Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 149 entities
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- States should promote strong encryption and anonymity. National laws should recognize that individuals are free to protect the privacy of their digital communications by using encryption technology and tools that allow anonymity online. Legislation and regulations protecting human rights defenders and journalists should also include provisions enabling access and providing support to use the technologies to secure their 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Anonymous speech has been necessary for activists and protestors, but States have regularly attempted to ban or intercept anonymous communications in times of protest. Such attempts to interfere with the freedom of expression unlawfully pursue an illegitimate objective of undermining the right to peaceful protest under the Universal Declaration and 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
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- States have also attempted to combat anonymity tools, such as Tor, proxies and VPNs, by denying access to them. China has long blocked access to Tor, and Russian government officials reportedly offered more than $100,000 for techniques to identify anonymous users of Tor. In addition, Ethiopia, Iran (Islamic Republic of) and Kazakhstan have reportedly sought to block Tor traffic. Because such tools may be the only mechanisms for individuals to exercise freedom of opinion and expression securely, access to them should be protected and promoted.
- 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
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- Prohibition of anonymity online interferes with the right to freedom of expression. Many States ban it regardless of any specific government interest. The Constitution of Brazil (art. 5) prohibits anonymous speech. The Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (art. 57) similarly prohibits anonymity. In 2013, Viet Nam outlawed the use of pseudonyms, which forced individuals with personal blogs to publicly list their real name and address. In 2012, the Islamic Republic of Iran required the registration of all IP addresses in use inside the country and cybercafe users to register their real names before using a computer. Ecuadoran law requires commenters on websites and mobile phone owners to register under a real name.
- 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
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- Many States recognize the lawfulness of maintaining the anonymity of journalists' sources. The Mexican Supreme Court and Mexican Code of Criminal Procedures recognize the right of journalists to maintain the anonymity of their sources; yet pressures on journalists are in fact severe. The Constitutions of Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay explicitly protect sources; Chile, El Salvador, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) protect sources in law. The Mozambique Constitution protects sources, while Angola purports to do so by statute. Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand have established case-specific judicial balancing tests to analyse source protection, although pressure on journalists may undermine such protections over time. States often breach source anonymity in practice, even where it is provided for in 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)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- Some States may identify the mere use of encryption technologies as illicit behaviour. For instance, charges against the Zone 9 blogger collective in Ethiopia included suggestions that the mere training in communication security was evidence of criminal behaviour. Such presumptions fail to meet the standards for permissible restrictions. Similarly, States undermine the rights to privacy and freedom of expression when they penalize those who produce and distribute tools to facilitate online access for activists.
- 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
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas: In environments of prevalent censorship, individuals may be forced to rely on encryption and anonymity in order to circumvent restrictions and exercise the right to seek, receive and impart information. Some States have curtailed access with a variety of tools. State censorship, for instance, poses sometimes insurmountable barriers to the right to access information. Some States impose content-based, often discriminatory restrictions or criminalize online expression, intimidating political opposition and dissenters and applying defamation and lese-majesty laws to silence journalists, defenders and activists. A VPN connection, or use of Tor or a proxy server, combined with encryption, may be the only way in which an individual is able to access or share information in such environments.
- 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
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
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
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
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- Restrictions on expression must be necessary to achieve aims specified by article 19 (3) of the Covenant and may never be invoked to justify the suppression of advocacy for democratic rights (see Human Rights Committee general comment No. 34, para. 23; and A/71/373, para. 26). However, governments frequently impose shutdowns during demonstrations, elections and other events of extraordinary public interest, with little or no explanation. In Bahrain, disruptions to mobile and Internet access in Duraz allegedly coincided with sit-ins outside the home of a prominent religious leader whose citizenship the Government had revoked. Internet users in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela were reportedly denied Internet access during widespread protests against the Government in 2014. Network disruptions have been recorded during or around elections or protests in Cameroon, the Gambia, India, Myanmar, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Uganda and Montenegro.
