Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 342 entities
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 3
- Paragraph text
- There have been similar information-poor situations involving peacekeeping, whistle-blowing, allegations of fraud, personnel decisions and conflicts of interest for which a comprehensive freedom of information policy for the United Nations would have advanced public understanding of and engagement with global issues and reinforced mechanisms for accountability. A lack of transparency and proper access to information, for instance, has arguably played a role in the lack of accountability on the part of peacekeepers accused of sexual abuse.
- 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
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
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
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 10
- Paragraph text
- The right to information under international law has its roots in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As formulated in the International Covenant, everyone enjoys 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”. The Human Rights Committee has provided a clear enunciation of what the right involves, emphasizing that article 19 “embraces a right of access to information held by public bodies”. “Such information”, the Committee noted, “includes records held by a public body, regardless of the form in which the information is stored, its source and the date of production” (CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 18). Moreover, the Committee emphasized that the right does not merely depend on public authorities’ reaction to requests for information: “To give effect to the right of access to information, States parties should proactively put in the public domain Government information of public interest. States parties should make every effort to ensure easy, prompt, effective and practical access to such information. States parties should also enact the necessary procedures, whereby one may gain access to information, such as by means of freedom of information legislation. The procedures should provide for the timely processing of requests for information according to clear rules that are compatible with the Covenant. Fees for requests for information should not be such as to constitute an unreasonable impediment to access to information. Authorities should provide reasons for any refusal to provide access to information. Arrangements should be put in place for appeals from refusals to provide access to information as well as in cases of failure to respond to requests (CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 19).”
- 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
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- In the years since, elaboration of the right to information has been a common thread in reporting under the mandate. In 2013, the Special Rapporteur gave a full rationale for a robust right to information: “… public authorities act as representatives of the public, fulfilling a public good; therefore, in principle, their decisions and actions should be transparent. A culture of secrecy is acceptable only in very exceptional cases, when confidentiality may be essential for the effectiveness of their work. There is consequently a strong public interest in the disclosure of some types of information. Moreover, access to certain types of information can affect the enjoyment by individuals of other rights. In such cases, information can be withheld only in very exceptional circumstances, if at all (A/68/362, para. 20).”
- 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
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- Human rights law also recognizes connections between the right to freedom of expression as contained in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other rights. The right to information is also closely connected to article 25 (1) of the International Covenant, which protects every citizen’s right and opportunity to “take part in the conduct of public affairs”. The Human Rights Committee has emphasized the importance of freedom of information to public participation “without censorship” (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7, para. 25). The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reiterated and expanded on this point (and others) in its 2015 report on the promotion, protection and implementation of the right to participate in public affairs in the context of the existing human rights law (A/HRC/30/26).
- 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
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
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
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- Intergovernmental organizations should make efforts now to create openness and to establish policies and infrastructure that not only provide information of all kinds but also promote such requests. Intergovernmental organizations should welcome the opportunities to provide transparency because, although transparency can cause embarrassment and, occasionally, give rise to scandal, it also sends a broader message of understanding that public knowledge is critical, especially so since these institutions serve critical public functions. Opacity, by contrast, sends the opposite message: we are distant; our work does not concern you; your support is unnecessary.
- 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
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 61d
- Paragraph text
- [The political bodies of the United Nations, especially the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, and other intergovernmental organizations should:] Promote knowledge of access to information policies, including through the provision of clear information on websites and active dissemination and promotion of those policies to staff and stakeholders.
- 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
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
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee everyone's right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers and through any media, including in the form of art. The Human Rights Council and the General Assembly have referred to freedom of expression as one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and development (see Council resolution 21/12) and emphasized that a free media helps to build inclusive knowledge societies and democracies and foster intercultural dialogue, peace and good governance (see Assembly resolution 68/163). Both bodies have highlighted the critical importance of journalism in the above-mentioned resolutions and have affirmed that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression (see Council resolutions 20/8, 26/13 and 32/13). Attacks on freedom of expression are nothing new, nor is the deep concern expressed about them by the United Nations (see Commission on Human Rights resolution 1993/45 and Council resolution 12/16). With 168 States parties and wide acknowledgement of its centrality in human rights law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides the principal legal standard for the vast majority of communications relating 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- In paragraph 10 of its general comment No. 34 (2011) on article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, the Human Rights Committee explained that any form of effort to coerce the holding or not holding of any opinion is prohibited. No one may be penalized, harassed, intimidated or stigmatized for holding an opinion. The right to hold opinions in a digital age is often subject to interference. For example, work product, journals and diaries stored on laptops and in the cloud are increasingly subject to attack (see A/HRC/29/32, paras. 19-21). Communications include allegations that individuals may be harassed at least in part because of their membership in an organization. Such harassment may amount to impermissible interference with opinion under article 19 (1), in addition to interference with the right to freedom of association under article 22 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
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- In contrast to the unconditional prohibition of interference with opinion, article 19 (3) of the Covenant imposes three requirements according to which States may restrict the exercise of freedom of expression. Those conditions are to be implemented narrowly (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, paras. 21-36). Article 19 (3) provides that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression involves special duties and responsibilities and may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; and (b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. Article 20 of the Covenant also provides for the prohibition of propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to 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)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
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
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 13
- Paragraph text
- First, legislation often employs broad terms that grant authorities significant discretion to restrict expression and provide individuals with limited guidance about the lines dividing lawful from unlawful behaviour. For instance, I raised concerns with China about its draft cybersecurity legislation in 2015, noting that the law's proscriptions - for instance, that individuals "observe public order and respect social morality" and not use the Internet to "engage in activities harming national security" or "upset social order" - are so general as to permit officials excessive discretion to determine their meaning.
- 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
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- Article 19 (3) requires the State to demonstrate that the tools chosen to achieve a legitimate objective are necessary and proportionate to protect the rights or reputations of others or national security, public order, or public health or morals. Necessity and proportionality also apply to prohibitions under article 20 of the Covenant (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, paras. 50-52). The State must establish a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat said to exist (ibid., para. 35). Restrictions must target a specific objective and not unduly intrude upon other rights of targeted persons, and the ensuing interference with third parties' rights must be limited and justified in the light of the interest supported by the intrusion (see A/HRC/29/32, para. 35). The restriction must be the least intrusive instrument among those which might achieve the desired result (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, para. 34).
- 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
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- State assertions that national security or public order justifies interference with personal security and privacy are common in cases of surveillance of personal communications, encryption and anonymity, subjects addressed in my report to the Human Rights Council in 2015 (A/HRC/29/32), in my predecessor's report in 2013 (see A/HRC/23/40) and in the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital age (A/HRC/27/37). Surveillance, including both bulk collection of data and targeted attacks on specific individuals or communities, interferes directly with the privacy and security necessary for freedom of opinion and expression, and always requires evaluation under article 19. I am concerned that practice often fails to meet such standards. A law recently adopted in the Russian Federation imposes a duty on Internet providers to decrypt communications, apparently requiring the establishment of encryption back doors that will likely disproportionately undermine all users' security. Both the United Kingdom and France have proposed to provide their law enforcement and intelligence officials with the authority to require companies to grant them access to encrypted communications of their users (see A/HRC/29/32, para. 45). Brazil prohibits anonymity entirely as a matter of constitutional law online and offline (ibid., para. 49). I understand that some of these efforts involve genuine commitments to preventing terrorism or guaranteeing public order, but the Governments have not demonstrated that interference with Internet security is a necessary or proportionate measure in the light of the specific threats caused to privacy and 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
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
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
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- States often present justifications that identify limitations other than those permitted by article 19 (3) or required by article 20. Saudi Arabia has noted that its Basic Law of Governance "stipulates that all means of expression must employ civil and polite language". Article 19, however, does not permit restrictions merely on the basis of civility, a capacious and subjective term. In Burundi, a radio journalist was charged with "manquement à la solidarité publique", or a breach of public solidarity, also not rooted in the objectives of article 19 (3). Bangladesh adopted a national broadcast policy that in important respects promoted the independence of broadcast media, but at the same time included prohibitions of expression "against the State and public interest", "misinformation" and "distorted truth" that were not based on permissible objectives under article 19.
- 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
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- To be sure, States enjoy legitimate interests apart from those identified in article 19 (3), such as those economic, diplomatic and political. Human rights law does not preclude States from pursuing such objectives. Article 19 merely provides that pursuit of those other objectives must involve measures that do not restrict the exercise of 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- The tools used to criminalize criticism are also applied against those who practise journalism, that is, the regular gathering of information, with or without formal training, accreditation or other government acknowledgement, with the intent to disseminate one's findings in any form. The attacks on reporting cross many themes in the present report. Nonetheless, it is important to emphasize that attacks on journalism are fundamentally at odds with protection of freedom of expression and access to information and, as such, they should be highlighted independently of any other rationale for restriction. Governments have a responsibility not only to respect journalism but also to ensure that journalists and their sources have protection through strong laws, prosecutions of perpetrators and ample security where necessary.
- 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
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
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
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- Religious people worldwide certainly do experience offence when their beliefs are criticized, but nobody should suffer penalty, under criminal or civil grounds, for such criticism, rejection or even ridicule, except in those very rare circumstances in which the critic incites violence against a believer and restriction is necessary to protect against such violence. The Human Rights Council, in its resolution 16/18, and the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix) highlighted mechanisms other than criminal or civil penalty, such as broader education and law enforcement training, that could and should address hateful and offensive 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
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- Article 19 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects everyone's right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers and through any media. It has become customary to emphasize that individuals enjoy the same rights online as they do offline. The previous mandate holder highlighted the increasing number and forms of restrictions on the right to information online (see A/HRC/17/27) and demonstrated the impact on freedom of expression of expanded digital surveillance (see A/HRC/23/40). In 2015, the Special Rapporteur emphasized the important role played by encryption and anonymity in protecting and advancing the freedom of expression (see A/HRC/29/32). In joint declarations, the Special Rapporteur and regional counterparts have emphasized issues relating to intermediary liability, access, content restrictions and other key topics on freedom of 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
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
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 8
- Paragraph text
- Individuals enjoy the full range of other rights online as well, such as privacy, religious belief, association and peaceful assembly, education, culture and freedom from discrimination. States have both a negative obligation to refrain from violating rights and a positive obligation to ensure enjoyment of those rights. These positive obligations may require public authorities to take steps to protect individuals from the actions of private 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- Due diligence, according to the Guiding Principles, enables businesses to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse human rights impacts. In the digital environment, human rights impacts may arise in internal decisions on how to respond to government requests to restrict content or access customer information, the adoption of terms of service, design and engineering choices that implicate security and privacy, and decisions to provide or terminate services in a particular market.
- 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
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 13
- Paragraph text
- Finally, the responsibility to respect involves attention to the availability of remedies - from moral remedies to compensation and guarantees of non-repetition - when the private actor has caused or contributed to adverse 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)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph