites that contain information that are critical of authorities. Such actions constitute intimidation and censorship.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- States are also responsible for ensuring that legal measures, such as anti-terrorism or national security laws, are not used to limit freedom of expression by leading to the arrest and detention, or to fear of arrest and detention, among journalists. The issue of criminalization of freedom of expression, which has a direct impact on the ability of journalists to carry out their work, is further examined below.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur would like to underscore that given that the causes of violence, as well as of impunity, vary in each context, strategies or protection mechanisms established to protect journalists must be tailored to local needs with context-specific consideration of the differing needs of journalists.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- As well as having an obligation to prevent human rights violations against journalists, such as killings, ill-treatment or unlawful arrest, States also have a responsibility to ensure that their national legal systems do not permit impunity in cases when such violations take place. The issue of impunity is further discussed below.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- In addition to articles 19 of the Declaration and of the Covenant, which protect the right of journalists to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of any kind through any medium of communication, journalists are also protected under other provisions in international human rights law, including the right to life, freedom from torture and arbitrary arrests and detention, and the right to an effective remedy.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- Female journalists also face additional risks, such as sexual assault, mob-related sexual violence aimed against journalists covering public events, or sexual abuse in detention or captivity. Many of these attacks are not reported as a result of powerful cultural and professional stigmas. A gender-sensitive approach is therefore needed when considering measures to address the issue of violence against journalists.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 114
- Paragraph text
- United Nations field presences should support States in implementing measures for the protection of journalists, as in the case of OHCHR in Colombia which offers support for the protection mechanisms in Colombia.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 113
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur welcomes United Nations initiatives, such as the innovative International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). He supports the idea of considering the implementation of similar initiatives in other countries where impunity for human rights violations is prevalent.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 108
- Paragraph text
- Governments should only classify those data which are proven to cause direct harm to national security and other vital interests of the State. Classified data should be subject to regular review and be declassified if confidentiality is no longer necessary. Clear classification criteria and a register of classified information should be established by law and published.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 107
- Paragraph text
- Journalists should not be held accountable for receiving, storing and disseminating classified data which they have obtained in a way that is not illegal, including leaks and information received from unidentified sources.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 105
- Paragraph text
- Defamation should be decriminalized in all States. Criminal defamation laws are inherently harsh and have a disproportionate chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 102
- Paragraph text
- Necessary resources must be dedicated to preventing and investigating attacks, or bringing those responsible to justice. Special measures should be put in place to deal with attacks and to support journalists who are displaced by attacks.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 101
- Paragraph text
- To combat impunity and to prevent human rights violations against journalists, States must take measures to facilitate awareness among the judiciary, journalists and civil society of the relevant international standards and show willingness to work towards the implementation of these standards.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- A special responsibility to denounce instances of hate speech continues to rest with public officials, however. Clear, formal rejections of hate speech by high-level public officials and initiatives to engage in interreligious or intercultural dialogue play an important role in alleviating tensions and building a culture of tolerance and respect without resorting to censorship. For example, following the publication by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005 of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a derogatory manner, 11 ambassadors from Muslim-majority countries requested a meeting with the Prime Minister. The request was not granted, however, meaning that an early and important opportunity to defuse tension and to prevent a spiral of violence was missed. In contrast, when Geert Wilders, a member of the parliament of the Netherlands, released his controversial online film, Fitna, on 27 March 2008, the Government acted swiftly to distance itself from the film and to reject the equation of Islam with violence, which was welcomed in the joint press statement issued on 28 March 2008 by the Special Rapporteur, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Interestingly, the film attracted little controversy.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- The first critical step is to address and redress the indirect censorship, powerlessness and/or alienation felt by many groups and individuals. For example, in many countries, women or women's groups that publicly criticize discriminatory religious tenets have frequently been the targets of severe harassment and intimidation, both by the State and by non-State actors. Explicitly or implicitly, through such actions an illusion is created that only those with the requisite authority can speak on particular issues. The resulting culture of fear hampers public debate and directly contradicts the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Governments should therefore proactively facilitate counter-speech of individuals belonging to groups that are systematically targeted by hate speech. Moreover, with the advent of the Internet, individuals no longer have to wait for the State to facilitate such processes and can take the initiative themselves. For example, Groundviews (http://groundviews.org) is a citizen journalism initiative in Sri Lanka that documents stories and opinions that the mainstream media may censor owing to fear or reprisals. By allowing voices that have been marginalized and perspectives that generally find little expression to come to the fore, such initiatives play a vital role in fostering debate and greater understanding in society.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Women
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- Of equal importance to education is to facilitate greater dialogue, better communication and, thus, deeper understanding. Rather than imposing new restrictions, a culture of public discourse in which one can freely and without fear of retaliation articulate and debate experiences, in addition to continually deconstruct stereotypes, is essential.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 50e
- Paragraph text
- [In any case, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that all hate speech laws should, at the very least, conform to the following elements outlined in the 2001 joint statement on racism and the media:] Any imposition of sanctions by courts should be in strict conformity with the principle of proportionality.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 50c
- Paragraph text
- [In any case, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that all hate speech laws should, at the very least, conform to the following elements outlined in the 2001 joint statement on racism and the media:] The right of journalists to decide how best to communicate information and ideas to the public should be respected, in particular when they are reporting on racism and intolerance;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 50b
- Paragraph text
- [In any case, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that all hate speech laws should, at the very least, conform to the following elements outlined in the 2001 joint statement on racism and the media:] No one should be penalized for the dissemination of hate speech unless it has been shown that they did so with the intention of inciting discrimination, hostility or violence;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- While some of the above concepts may overlap, the Special Rapporteur considers the following elements to be essential when determining whether an expression constitutes incitement to hatred: real and imminent danger of violence resulting from the expression; intent of the speaker to incite discrimination, hostility or violence; and careful consideration by the judiciary of the context in which hatred was expressed, given that international law prohibits some forms of speech for their consequences, and not for their content as such, because what is deeply offensive in one community may not be so in another. Accordingly, any contextual assessment must include consideration of various factors, including the existence of patterns of tension between religious or racial communities, discrimination against the targeted group, the tone and content of the speech, the person inciting hatred and the means of disseminating the expression of hate. For example, a statement released by an individual to a small and restricted group of Facebook users does not carry the same weight as a statement published on a mainstream website. Similarly, artistic expression should be considered with reference to its artistic value and context, given that art may be used to provoke strong feelings without the intention of inciting violence, discrimination or hostility.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 45f
- Paragraph text
- [The threshold of the types of expression that would fall under the provisions of article 20 (2) should be high and solid. An important contribution in determining the appropriate threshold has been made by ARTICLE 19, a non-governmental organization, which has proposed a seven-part test using the following elements:] Imminence of the acts called for by the speech;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 45d
- Paragraph text
- [The threshold of the types of expression that would fall under the provisions of article 20 (2) should be high and solid. An important contribution in determining the appropriate threshold has been made by ARTICLE 19, a non-governmental organization, which has proposed a seven-part test using the following elements:] Extent of the speech, in terms of its reach and the size of the audience;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 45b
- Paragraph text
- [The threshold of the types of expression that would fall under the provisions of article 20 (2) should be high and solid. An important contribution in determining the appropriate threshold has been made by ARTICLE 19, a non-governmental organization, which has proposed a seven-part test using the following elements:] Intent of the speaker to incite discrimination, hostility or violence;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 44f
- Paragraph text
- [Moreover, attention is drawn to the following definitions that have been developed through consultations of experts and discussed at the OHCHR regional expert workshops on incitement:] Violence is the use of physical force or power against another person, or against a group or community, which either results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 44e
- Paragraph text
- [Moreover, attention is drawn to the following definitions that have been developed through consultations of experts and discussed at the OHCHR regional expert workshops on incitement:] Hostility is a manifestation of hatred beyond a mere state of mind. As highlighted by an expert at the regional workshops on the prohibition of incitement, this concept has received scant attention in jurisprudence and requires further deliberation;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 44c
- Paragraph text
- [Moreover, attention is drawn to the following definitions that have been developed through consultations of experts and discussed at the OHCHR regional expert workshops on incitement:] Incitement refers to statements about national, racial or religious groups that create an imminent risk of discrimination, hostility or violence against persons belonging to those groups;15
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 44b
- Paragraph text
- [Moreover, attention is drawn to the following definitions that have been developed through consultations of experts and discussed at the OHCHR regional expert workshops on incitement:] Advocacy is explicit, intentional, public and active support and promotion of hatred towards the target group;15
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 44a
- Paragraph text
- [Moreover, attention is drawn to the following definitions that have been developed through consultations of experts and discussed at the OHCHR regional expert workshops on incitement:] Hatred is a state of mind characterized as intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity and detestation towards the target group;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 41c
- Paragraph text
- [The Special Rapporteur wishes to underscore that any restriction imposed on the right to freedom of expression, on the basis of any of the above-mentioned instruments, must comply with the three-part test of limitations to the right, as stipulated in article 19 (3) of the Covenant. This means that any restriction must be:] Proven by the State as the least restrictive and proportionate means to achieve the purported aim.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 41a
- Paragraph text
- [The Special Rapporteur wishes to underscore that any restriction imposed on the right to freedom of expression, on the basis of any of the above-mentioned instruments, must comply with the three-part test of limitations to the right, as stipulated in article 19 (3) of the Covenant. This means that any restriction must be:] Provided by law, which is clear, unambiguous, precisely worded and accessible to everyone;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 39c
- Paragraph text
- [Hate speech on the basis of racial or ethnic origin is further prohibited under article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which stipulates that States parties:] Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur has consistently underlined the importance of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, not only as a right that should be guaranteed to all, including individuals belonging to marginalized groups, but also as a means to claim and enjoy all other rights. Indeed, it is a fundamental right that safeguards the exercise of all other rights and is a critical foundation of democracy, which depends on the free flow of diverse sources of information and ideas. The Constitution of UNESCO also affirms that peace can be promoted by facilitating the free flow of ideas and understanding among peoples of the world. Moreover, freedom of expression is essential to creating an environment conducive to critical discussions of religious and racial issues and also to promoting understanding and tolerance by deconstructing negative stereotypes. As the Special Rapporteur has previously emphasized, for the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion to be fully realized, robust examination and criticism of religious doctrines and practices - even in a harsh manner - must also be allowed.6 As with all human rights, however, the exercise of the right to freedom of expression should not be aimed at the violation of any of the rights and freedoms of others, including the right to equality and non-discrimination.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- The right to freedom of opinion and expression is guaranteed under article 19 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which affirm that everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through any media and regardless of frontiers.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- The need to go beyond legal measures to combat hate speech is particularly acute in the light of the increasingly transnational nature of many hate speech incidents and the inability of domestic legal systems to provide adequate responses and suitable remedies. In this regard, the media and Governments have crucial roles to play in preventing the escalation of violence and discrimination, as examined in section IV.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- The growing number of expressions of hate, incitement to violence, discrimination and hostility in the mass media and on the Internet serves as a reminder that the struggle against intolerance is both an urgent and permanent task. In this context, the question of when and under what circumstances the right to freedom of expression can be legitimately limited has resurfaced with renewed urgency and concern.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- Regrettably, instances of incitement to hatred continue to be found in all regions, as highlighted in the joint paper submitted to the regional expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred by the Special Rapporteur, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 89
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur urges States to promote pluralism and diversity of views and opinions in the media by encouraging diversity of ownership of media and of sources of information, including through transparent licensing systems and effective regulations to prevent undue concentration of media ownership in the private sector.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 88
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur recommends that States, academic institutions and civil society organizations collaborate in establishing a system to regularly gather and analyse relevant data regarding patterns of hate speech to aid policy formulation and evaluation and to establish early warning mechanisms.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 87
- Paragraph text
- With regard to the dissemination of hate speech online, States should request the removal of content only through a court order and intermediaries should never be held liable for content of which they are not the authors. The right of individuals to express themselves anonymously online must also be fully guaranteed.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 84
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur calls upon all States to raise awareness of human rights among the population at large, using, for example, the school education system and strong public information campaigns by public authorities or others.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 75
- Paragraph text
- There has been a worrying increase in the number of expressions of hate, incitement to violence and discrimination. Such expressions have often been compounded by politicians and the mass media, while the Internet has also facilitated the multiplication and visibility of hate speech in recent years. These trends are of concern, given that every individual human being is entitled to the same dignity and rights, including the right not to be discriminated against, regardless of national origin, social, racial, ethnic or religious background, disability, gender, sexuality or any other grounds. The promotion and protection of the right to freedom of expression must, however, go hand in hand with efforts to combat intolerance, discrimination and incitement to hatred. While the right to freedom of expression can and should be restricted in extreme cases, such as incitement to genocide and incitement to hatred in accordance with international norms and principles, the right to freedom of expression contributes to exposing harms caused by prejudice, combating negative stereotypes, offering alternative views and counterpoints and creating an atmosphere of respect and understanding between peoples and communities around the world.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- More in-depth research in other areas would also be useful, including on the impact of existing laws and the extent to which they comply with international norms and standards and tackle the problems brought to light by data collection; jurisprudence and best practice; the relationship between incitement to racial hatred and to religious hatred; and the abuse of hate speech legislation to suppress dissent.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is cognizant of the fact that, like all technological inventions, the Internet can be misused to cause harm to others. As with offline content, when a restriction is imposed as an exceptional measure on online content, it must pass a three-part, cumulative test: (1) it must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to everyone (principles of predictability and transparency); (2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , namely: (i) to protect the rights or reputations of others; (ii) to protect national security or public order, or public health or morals (principle of legitimacy); and (3) it must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity and proportionality). In addition, any legislation restricting the right to freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. There should also be adequate safeguards against abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- The term "digital divide" refers to the gap between people with effective access to digital and information technologies, in particular the Internet, and those with very limited or no access at all. In contrast to 71.6 Internet users per 100 inhabitants in developed States, there are only 21.1 Internet users per 100 inhabitants in developing States. This disparity is starker in the African region, with only 9.6 users per 100 inhabitants. In addition, digital divides also exist along wealth, gender, geographical and social lines within States. Indeed, with wealth being one of the significant factors in determining who can access information communication technologies, Internet access is likely to be concentrated among socio-economic elites, particularly in countries where Internet penetration is low. In addition, people in rural areas are often confronted with obstacles to Internet access, such as lack of technological availability, slower Internet connection, and/or higher costs. Furthermore, even where Internet connection is available, disadvantaged groups, such as persons with disabilities and persons belonging to minority groups, often face barriers to accessing the Internet in a way that is meaningful, relevant and useful to them in their daily lives.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Persons with disabilities
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- The Internet, as a medium by which the right to freedom of expression can be exercised, can only serve its purpose if States assume their commitment to develop effective policies to attain universal access to the Internet. Without concrete policies and plans of action, the Internet will become a technological tool that is accessible only to a certain elite while perpetrating the "digital divide".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- One clear example of criminalizing legitimate expression is the imprisonment of bloggers around the world. According to Reporters without Borders, in 2010, 109 bloggers were in prison on charges related to the content of their online expression. Seventy-two individuals were imprisoned in China alone, followed by Viet Nam and Iran, with 17 and 13 persons respectively.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- Moreover, any legislation restricting the right to freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and with adequate safeguards against abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 20e
- Paragraph text
- [Indeed, the Internet has become a key means by which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, as guaranteed by article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The latter provides that:] for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 20d
- Paragraph text