- 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
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 83b
- Paragraph text
- [Accountability mechanisms are a crucial means of ensuring that regulatory frameworks are enforced and abuses of power are rectified. Impunity is a root cause of the lack of safety faced by journalists. In the context of promoting free expression during electoral processes, States should:] Guarantee the safety of journalists and media workers; legislative and policy measures must be adopted to prevent attacks against journalists and to eradicate impunity in relation to episodes of violence and intimidation;
- 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
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 70
- Paragraph text
- Harassment of, and violence or threats against, journalists, bloggers or other members of the media, activists or political candidates or parties must be prohibited by law and subject to criminal penalties. Equally, as the Human Rights Council recognized in its resolution 21/12 on the safety of journalists, States must ensure accountability through the conduct of impartial, speedy and effective investigations into such acts and bring to justice those responsible, as well as ensuring that victims have access to appropriate remedies. Accountability mechanisms are the only way to ensure that such attacks do not occur with impunity, undermining not only the free expression rights of those involved, but the integrity of the electoral process. States should also ensure that legal frameworks protect the rights to peaceful assembly and association during electoral processes, and should eliminate any practical barriers to the conduct of protests and demonstrations.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- Recent reports testify that States also seek to restrain free expression during elections by prohibiting access to certain media sources and outlets, for example through blocking online websites and blogs. In 2013, civil society reported restrictions on critical newspaper distribution networks, and the blocking of opposition websites, Facebook and YouTube in the run-up to four different elections. The Special Rapporteur publicly joined other experts in indicating their concern at reports of harassment of human rights defenders and attempts to silence media outlets and websites in Malaysia before elections scheduled to take place in May 2013. In March 2014, the Special Rapporteur voiced his serious concerns at Government measures taken to restrict access to YouTube and Twitter before elections in Turkey.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- Attacks on journalists, activists and political candidates and groups also occur in the context of measures to limit the enjoyment of the freedoms to associate and assemble during electoral processes. The prohibition of protests and demonstrations and the harassment and intimidation of demonstrators during electoral processes remain common means of impeding the free expression of political ideas and the free conduct of public political debate. Such restrictions may take the form of harsh penalties for protesters who fail to comply with articulated requirements. In some countries, suppression of the right to peacefully assemble in the lead-up to elections takes the form of arbitrary arrest of demonstrators. Such actions deter the exercise of free expression and assembly by activists, opposition supporters and civil society groups. Requirements that protests receive prior State approval can also impede the free exercise of rights by creating the conditions for bribery and manipulation.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- The State is not the only perpetrator of violence against journalists during elections; however it has a permanent responsibility to ensure the safety of all journalists at all times. In some countries, media organizations, independent editors and journalists receive threats and intimidation from militant groups or political parties demanding coverage for their messages. In many cases the State fails to take sufficient measures to protect journalists from such harassment, and responds by fining or otherwise punishing the media for broadcasting messages by banned organizations, despite the media being forced to do so under threat.
- 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
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- In the course of his mandate, the Special Rapporteur has addressed, through communications and public statements, reports of violence against or harassment of journalists in Belarus, where it was reported that, in the lead-up to the December 2010 presidential elections, journalists had their equipment seized and photographs deleted; and in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where, as at May 2013, 40 journalists had reportedly been imprisoned as a means of silencing free speech and debate ahead of the June 2013 elections.
- 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
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- Violence against, and harassment of, the press during electoral and political processes remains a common way of impeding the free expression of political ideas in many countries. Throughout his mandate, the Special Rapporteur has received numerous communications alleging serious violence against reporters, journalists, bloggers, television reporters and writers in the lead-up to, during and in the aftermath of elections. Attacks against the media function both as a specific means of deterring targeted journalists from investigating and reporting on a particular issue or candidate, and as a means of more generally deterring the media from reporting freely and impartially on political issues. In this context, violence against the media is one of the most destructive forms of violation of free expression in electoral processes.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- In addition to the structural and legal threats to free expression rights in electoral processes, States are also actively restricting the practical enjoyment of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in political communications. Such measures include multiple forms of censorship, such as restrictions on particular websites and social media sites, sources of political commentary, including local and international media, or even Internet services more broadly; harassment of the media; violence against and imprisonment of journalists, activists and bloggers; direct attacks on dissident political groups; and measures to impede public demonstrations and other forms of valid political expression. These common violations of freedom of expression rights occur outside electoral processes as well, but are often more frequent or acute during moments of political change or upheaval, and are especially damaging during such times.
