Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 239 entities
Ability of associations to access financial resources as a vital part of the right to freedom of association & Ability to hold peaceful assemblies as an integral component of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly 2013, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- Fundamentally, the Special Rapporteur believes civil society organizations play a significant role in combatting terrorism. By their direct connections with the population and their prodigious work in, inter alia, poverty reduction, peacebuilding, humanitarian assistance, human rights and social justice, including in politically complex environments, civil society plays a crucial role against the threat of terrorism. Unduly restrictive measures, which can lead donors to withdraw support from associations operating in difficult environments, can in fact undermine invaluable CSO initiatives in the struggle against terrorism and extremism, and ultimately have adverse consequences on peace and security.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
Paragraph
Ability of associations to access financial resources as a vital part of the right to freedom of association & Ability to hold peaceful assemblies as an integral component of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly 2013, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- International development cooperation between States has greatly increased in recent years and has allowed for advancing global development. To ensure the quality of aid, more collaborative approaches have now emerged. The Aid Effectiveness Agenda of the Paris Declaration (2005), the Accra Agenda for Action (2008) and the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (2011) are implementation frameworks aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of aid. They have gradually required harmonization of donor initiatives and accountability of development partners, but also required partner States to take ownership of aid initiatives. Nevertheless, in some cases, the principles identified within this framework (namely, ownership, alignment, harmonization, results and mutual accountability) have been interpreted by some States as giving them the sole power to determine priorities and subsequently control the plans of CSOs, thereby justifying limitations over the activities of civil society actors, including their right to seek and use foreign funding. While an inclusive and participatory process towards aid is to be welcomed, a rights-based approach is needed to ensure civil society's access to funding is not unduly restricted.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
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
Paragraph
Access to medicines in the context of the right-to-health framework 2013, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- Regulators in some of the developing countries surveyed by the Special Rapporteur reported the use of outdated methods and processes for enforcement, largely due to the lack of technical capacity, financial and human resources. For example, one such State regretted having sufficient inspectors to guard only 3 out of 41 ports of entry. Inspection of foreign production sites is an even greater challenge for resource-constrained importing countries. Regulatory bodies in many countries are generally funded by user fees, collected through licensing fees and inspection activities. However, these funds are insufficient to sustain effective regulation, given the scale and volume of production and import in most countries. States should therefore substantially increase budgetary support for their regulatory authorities to sustain the quality control activities and increase recruitment and training of staff. Regulatory bodies of importing developing countries could cooperate with their counterparts in the exporting countries to build regulatory capacities, share local inspection information of companies under their jurisdiction, and conduct joint inspections through cost-effective use of resources.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
Paragraph
Affordability of water and sanitation services 2015, para. 54a
- Paragraph text
- [Where States adopt targeted measures, this also poses challenges. In practice, unfortunately, such measures often fail to reach the target population for a variety of reasons, including:] Target groups are not informed of the availability of subsidies or financial support;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
Article 4 of the Convention 1993, para. 2
- Paragraph text
- The Committee recalls its general recommendation VII in which it explained that the provisions of article 4 are of a mandatory character. To satisfy these obligations, States parties have not only to enact appropriate legislation but also to ensure that it is effectively enforced. Because threats and acts of racial violence easily lead to other such acts and generate an atmosphere of hostility, only immediate intervention can meet the obligations of effective response.
- Body
- Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 1993
Paragraph
Article 4: Derogations 1981, para. 1
- Paragraph text
- Article 4 of the Covenant has posed a number of problems for the Committee when considering reports from some States parties. When a public emergency which threatens the life of a nation arises and it is officially proclaimed, a State party may derogate from a number of rights to the extent strictly required by the situation. The State party, however, may not derogate from certain specific rights and may not take discriminatory measures on a number of grounds. The State party is also under an obligation to inform the other States parties immediately, through the Secretary-General, of the derogations it has made including the reasons therefor and the date on which the derogations are terminated.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 1981
Paragraph
Article 4: Derogations 1981, para. 2
- Paragraph text
- States parties have generally indicated the mechanism provided in their legal systems for the declaration of a state of emergency and the applicable provisions of the law governing derogations. However, in the case of a few States which had apparently derogated from Covenant rights, it was unclear not only whether a state of emergency had been officially declared but also whether rights from which the Covenant allows no derogation had in fact not been derogated from and further whether the other States parties had been informed of the derogations and of the reasons for the derogations.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 1981
Paragraph
Article 4: Derogations 1981, para. 3
- Paragraph text
- The Committee holds the view that measures taken under article 4 are of an exceptional and temporary nature and may only last as long as the life of the nation concerned is threatened and that, in times of emergency, the protection of human rights becomes all the more important, particularly those rights from which no derogations can be made. The Committee also considers that it is equally important for States parties, in times of public emergency, to inform the other States parties of the nature and extent of the derogations they have made and of the reasons therefor and, further, to fulfil their reporting obligations under article 40 of the Covenant by indicating the nature and extent of each right derogated from together with the relevant documentation.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 1981
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 1
- Paragraph text
- Article 4 of the Covenant is of paramount importance for the system of protection for human rights under the Covenant. On the one hand, it allows for a State party unilaterally to derogate temporarily from a part of its obligations under the Covenant. On the other hand, article 4 subjects both this very measure of derogation, as well as its material consequences, to a specific regime of safeguards. The restoration of a state of normalcy where full respect for the Covenant can again be secured must be the predominant objective of a State party derogating from the Covenant. In this general comment, replacing its General Comment No 5, adopted at the thirteenth session (1981), the Committee seeks to assist States parties to meet the requirements of article 4.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 2
- Paragraph text
- Measures derogating from the provisions of the Covenant must be of an exceptional and temporary nature. Before a State moves to invoke article 4, two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation, and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. The latter requirement is essential for the maintenance of the principles of legality and rule of law at times when they are most needed. When proclaiming a state of emergency with consequences that could entail derogation from any provision of the Covenant, States must act within their constitutional and other provisions of law that govern such proclamation and the exercise of emergency powers; it is the task of the Committee to monitor the laws in question with respect to whether they enable and secure compliance with article 4. In order that the Committee can perform its task, States parties to the Covenant should include in their reports submitted under article 40 sufficient and precise information about their law and practice in the field of emergency powers.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- The fact that some of the provisions of the Covenant have been listed in article 4 (paragraph 2), as not being subject to derogation does not mean that other articles in the Covenant may be subjected to derogations at will, even where a threat to the life of the nation exists. The legal obligation to narrow down all derogations to those strictly required by the exigencies of the situation establishes both for States parties and for the Committee a duty to conduct a careful analysis under each article of the Covenant based on an objective assessment of the actual situation.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 9
- Paragraph text
- Furthermore, article 4, paragraph 1, requires that no measure derogating from the provisions of the Covenant may be inconsistent with the State party's other obligations under international law, particularly the rules of international humanitarian law. Article 4 of the Covenant cannot be read as justification for derogation from the Covenant if such derogation would entail a breach of the State's other international obligations, whether based on treaty or general international law. This is reflected also in article 5, paragraph 2, of the Covenant according to which there shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any fundamental rights recognized in other instruments on the pretext that the Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 10
- Paragraph text
- Although it is not the function of the Human Rights Committee to review the conduct of a State party under other treaties, in exercising its functions under the Covenant the Committee has the competence to take a State party's other international obligations into account when it considers whether the Covenant allows the State party to derogate from specific provisions of the Covenant. Therefore, when invoking article 4, paragraph 1, or when reporting under article 40 on the legal framework related to emergencies, States parties should present information on their other international obligations relevant for the protection of the rights in question, in particular those obligations that are applicable in times of emergency. In this respect, States parties should duly take into account the developments within international law as to human rights standards applicable in emergency situations.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- The enumeration of non-derogable provisions in article 4 is related to, but not identical with, the question whether certain human rights obligations bear the nature of peremptory norms of international law. The proclamation of certain provisions of the Covenant as being of a non derogable nature, in article 4, paragraph 2, is to be seen partly as recognition of the peremptory nature of some fundamental rights ensured in treaty form in the Covenant (e.g., articles 6 and 7). However, it is apparent that some other provisions of the Covenant were included in the list of non-derogable provisions because it can never become necessary to derogate from these rights during a state of emergency (e.g., articles 11 and 18). Furthermore, the category of peremptory norms extends beyond the list of non-derogable provisions as given in article 4, paragraph 2. States parties may in no circumstances invoke article 4 of the Covenant as justification for acting in violation of humanitarian law or peremptory norms of international law, for instance by taking hostages, by imposing collective punishments, through arbitrary deprivations of liberty or by deviating from fundamental principles of fair trial, including the presumption of innocence.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- In assessing the scope of legitimate derogation from the Covenant, one criterion can be found in the definition of certain human rights violations as crimes against humanity. If action conducted under the authority of a State constitutes a basis for individual criminal responsibility for a crime against humanity by the persons involved in that action, article 4 of the Covenant cannot be used as justification that a state of emergency exempted the State in question from its responsibility in relation to the same conduct. Therefore, the recent codification of crimes against humanity, for jurisdictional purposes, in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is of relevance in the interpretation of article 4 of the Covenant.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 13b
- Paragraph text
- [In those provisions of the Covenant that are not listed in article 4, paragraph 2, there are elements that in the Committee's opinion cannot be made subject to lawful derogation under article 4. Some illustrative examples are presented below.] The prohibitions against taking of hostages, abductions or unacknowledged detention are not subject to derogation. The absolute nature of these prohibitions, even in times of emergency, is justified by their status as norms of general international law.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 14
- Paragraph text
- Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant requires a State party to the Covenant to provide remedies for any violation of the provisions of the Covenant. This clause is not mentioned in the list of non-derogable provisions in article 4, paragraph 2, but it constitutes a treaty obligation inherent in the Covenant as a whole. Even if a State party, during a state of emergency, and to the extent that such measures are strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, may introduce adjustments to the practical functioning of its procedures governing judicial or other remedies, the State party must comply with the fundamental obligation, under article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant to provide a remedy that is effective.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- In paragraph 3 of article 4, States parties, when they resort to their power of derogation under article 4, commit themselves to a regime of international notification. A State party availing itself of the right of derogation must immediately inform the other States parties, through the United Nations Secretary General, of the provisions it has derogated from and of the reasons for such measures. Such notification is essential not only for the discharge of the Committee's functions, in particular in assessing whether the measures taken by the State party were strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, but also to permit other States parties to monitor compliance with the provisions of the Covenant. In view of the summary character of many of the notifications received in the past, the Committee emphasizes that the notification by States parties should include full information about the measures taken and a clear explanation of the reasons for them, with full documentation attached regarding their law. Additional notifications are required if the State party subsequently takes further measures under article 4, for instance by extending the duration of a state of emergency. The requirement of immediate notification applies equally in relation to the termination of derogation. These obligations have not always been respected: States parties have failed to notify other States parties, through the Secretary-General, of a proclamation of a state of emergency and of the resulting measures of derogation from one or more provisions of the Covenant, and States parties have sometimes neglected to submit a notification of territorial or other changes in the exercise of their emergency powers. Sometimes, the existence of a state of emergency and the question of whether a State party has derogated from provisions of the Covenant have come to the attention of the Committee only incidentally, in the course of the consideration of a State party's report. The Committee emphasizes the obligation of immediate international notification whenever a State party takes measures derogating from its obligations under the Covenant. The duty of the Committee to monitor the law and practice of a State party for compliance with article 4 does not depend on whether that State party has submitted a notification.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 9: Liberty and security of person 2014, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- With regard to article 4 of the Covenant, the Committee first observes that, like the rest of the Covenant, article 9 applies also in situations of armed conflict to which the rules of international humanitarian law are applicable. While rules of international humanitarian law may be relevant for the purposes of the interpretation of article 9, both spheres of law are complementary, not mutually exclusive. Security detention authorized and regulated by and complying with international humanitarian law in principle is not arbitrary. In conflict situations, access by the International Committee of the Red Cross to all places of detention becomes an essential additional safeguard for the rights to liberty and security of person.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 2011, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- Taking account of the specific terms of article 19, paragraph 1, as well as the relationship of opinion and thought (article 18), a reservation to paragraph 1 would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Furthermore, although freedom of opinion is not listed among those rights that may not be derogated from pursuant to the provisions of article 4 of the Covenant, it is recalled that, "in those provisions of the Covenant that are not listed in article 4, paragraph 2, there are elements that in the Committee's opinion cannot be made subject to lawful derogation under article 4". Freedom of opinion is one such element, since it can never become necessary to derogate from it during a state of emergency.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Assessing a decade of progress on the right to food 2013, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- Lastly, there are a range of measures that, in the circumstances of each case, may be identified as measures that are available to the State and that it therefore must take in order to discharge its duties to fulfil the right to food. For instance, recognizing that "illicit capital flight undermines the capacity of States parties to implement the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and to attain the Millennium Development Goals", the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights has called upon States parties to that Charter "to examine their national tax laws and policies towards preventing illicit capital flight in Africa". Similarly, insufficiently progressive levels of taxation or the failure to adopt certain practices that have proved to be effective in comparable contexts may be considered a violation of the duty to fulfil. This would be the case, for example, if a State fails to call upon international assistance in situations of natural disaster or where, for whatever reason, it is unable with its own resources to guarantee the basic freedom from hunger. There is a growing consensus on the appropriate methodologies for concretely identifying when the resources dedicated to the fulfilment of economic and social rights are insufficient. The duty to move "as expeditiously as possible" towards that end is increasingly considered to lend itself to independent monitoring, including by courts.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the right to food
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Environment
- Food & Nutrition
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
Paragraph
Best practices that promote and protect the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association 2012, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- The legitimate combat against terrorism, and other security considerations, has been used as a justification for the adoption of a state of emergency or other stricter rules to void the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. In many instances, emergency regulations have been used to clampdown on freedoms of peaceful assembly, of association and of expression. On different occasions, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism has stressed in a report to the General Assembly that "States should not need to resort to derogation measures in the area of freedom of assembly and association. Instead, limitation measures, as provided for in ICCPR, are sufficient in an effective fight against terrorism" (A/61/267, para. 53).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
Best practices that promote and protect the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association 2012, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur believes that the exercise of fundamental freedoms should not be subject to previous authorization by the authorities (as explicitly expressed in the Spanish Constitution), but at the most to a prior notification procedure, whose rationale is to allow State authorities to facilitate the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to take measures to protect public safety and order and the rights and freedoms of others. Such a notification should be subject to a proportionality assessment, not unduly bureaucratic and be required a maximum of, for example, 48 hours prior to the day the assembly is planned to take place. A notification procedure is in force in several countries, including Armenia, Austria, Canada, Cote d'Ivoire, Finland, Indonesia, Morocco, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Portugal, Senegal, Serbia, and the United Republic of Tanzania. Prior notification should ideally be required only for large meetings or meetings which may disrupt road traffic. In the Republic of Moldova, any assembly of fewer than 50 participants may take place without prior notification and the change from an authorization to a notification procedure fostered an increase in the number of individuals exercising their right to freedom of peaceful assembly. In this context, the Special Rapporteur regrets that the law on demonstrations recently adopted by referendum in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, provides for a fine of up to 100,000 Swiss francs for anyone who, inter alia, does not request an authorization to demonstrate or does not respect the content of the authorization.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
Best practices that promote and protect the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association 2012, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- Should the organizers fail to notify the authorities, the assembly should not be dissolved automatically (e.g. as in Austria) and the organizers should not be subject to criminal sanctions, or administrative sanctions resulting in fines or imprisonment. This is all the more relevant in the case of spontaneous assemblies where the organizers are unable to comply with the requisite notification requirements, or where there is no existing or identifiable organizer. In this context, the Special Rapporteur holds as best practice legislation allowing the holding of spontaneous assemblies, which should be exempted from prior notification. This is the case for example, in Armenia, Estonia, Germany, the Republic of Moldova and Slovenia. In this connection, the European Court of Human Rights has emphasized that "in special circumstances when an immediate response, in the form of a demonstration, to a political event might be justified, a decision to disband the ensuing, peaceful assembly solely because of the absence of the requisite prior notice, without any illegal conduct by the participants, amounts to a disproportionate restriction on freedom of peaceful assembly".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
Best practices that promote and protect the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association 2012, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur notes with satisfaction that, in most countries which responded to the questionnaire, capacity-building activities on international human rights law, and sometimes on international humanitarian law, are provided to law enforcement, notably in police academies, and other authorities (e.g. Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Estonia, Honduras, Germany, Guatemala, Iraq, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, Senegal, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Uruguay). Such trainings were delivered in cooperation, inter alia, with national human rights institutions (e.g. Denmark, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, New Zealand, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Paraguay, United Republic of Tanzania and Uganda), the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (e.g. Mexico and Uganda), the OSCE/ODIHR (e.g. Armenia and Bulgaria), the European Commission (e.g. Bulgaria), NGOs (e.g. Armenia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Malaysia and Serbia), universities (e.g. Morocco and Mexico), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (Peru). The Special Rapporteur stresses the need to provide regular follow-up trainings.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
Child slavery in the artisanal mining and quarrying sector 2011, para. 80
- Paragraph text
- Third, geographical challenges also contribute to the lack of proper enforcement of the law and Government programmes. Mines and quarries are usually found in remote, hard-to-access areas of the country. Those who live in remote areas establish "frontier communities". In some instances, Governments refer to difficulties in accessing these areas owing to internal armed conflict, organized crime or poor transport infrastructure. Remoteness also contributes to lawlessness in these communities, as perpetrators of violence and exploitation know that they are not within the reach of the law.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- In the international human rights context, commissions of inquiry are independent investigative commissions created in response to human rights violations including, but not limited to, torture, genocide, extrajudicial killings, disappearances and incidents involving multiple or high-profile killings (A/HRC/8/3, para. 12). Most commissions of inquiry are established at the initiative of national Government authorities. International experts may be part of their composition. In the present report, commissions of inquiry are defined as national commissions of inquiry and truth commissions, as well as investigations undertaken by national human rights institutions. The quest for accountability and victims' rights are common denominators for commissions of inquiry and truth commissions. While a commission of inquiry is likely to be established at the height of violence, a truth commission may only be established once a conflict is over. Both national and international commissions of inquiry often result from concerted demands by civil society or the international community. International commissions of inquiry tend, however, to have comparatively briefer temporal mandates which seek to identify patterns of violations during a protracted period of armed conflict.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 26a
- Paragraph text
- [Commissions of inquiry may also be designed to address other objectives, including:] To contribute to accountability for perpetrators;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
Commissions of inquiry 2012, para. 26b
- Paragraph text
- [Commissions of inquiry may also be designed to address other objectives, including:] To respond to the needs of victims;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph