Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 394 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 justice and the right to food: the way forward 2015, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- The constitutional jurisprudence of India provides for the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights based on "the right to life". This constitutional right was central to the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties ("PUCL") v. Union of India. In mid-2001, public food and employment programmes failed to provide food to deprived people in the impoverished and drought-stricken State of Rajasthan. The Supreme Court of India was petitioned by PUCL to compel the Government to respond to the hunger emergency. In response to the submissions, the Supreme Court held that the right to food was enshrined in the Constitution under the right to life provision in article 47, which requires that the State undertake measures to improve the nutritional state of the population. The Court handed down a series of resolutions which commenced in 2001 requiring State governments in India to implement food distribution programmes for the most disadvantaged. The Court's resolution had a considerable impact on the realization of the right to food in India, and provides an example of the influential role played by the judiciary in encouraging a legislative body to develop human rights legislation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the right to food
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Food & Nutrition
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
Access to medicines in the context of the right-to-health framework 2013, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- With respect to quantification of medicines needs, one developing country experience indicates reliance on historical data gathered from hospitals all over the country and the epidemiological pattern of disease, which are reviewed every six months. A 20 per cent buffer to account for shortages or seasonal increases in disease is then added. Stock shortages are nevertheless commonly reported in this State. Fewer than half of the respondent States had a policy in place to address medicines shortages. States attributed stock shortages to insufficient funding for procurement, inaccurate forecasting of needs, inadequate buffer stock of essential medicines, and inefficient distribution and record-keeping systems. Stock shortages can force patients to resort to more expensive private health centres, inappropriate medicines or even forego treatment altogether. Over-quantification of demand, on the other hand, is equally harmful, as it can lead to the wastage of scarce resources and the expiry of medicines, for which safe disposal systems are lacking in many States. States are therefore encouraged to develop more scientific, reliable and evidence-based methods for forecasting and quantification such as the use of computerized methods for quantification and reliance on data about actual consumption where there are reliable records available. Participation of civil society and the affected communities must be encouraged as it helps create information networks to monitor and inform competent health authorities on medicine stocks.
- 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)
- Health
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
Paragraph
African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance 2007, para. 1
- Paragraph text
- State Parties shall strengthen and institutionalize constitutional civilian control over the armed and security forces to ensure the consolidation of democracy and constitutional order.
- Body
- African Union
- Document type
- Regional treaty
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2007
Paragraph
African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance 2007, para. 2
- Paragraph text
- State Parties shall promote solidarity amongst Member States and support the conflict prevention and resolution initiatives that the Union may undertake in conformity with the Protocol establishing the Peace and Security Council.
- Body
- African Union
- Document type
- Regional treaty
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2007
Paragraph
African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance 2007, para. 3
- Paragraph text
- State Parties agree that the use of, inter alia, the following illegal means of accessing or maintaining power constitute an unconstitutional change of government and shall draw appropriate sanctions by the Union: Any replacement of a democratically elected government by armed dissidents or rebels.
- Body
- African Union
- Document type
- Regional treaty
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2007
Paragraph
African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance 2007, para. undefined
- Paragraph text
- Concerned about the unconstitutional changes of governments that are one of the essential causes of insecurity, instability and violent conflict in Africa;
- Body
- African Union
- Document type
- Regional treaty
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2007
Paragraph
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Banjul Charter) 1981, para. undefined
- Paragraph text
- If within three months from the date on which the original communication is received by the State to which it is addressed, the issue is not settled to the satisfaction of the two States involved through bilateral negotiation or by any other peaceful procedure, either State shall have the right to submit the matter to the Commission through the Chairman and shall notify the other States involved.
- Body
- Organization of African Unity
- Document type
- Regional treaty
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1981
Paragraph
African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child 1990, para. 1
- Paragraph text
- State Parties to this Charter shall undertake to respect and ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts which affect the child.
- Body
- Organization of African Unity
- Document type
- Regional treaty
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Children
- Year
- 1990
Paragraph
American Convention on Human Rights 1969, para. 1
- Paragraph text
- 1. In time of war, public danger, or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of a State Party, it may take measures derogating from its obligations under the present Convention to the extent and for the period of time strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination on the ground of race, color, sex, language, religion, or social origin.
- Body
- Organization of American States
- Document type
- Regional treaty
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 1969
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: 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. 3
- Paragraph text
- Not every disturbance or catastrophe qualifies as a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation, as required by article 4, paragraph 1. During armed conflict, whether international or non-international, rules of international humanitarian law become applicable and help, in addition to the provisions in article 4 and article 5, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, to prevent the abuse of a State's emergency powers. The Covenant requires that even during an armed conflict measures derogating from the Covenant are allowed only if and to the extent that the situation constitutes a threat to the life of the nation. If States parties consider invoking article 4 in other situations than an armed conflict, they should carefully consider the justification and why such a measure is necessary and legitimate in the circumstances. On a number of occasions the Committee has expressed its concern over States parties that appear to have derogated from rights protected by the Covenant, or whose domestic law appears to allow such derogation in situations not covered by article 4.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 4
- Paragraph text
- A fundamental requirement for any measures derogating from the Covenant, as set forth in article 4, paragraph 1, is that such measures are limited to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. This requirement relates to the duration, geographical coverage and material scope of the state of emergency and any measures of derogation resorted to because of the emergency. Derogation from some Covenant obligations in emergency situations is clearly distinct from restrictions or limitations allowed even in normal times under several provisions of the Covenant. Nevertheless, the obligation to limit any derogations to those strictly required by the exigencies of the situation reflects the principle of proportionality which is common to derogation and limitation powers. Moreover, the mere fact that a permissible derogation from a specific provision may, of itself, be justified by the exigencies of the situation does not obviate the requirement that specific measures taken pursuant to the derogation must also be shown to be required by the exigencies of the situation. In practice, this will ensure that no provision of the Covenant, however validly derogated from will be entirely inapplicable to the behaviour of a State party. When considering States parties' reports the Committee has expressed its concern over insufficient attention being paid to the principle of proportionality.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- The issues of when rights can be derogated from, and to what extent, cannot be separated from the provision in article 4, paragraph 1, of the Covenant according to which any measures derogating from a State party's obligations under the Covenant must be limited "to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation". This condition requires that States parties provide careful justification not only for their decision to proclaim a state of emergency but also for any specific measures based on such a proclamation. If States purport to invoke the right to derogate from the Covenant during, for instance, a natural catastrophe, a mass demonstration including instances of violence, or a major industrial accident, they must be able to justify not only that such a situation constitutes a threat to the life of the nation, but also that all their measures derogating from the Covenant are strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. In the opinion of the Committee, the possibility of restricting certain Covenant rights under the terms of, for instance, freedom of movement (article 12) or freedom of assembly (article 21) is generally sufficient during such situations and no derogation from the provisions in question would be justified by the exigencies of the situation.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- 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. 8
- Paragraph text
- According to article 4, paragraph 1, one of the conditions for the justifiability of any derogation from the Covenant is that the measures taken do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin. Even though article 26 or the other Covenant provisions related to non-discrimination (articles 2, 3, 14, paragraph 1, 23, paragraph 4, 24, paragraph 1, and 25) have not been listed among the non-derogable provisions in article 4, paragraph 2, there are elements or dimensions of the right to non-discrimination that cannot be derogated from in any circumstances. In particular, this provision of article 4, paragraph 1, must be complied with if any distinctions between persons are made when resorting to measures that derogate from the Covenant.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 13a
- 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.] All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Although this right, prescribed in article 10 of the Covenant, is not separately mentioned in the list of non-derogable rights in article 4, paragraph 2, the Committee believes that here the Covenant expresses a norm of general international law not subject to derogation. This is supported by the reference to the inherent dignity of the human person in the preamble to the Covenant and by the close connection between articles 7 and 10.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 13d
- 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.] As confirmed by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, deportation or forcible transfer of population without grounds permitted under international law, in the form of forced displacement by expulsion or other coercive means from the area in which the persons concerned are lawfully present, constitutes a crime against humanity. The legitimate right to derogate from article 12 of the Covenant during a state of emergency can never be accepted as justifying such measures.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Movement
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 13e
- 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.] No declaration of a state of emergency made pursuant to article 4, paragraph 1, may be invoked as justification for a State party to engage itself, contrary to article 20, in propaganda for war, or in advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that would constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- It is inherent in the protection of rights explicitly recognized as non-derogable in article 4, paragraph 2, that they must be secured by procedural guarantees, including, often, judicial guarantees. The provisions of the Covenant relating to procedural safeguards may never be made subject to measures that would circumvent the protection of non-derogable rights. Article 4 may not be resorted to in a way that would result in derogation from non-derogable rights. Thus, for example, as article 6 of the Covenant is non-derogable in its entirety, any trial leading to the imposition of the death penalty during a state of emergency must conform to the provisions of the Covenant, including all the requirements of articles 14 and 15.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- Safeguards related to derogation, as embodied in article 4 of the Covenant, are based on the principles of legality and the rule of law inherent in the Covenant as a whole. As certain elements of the right to a fair trial are explicitly guaranteed under international humanitarian law during armed conflict, the Committee finds no justification for derogation from these guarantees during other emergency situations. The Committee is of the opinion that the principles of legality and the rule of law require that fundamental requirements of fair trial must be respected during a state of emergency. Only a court of law may try and convict a person for a criminal offence. The presumption of innocence must be respected. In order to protect non-derogable rights, the right to take proceedings before a court to enable the court to decide without delay on the lawfulness of detention, must not be diminished by a State party's decision to derogate from the Covenant.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2001
Paragraph
Article 6: The right to life 1982, para. 1
- Paragraph text
- The right to life enunciated in article 6 of the Covenant has been dealt with in all State reports. It is the supreme right from which no derogation is permitted even in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation (art. 4). However, the Committee has noted that quite often the information given concerning article 6 was limited to only one or other aspect of this right. It is a right which should not be interpreted narrowly.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1982
Paragraph
Article 6: The right to life 1982, para. 2
- Paragraph text
- The Committee observes that war and other acts of mass violence continue to be a scourge of humanity and take the lives of thousands of innocent human beings every year. Under the Charter of the United Nations the threat or use of force by any State against another State, except in exercise of the inherent right of self-defence, is already prohibited. The Committee considers that States have the supreme duty to prevent wars, acts of genocide and other acts of mass violence causing arbitrary loss of life. Every effort they make to avert the danger of war, especially thermonuclear war, and to strengthen international peace and security would constitute the most important condition and guarantee for the safeguarding of the right to life. In this respect, the Committee notes, in particular, a connection between article 6 and article 20, which states that the law shall prohibit any propaganda for war (para. 1) or incitement to violence (para. 2) as therein described.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1982
Paragraph
Article 6: The right to life 1985, para. 1
- Paragraph text
- In its general comment No. 6 [16] adopted at its 378th meeting on 27 July 1982, the Human Rights Committee observed that the right to life enunciated in the first paragraph of article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is the supreme right from which no derogation is permitted even in time of public emergency. The same right to life is enshrined in article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948. It is basic to all human rights.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1985
Paragraph
Article 6: The right to life 1985, para. 2
- Paragraph text
- In its previous general comment, the Committee also observed that it is the supreme duty of States to prevent wars. War and other acts of mass violence continue to be a scourge of humanity and take the lives of thousands of innocent human beings every year.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1985
Paragraph
Article 6: The right to life 1985, para. 3
- Paragraph text
- While remaining deeply concerned by the toll of human life taken by conventional weapons in armed conflicts, the Committee has noted that, during successive sessions of the General Assembly, representatives from all geographical regions have expressed their growing concern at the development and proliferation of increasingly awesome weapons of mass destruction, which not only threaten human life but also absorb resources that could otherwise be used for vital economic and social purposes, particularly for the benefit of developing countries, and thereby for promoting and securing the enjoyment of human rights for all.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Environment
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1985
Paragraph
Article 6: The right to life 1985, para. 4
- Paragraph text
- The Committee associates itself with this concern. It is evident that the designing, testing, manufacture, possession and deployment of nuclear weapons are among the greatest threats to the right to life which confront mankind today. This threat is compounded by the danger that the actual use of such weapons may be brought about, not only in the event of war, but even through human or mechanical error or failure.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1985
Paragraph
Article 7: Prohibition of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment - replaces GC No. 7 1992, para. 3
- Paragraph text
- The text of article 7 allows of no limitation. The Committee also reaffirms that, even in situations of public emergency such as those referred to in article 4 of the Covenant, no derogation from the provision of article 7 is allowed and its provisions must remain in force. The Committee likewise observes that no justification or extenuating circumstances may be invoked to excuse a violation of article 7 for any reasons, including those based on an order from a superior officer or public authority.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1992
Paragraph
Article 7: Torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment - replaced by GC No. 20 1982, para. 1
- Paragraph text
- In examining the reports of States parties, members of the Committee have often asked for further information under article 7 which prohibits, in the first place, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee recalls that even in situations of public emergency such as are envisaged by article 4 (1) this provision is non-derogable under article 4 (2). Its purpose is to protect the integrity and dignity of the individual. The Committee notes that it is not sufficient for the implementation of this article to prohibit such treatment or punishment or to make it a crime. Most States have penal provisions which are applicable to cases of torture or similar practices. Because such cases nevertheless occur, it follows from article 7, read together with article 2 of the Covenant, that States must ensure an effective protection through some machinery of control. Complaints about ill-treatment must be investigated effectively by competent authorities. Those found guilty must be held responsible, and the alleged victims must themselves have effective remedies at their disposal, including the right to obtain compensation. Among the safeguards which may make control effective are provisions against detention incommunicado, granting, without prejudice to the investigation, persons such as doctors, lawyers and family members access to the detainees; provisions requiring that detainees should be held in places that are publicly recognized and that their names and places of detention should be entered in a central register available to persons concerned, such as relatives; provisions making confessions or other evidence obtained through torture or other treatment contrary to article 7 inadmissible in court; and measures of training and instruction of law enforcement officials not to apply such treatment.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Families
- Year
- 1982
Paragraph