- 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
- 2014
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 80
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned that websites of human rights organizations, critical bloggers, and other individuals or organizations that disseminate information that is embarrassing to the State or the powerful have increasingly become targets of cyber-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
- Activists
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned by actions taken by States against individuals communicating via the Internet, frequently justified broadly as being necessary to protect national security or to combat terrorism. While such ends can be legitimate under international human rights law, surveillance often takes place for political, rather than security reasons in an arbitrary and covert manner. For example, States have used popular social networking sites, such as Facebook, to identify and to track the activities of human rights defenders and opposition members, and in some cases have collected usernames and passwords to access private communications of Facebook 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
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2011
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
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- In the Republic of Korea, high school students have promoted a major social mobilization against authoritarian practices within the education system. As a result of the public debate generated by the students, in January 2012, the Seoul Metropolitan Council adopted a students' rights ordinance ensuring, inter alia, the right of students to protest, a ban on corporal punishment, the elimination of mandatory participation in religious activities and the protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students and pregnant students against discrimination. Action for Youth Rights of Korea, an association established by Korean students in the context of this mobilization, continues to promote student 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)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- LGBTQI+
- Youth
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- National legal frameworks must protect the confidentiality of sources of journalists and of others who may engage in the dissemination of information of public interest. Laws guaranteeing confidentiality must reach beyond professional journalists, including those who may be performing a vital role in providing wide access to information of public interest such as bloggers, "citizen journalists", members of non-governmental organizations, authors and academics, all of whom may conduct research and disclose information in the public interest. Protection should be based on function, not on a formal title.
- 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
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- Journalists are often subjected to searches of their persons, homes or offices, including their papers, hard drives and other digital devices. In addition to the normal rules that apply to such searches, a higher burden should be imposed in the context of journalists and others gathering and disseminating information. The United States Privacy Protection Act of 1980, for example, protects journalists and others from searches and seizures of their work product, while the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 of the United Kingdom excludes journalistic material from the scope of seizure authorities. The Code of Criminal Procedure of France enables searches of the offices of media only where "such investigations do not violate the freedom of exercise of the profession of journalist and do not unjustifiably obstruct or delay the distribution 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
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- Second, "citizen journalists" and bloggers and other media "non-professionals" engage in independent reporting and disseminate their findings through a wide variety of media, from print and broadcast to social media and other online platforms. They frequently work in ways similar or identical to, or even more rigorous than, the work of traditional journalists. Some States have adopted rules that provide important protection for them. For example, the Irish High Court, in Cornec v. Morrice and Ors, found that bloggers might claim source protection because they could constitute an "organ of public opinion" and because the right to influence public opinion would be jeopardized if they were forced to disclose their 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
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2015
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. 79
- Paragraph text
- States cannot ensure that individuals are able to freely seek and receive information or express themselves without respecting, protecting and promoting their right to privacy. Privacy and freedom of expression are interlinked and mutually dependent; an infringement upon one can be both the cause and consequence of an infringement upon the other. Without adequate legislation and legal standards to ensure the privacy, security and anonymity of communications, journalists, human rights defenders and whistleblowers, for example, cannot be assured that their communications will not be subject to States' scrutiny.
- 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
- 2013
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. 75
- Paragraph text
- In the most serious circumstances, the private sector has been complicit in developing technologies that enable mass or invasive surveillance in contravention of existing legal standards. The corporate sector has generated a global industry focused on the exchange of surveillance technologies. Such technologies are often sold to countries in which there is a serious risk that they will be used to violate human rights, particularly those of human rights defenders, journalists or other vulnerable groups. This industry is virtually unregulated as States have failed to keep pace with technological and political developments.
- 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
- 2013
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. 60
- Paragraph text
- The use of an amorphous concept of national security to justify invasive limitations on the enjoyment of human rights is of serious concern. The concept is broadly defined and is thus vulnerable to manipulation by the State as a means of justifying actions that target vulnerable groups such as human rights defenders, journalists or activists. It also acts to warrant often unnecessary secrecy around investigations or law enforcement activities, undermining the principles of transparency and 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2013
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
Paragraph