- [Indeed, the Internet has become a key means by which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, as guaranteed by article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The latter provides that:] for respect of the rights or reputations of others;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- Very few if any developments in information technologies have had such a revolutionary effect as the creation of the Internet. Unlike any other medium of communication, such as radio, television and printed publications based on one-way transmission of information, the Internet represents a significant leap forward as an interactive medium. Indeed, with the advent of Web 2.0 services, or intermediary platforms that facilitate participatory information sharing and collaboration in the creation of content, individuals are no longer passive recipients, but also active publishers of information. Such platforms are particularly valuable in countries where there is no independent media, as they enable individuals to share critical views and to find objective information. Furthermore, producers of traditional media can also use the Internet to greatly expand their audiences at nominal cost. More generally, by enabling individuals to exchange information and ideas instantaneously and inexpensively across national borders, the Internet allows access to information and knowledge that was previously unattainable. This, in turn, contributes to the discovery of the truth and progress of society as a whole.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur notes the concern that the Internet may be used as a means of inciting others to commit genocide, particularly given its capacity to reach a large audience. In order to prevent any excessive and undue limitation to the right to freedom of expression, the Special Rapporteur underscores that incitement to commit genocide must first be prohibited in domestic law and that any restriction imposed, for example through blocking or removing such expression via the Internet, must only be applied after a careful assessment of the threat of such expression to directly incite genocide, including factors such as the speaker, the intended audience, the content or meaning of the speech, the socio-historical context, the mode of transmission, and other indicators as outlined by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its decision on follow-up to the declaration on the prevention of genocide (CERD/C/67/1). The Special Rapporteur also underlines that incitement to commit genocide, which is of utmost gravity, must be distinguished from other types of incitement, such as incitement to discrimination.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 13
- Paragraph text
- Anyone with access to the Internet can now potentially disseminate information to a global audience. In situations where journalists have limited access, for example during times of humanitarian crises or natural disasters, images recorded on mobile phones or messages posted online by bloggers and social networking sites have played a key role in keeping the international community informed of the situation on the ground. Indeed, with the increased use of Web 2.0 platforms, information is no longer an exclusive preserve of professional journalists, since a far wider range of people take part in gathering, filtering and distributing news. "Crowdsourcing" is one example which exemplifies such a trend. At the same time, traditional communications media, such as television, radio and newspaper, can also use the Internet to expand their audiences at nominal cost. While the increasing relevance and reliance on amateur videos and first-hand account of events posted on the Internet have had a profound effect on the news industry, professional journalists continue to play an indispensable role in researching, organizing and providing analysis and context to news events. The Internet should thus be seen as a complementary medium to mass media that has been based on a one-way transmission of information.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 90
- Paragraph text
- Given the increasing amount of multimedia content online, broadband access should also be actively promoted and encouraged by States.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 87
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that the access to information, the ability to exercise the right to freedom of expression and the participation that the Internet provides to all sectors of society is essential for a truly democratic society.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- Broadband Internet access through mobile phones is also increasing rapidly. According to ITU statistics, by the end of 2010, the total number of mobile broadband subscriptions worldwide had reached 940 million. This number is expected to top 1 billion in 2011, from 73 million in 2005. One key reason for the growth in mobile broadband is that operators are offering both competitive and affordable data packages. This development is complemented and supported by new technologies, which are bringing more efficiency to networks. Singapore is one such example with a 100 per cent penetration rate for mobile phones, and with a majority of households having at least one mode of broadband access. In addition, in 2008 and 2009, the Government selected two companies to work on a coordinated nationwide roll-out of the network. As stipulated under the terms of the broadband deployment, one of these companies will waive all installation charges for home and building owners when the network first reaches their area. These companies are also to provide network connectivity to outdoor locations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 67
- Paragraph text
- The Millennium Development Goals, including target 8.F, aim to make available, in cooperation with the private sector, the benefits of new technologies, especially ICT. This target is measured by the indicators of the number of telephone lines, mobile cellular subscriptions and Internet users per 100 people. Currently access to the Internet is far less widespread than mobile communications. At the end of 2009, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) estimated that some 1.7 billion people around the world were using the Internet, or just over a quarter of the world's population (26 per cent). In developing countries, around 17.8 per cent were online. By the end of 2010, only Europe had achieved the target, with average Internet penetration rate at 67 per cent, and the Americas had reached around 50.7 per cent. These figures include public, communal centres and other kinds of Internet access. Moreover, according to the latest Millennium Development Goals Report 2011, although the number of Internet users continues to expand, penetration levels in the developing world remain relatively low, at 21 per cent at the end of 2010, compared to 72 per cent in the developed regions. Globally, two out of three people are not using the Internet. In the least developed countries, Internet penetration was as low as 3 per cent at the end of 2010.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- Recently, the Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 34 on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, also underscored that States parties should take all necessary steps to foster the independence of new media, such as the Internet, and to ensure access of all individuals thereto.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur encourages further research on concrete initiatives around the world and on how ICT can help women to further improve their skills and knowledge, in particular in the employment sphere as well as citizen participation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Person(s) affected
- Women
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- Similarly, the Human Rights Committee has asserted that article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on limitations "may never be invoked as a justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of multi-party democracy, democratic tenets and human rights. Nor, under any circumstance, can an attack on a person, because of the exercise of his or her freedom of opinion and expression, including such forms of attack as arbitrary arrest, torture, threats to life and killing, be compatible with article 19". The Committee has also noted that journalists and bloggers are frequently subjected to such threats, intimidation and attacks because of their activities, as are persons who engage in the gathering and analysis of information on the human rights situation and who publish human rights-related reports, including judges and lawyers. Indeed, the Special Rapporteur remains deeply concerned about such threats and attacks against, as well as killings and imprisonment, of bloggers, journalists and human rights defenders who rely upon the Internet to carry out their work.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- To do so, and to bring about real changes in mindsets, perceptions and discourse, a broad set of policy measures are necessary, for example in the areas of intercultural dialogue or education for diversity, equality and justice and in strengthening freedom of expression and promoting a "culture of peace". Indeed, the Special Rapporteur has previously stated that the strategic response to expressions deemed as offensive or intolerant is more speech: more speech that educates about cultural differences; more speech that promotes diversity and understanding; more speech to empower and give voice to minorities and indigenous peoples, for example through the support of community media and their representation in mainstream media. More speech can be the best strategy to reach out to individuals, changing what they think and not merely what they do, as has been recognized in the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference, which also affirmed the role that the right to freedom of opinion and expression can play in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance worldwide.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Ethnic minorities
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur reiterates that any domestic criminal laws that prohibit incitement to terrorism must meet the three-part test of restrictions to the right to freedom of expression. This entails that incitement of terrorism: (a) must be limited to the incitement of conduct that is truly terrorist in nature, as properly defined; (b) must restrict the right to freedom of expression no more than is necessary for the protection of national security, public order and safety or public health or morals; (c) must be prescribed in law in precise language, including by avoiding reference to vague terms such as "glorifying" or "promoting" terrorism; (d) must include an actual (objective) risk that the act incited will be committed; (e) should expressly refer to two elements of intent, namely intent to communicate a message and intent that this message incite the commission of a terrorist act; and (f) should preserve the application of legal defences or principles leading to the exclusion of criminal liability by referring to "unlawful" incitement to terrorism.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is concerned, however, particularly given the absence of an agreed definition of "terrorism" in international law, that States have a broad margin of discretionary power to interpret what kinds of expression constitute incitement to terrorism. Noting this lacuna, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism has proposed a model definition of terrorism, as well as incitement to terrorism, based on best practices. With regard to the latter, he has proposed the following formulation as the model offence of incitement to terrorism: "it is an offence to intentionally and unlawfully distribute or otherwise make available a message to the public with the intent to incite the commission of a terrorist offence, where such conduct, whether or not expressly advocating terrorist offences, causes a danger that one or more such offences may be committed". This formulation encompasses two requirements: (a) an intent to incite the commission of a terrorist offence; and (b) the existence of an actual risk that such an offence will be committed as a consequence.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- In addition, article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination stipulates that States parties shall declare all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred and incitement to racial discrimination an offence punishable by law. In its general recommendation No. 15, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination stated that "in the opinion of the Committee, the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the right to freedom of opinion and expression". Moreover, the Committee has also stated that it regards article 4 of the Convention as a mandatory obligation of States parties to the Convention. It regards the obligation as consistent with the freedoms of opinion and expression affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and notes that such kind of acts mentioned above specifically outlaws inciting racial discrimination, hatred and violence. It views the provisions as necessary to prevent organized racial violence.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 133
- Paragraph text
- With regard to the alarming number of journalists who have been killed, kidnapped or threatened, States are reminded of their duty to investigate and prosecute those responsible for planning and perpetrating such acts in order to eliminate the culture of impunity that perpetuates violence.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 130
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur also recommends that the mass media endeavour to employ a diverse workforce within which all sectors of society are represented and urges the press and mass media to voluntarily establish and adopt codes of professional conduct that help them to achieve this diversity.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 129
- Paragraph text
- States should take the necessary steps to support the expression of the cultural diversity of indigenous peoples and other minority groups in the public and private media. They should also promote policies on dialogue and education that foster understanding and respect in intercultural exchanges.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Ethnic minorities
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 126
- Paragraph text
- It is recommended that States respect the principles of pluralism and diversity, which are inherent in freedom of expression, in order to prevent and combat the concentration of media ownership in the hands of large-scale public and private consortia which contravene democratic models.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 125
- Paragraph text
- It is recommended that States facilitate technology transfer in the field of communications as a means of narrowing the digital and technological divide between the developed world and developing countries and thus contributing to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 123
- Paragraph text
- It is recommended that frequency allocation should be overseen and managed by an independent State (public-sector) body.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 121
- Paragraph text
- States should adopt the legislative and administrative measures necessary to facilitate access to public information and should establish specific mechanisms for that purpose.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 120
- Paragraph text
- States should refrain from criminalizing any manifestation of the freedom of expression as a means of limiting or censoring that freedom. Accordingly, any measure of this kind should be abolished, except for the permissible and legitimate restrictions established in international human rights law.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 119
- Paragraph text
- States should take the necessary steps to guarantee the effective exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression for all individuals and social sectors, without exception or discrimination of any kind.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 117
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur expresses concern about the violence to which journalists and media professionals continue to fall victim.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Violence
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 116
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur reiterates his view that it is conceptually incorrect to present the issue of "defamation of religions" in the abstract as a conflict between the right to freedom of religion or belief and the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 113
- Paragraph text
- Freedom of opinion and expression is an early form of participation for children and constitutes a mechanism for inclusion that necessarily entails recognition and respect of human dignity. Children's opinions should therefore be respected and taken into account.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 112
- Paragraph text
- Women continue to be denied the full exercise of their right to freedom of opinion and expression and, as a result, are also limited in the exercise of other fundamental rights, such as the rights to development, to education, to health, to participation and to a life free from violence.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Women
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 111
- Paragraph text
- Electronic communication is also an economic right, in that it is an essential factor for development. Accordingly, States should ensure that all sectors of society, and in particular the most disadvantaged among them, have access to electronic communications media.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 110
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is concerned about the growing digital divide and the disparity between developed and developing countries in terms of the development of electronic communications technologies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 109
- Paragraph text
- Community-based media are effective instruments for ensuring the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in all social sectors, without any form of discrimination whatsoever, in accordance with the principles of pluralism and diversity that should guide the exercise of this right.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 108
- Paragraph text
- Lack of access to information in accordance with the principles of pluralism and diversity results in an ill-informed, non-participatory society in which political decision-making is not democratic.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 107
- Paragraph text
- Freedom of opinion and expression should be viewed as a means of combating all forms of discrimination.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 106
- Paragraph text
- Freedom of expression is also a right of peoples, in that, through its effective exercise, peoples can develop, impart and reproduce their culture, their language, their traditions and their values.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 104
- Paragraph text
- The right to freedom of opinion and expression should be viewed as a key instrument for the promotion and protection of other human rights and an important tool in the effort to combat impunity and corruption.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 103
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur urges States to take steps to prevent violence against journalists and to improve the protection afforded to them. Drafting and implementing handbooks, guides and protocols on protection would constitute a good practice to this end.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 102
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur also believes that, if a community-based medium has violated an administrative provision, it is within the administrative framework that a solution should be found; criminal law should not be applied, and community-based communicators should not be criminalized, since this severely limits freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 100
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur considers it necessary to remind States of their obligation to ensure that both the national and the international press have access to all the facts and to all conflict zones and to provide members of the press with the protection due them in accordance with the aforementioned resolution.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 99
- Paragraph text
- In the aforementioned resolution, the Security Council also urges all parties involved in situations of conflict to respect the professional independence and rights of journalists, media professionals and associated personnel as civilians.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 97
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur must also draw attention to the serious risk that exercising freedom of the press in a professional, objective and pluralistic manner constitutes in areas of conflict, where journalists have come to be seen by the parties to the conflict as just another target.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 96
- Paragraph text
- Furthermore, kidnappings of journalists and other persons with links to the media are a continuing practice which, in 2009, forced around 157 journalists to seek exile in other countries.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 93
- Paragraph text
- A particular concern is the fact that a high percentage of the killings for which the motives have been confirmed were connected to investigations into corruption, organized crime and political crime that the journalists in question were conducting at the time.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 92
- Paragraph text
- The high-risk conditions in which journalists carry out their work, as evidenced by the threats and assaults to which they constantly fall victim, are also a matter of concern.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 91
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur calls on the Philippines, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, the Russian Federation and Mexico (the States accounting for the greatest number of journalists' deaths, in descending order) to adopt the measures necessary to guarantee the protection of journalists.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 90
- Paragraph text
- According to the NGO Reporters Without Borders, in 2009 around 76 journalists were killed in the exercise of their profession. This figure represents an increase of at least 26 per cent over the 2008 level.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 79b
- Paragraph text
- [The Special Rapporteur proposes the following principles for determining the conditions that must be satisfied in order for a limitation or restriction on freedom of expression to be permissible:] The relationship between the right and the limitation/restriction or between the rule and the exception must not be reversed;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 79a
- Paragraph text
- [The Special Rapporteur proposes the following principles for determining the conditions that must be satisfied in order for a limitation or restriction on freedom of expression to be permissible:] The restriction or limitation must not undermine or jeopardize the essence of the right of freedom of expression;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- The general principle is that permissible limitations and restrictions must constitute an exception to the rule and must be kept to the minimum necessary to pursue the legitimate aim of safeguarding other human rights established in the Covenant or in other international human rights instruments.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 76
- Paragraph text
- The limitations and restrictions must be provided for by prior law within the framework of international human rights law and the principles deriving therefrom.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 71
- Paragraph text
- It is important for Governments to promote measures and adopt good practices oriented toward equity in telecommunications. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur welcomes the promulgation by Argentina of the Audio-visual Materials Distribution Act, which is a good example of such practices.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 67
- Paragraph text
- Protecting disadvantaged social groups' right to freedom of expression requires Governments to create a legal framework for telecommunications which is based on democratic principles and which seeks to provide access to all sectors of society. Community-based media should serve as a tool for local communities and should be representative of their diverse interests.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur reiterates the comments of the Human Rights Committee in noting that Governments should ensure that minorities exercise their freedom of opinion and expression so that they can enjoy their own culture, profess and practise their own religion and use their own language in accordance with article 27 of the Covenant.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Ethnic minorities
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph