Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 138 entities
7 columns hidden
Title | Date added | Template | Original document | Paragraph text | Body | Document type | Thematics | Topic(s) | Person(s) affected | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The right of the child to be heard 2009, para. 21 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [The Committee emphasizes that article 12 imposes no age limit on the right of the child to express her or his views, and discourages States parties from introducing age limits either in law or in practice which would restrict the child's right to be heard in all matters affecting her or him. In this respect, the Committee underlines the following:] Third, States parties are also under the obligation to ensure the implementation of this right for children experiencing difficulties in making their views heard. For instance, children with disabilities should be equipped with, and enabled to use, any mode of communication necessary to facilitate the expression of their views. Efforts must also be made to recognize the right to expression of views for minority, indigenous and migrant children and other children who do not speak the majority language. | Committee on the Rights of the Child | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2009 | ||
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 46 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The right to freedom of opinion and expression must be respected "without distinction of any kind" (see article 2 (1) of the Covenant). Members of some groups, however, often face particular discrimination when it comes to the implementation of restrictions on expression. The Special Rapporteurs on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, on the situation of human rights defenders and on the independence of judges and lawyers address issues pertaining to human rights defenders and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), often in collaboration with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Given their focus and detailed reporting, I will not highlight here our shared concerns about restrictions imposed against NGOs, human rights defenders environmental activists, refugees and lawyers. Instead I will highlight several other groups whose expression is particularly subject to repression. | Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2016 | ||
Impact of the criminalization of migration on the protection and enjoyment of human rights 2010, para. 63 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Special Rapporteur has received information on some promising legal provisions aimed at replacing immigration detention. Information received indicates that alternatives to immigration detention may vary from cost-effective options already available in several legal systems such as release on bail, bond and surety, conditional release, return to custody for specified hours following release for employment, schooling or other defined purposes, to more innovative schemes such as open and semi-open centres, directed residence and restrictions to a specified district. Information received by the Special Rapporteur indicates that examples of legal presumption against immigration detention are found, inter alia, in the legislation of Austria, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, New Zealand and Switzerland. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2010 | ||
Enjoyment of the rights to health and adequate housing by migrants 2010, para. 61 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Special Rapporteur commends efforts undertaken by Governments to ensure migrants' access to economic and social rights, regardless of immigration status. For example, the Migration Law (Law 25.871 of 2004) of Argentina recognizes the State obligation to ensure equal access to, inter alia, shelter, social services, public goods, and health for migrants and their families, regardless of immigration status. In Spain, all migrants, regardless of immigration status, are also entitled to register in the local government's register, which is a requirement for, inter alia, having access to education and health care. It is worth noting that the content of the registration information is not shared with immigration authorities. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2010 | ||
Detention of migrants in an irregular situation 2012, para. 50 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The right to liberty and security of person, as set out above, obliges States to consider in the first instance less intrusive alternatives to detention of migrants. The Human Rights Committee held in communication No. 900/1999 that States have to demonstrate that "in the light of the author's particular circumstances, there were not less invasive means of achieving the same ends, that is to say, compliance with the State party's immigration policies, by, for example, the imposition of reporting obligations, sureties or other conditions which would take account of the author's deteriorating condition" (para. 8.2). The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in order to determine whether or not custody is arbitrary, considers inter alia the possibility for the alien to benefit from alternatives to administrative custody (E/CN.4/1999/63, para. 69, guarantee 13). The Working Group has recommended that "alternative and non-custodial measures, such as reporting requirements, should always be considered before resorting to detention" (E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.3, para. 33). | Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2012 | ||
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 66 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Across developing and developed countries, release on bail pending trial is subject to increasingly stringent and onerous conditions which require individuals to, for example, demonstrate their connections with the community, have a fixed address or permanent employment, report regularly to police or make a cash deposit or post a bond as guarantee. These requirements are impossible for the poorest and most marginalized to meet in the vast majority of cases and, as a result, they are more likely to remain in detention pending a trial. This dramatically increases the likelihood that they will ultimately be convicted: not only does it put them in a vulnerable position whereby they will be more inclined to accept unfair "plea deals" or to make admissions of guilt in order to secure a swifter release, it contributes to the deterioration of the detainees' appearance and demeanour, impedes their ability to liaise with lawyers or obtain character witnesses and causes them to lose their employment or social housing, thereby creating a disincentive for the court to give a suspended or community service sentence. | Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2011 | ||
Challenges faced by groups most at risk when exercising or seeking to exercise the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and/or of association 2014, para. 20 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [International human rights instruments that protect the rights of particular groups specifically recognize directly or indirectly the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association for those groups:] Refugees lawfully staying in a country are entitled, in relation to the right to freedom of association, to the most favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country, in the same circumstances. | Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2014 | ||
Impact of the criminalization of migration on the protection and enjoyment of human rights 2010, para. 36 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Special Rapporteur wishes to draw the attention of the General Assembly to the millions of people who have not been formally denied or deprived of nationality but who lack the ability to prove their nationality, or, despite documentation, are denied access to the many human rights that other persons under the jurisdiction of States enjoy. He also wishes to draw attention to allegations about deportations of persons with mental disabilities without judicial guarantees, including the right to be assisted by a lawyer. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2010 | ||
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 37 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | As a rule of general application, all States must refrain from using any type of coercion when questioning persons under any form of detention. International law acknowledges the need for special protection for all detained persons, who, during questioning, must not be subjected to violence, threats or practices that impair their capacity of decision or their judgment or force them to confess, incriminate themselves or testify against another person (Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, principle 21). | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2016 | ||
Article 14: Administration of justice 1984, para. 13 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Subparagraph 3 (f) provides that if the accused cannot understand or speak the language used in court he is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter free of any charge. This right is independent of the outcome of the proceedings and applies to aliens as well as to nationals. It is of basic importance in cases in which ignorance of the language used by a court or difficulty in understanding may constitute a major obstacle to the right of defence. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1984 | ||
The position of aliens under the Covenant 1986, para. 5 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Covenant does not recognize the right of aliens to enter or reside in the territory of a State party. It is in principle a matter for the State to decide who it will admit to its territory. However, in certain circumstances an alien may enjoy the protection of the Covenant even in relation to entry or residence, for example, when considerations of non discrimination, prohibition of inhuman treatment and respect for family life arise. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1986 | ||
Implementation of article 2 by States parties 2008, para. 13 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Certain basic guarantees apply to all persons deprived of their liberty. Some of these are specified in the Convention, and the Committee consistently calls upon States parties to use them. The Committee's recommendations concerning effective measures aim to clarify the current baseline and are not exhaustive. Such guarantees include, inter alia, maintaining an official register of detainees, the right of detainees to be informed of their rights, the right promptly to receive independent legal assistance, independent medical assistance, and to contact relatives, the need to establish impartial mechanisms for inspecting and visiting places of detention and confinement, and the availability to detainees and persons at risk of torture and ill-treatment of judicial and other remedies that will allow them to have their complaints promptly and impartially examined, to defend their rights, and to challenge the legality of their detention or treatment. | Committee against Torture | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2008 | ||
The position of aliens under the Covenant 1986, para. 3 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | A few constitutions provide for equality of aliens with citizens. Some constitutions adopted more recently carefully distinguish fundamental rights that apply to all and those granted to citizens only, and deal with each in detail. In many States, however, the constitutions are drafted in terms of citizens only when granting relevant rights. Legislation and case law may also play an important part in providing for the rights of aliens. The Committee has been informed that in some States fundamental rights, though not guaranteed to aliens by the Constitution or other legislation, will also be extended to them as required by the Covenant. In certain cases, however, there has clearly been a failure to implement Covenant rights without discrimination in respect of aliens. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1986 | ||
Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to Fair Trial - replaces GC No. 13 2007, para. 40 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if the accused cannot understand or speak the language used in court as provided for by article 14, paragraph 3 (f) enshrines another aspect of the principles of fairness and equality of arms in criminal proceedings. This right arises at all stages of the oral proceedings. It applies to aliens as well as to nationals. However, accused persons whose mother tongue differs from the official court language are, in principle, not entitled to the free assistance of an interpreter if they know the official language sufficiently to defend themselves effectively. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2007 | ||
The right to access information 2013, para. 40 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In the context of human rights violations, and especially in cases of serious violations, the rights of victims and their families to access information can have several aspects. First, gaining access to information regarding the circumstances surrounding a human rights violation is usually essential in order to give effect to other rights, such as due process, guarantees to a fair trial and the right to a remedy. Moreover, clarifying what occurred is in itself one of the elements of reparations for victims and family members. Lastly, in cases of violations such as disappearances, the violation is continuing and ceases only once family members are able to ascertain the facts and determine the fate of the disappeared person. The refusal of the State to provide information, or the provision by it of false information, constitutes an additional violation because it prolongs and deepens the anguish, in addition to the moral and emotional pain. | Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2013 | ||
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 52 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Detainees are at a high risk of being ill-treated during the first hours of deprivation of liberty. Suspects mostly find themselves in the hands of the officers in charge of investigating the crime of which they are accused. The officers therefore have an interest in obtaining a confession or other relevant information. In order to keep this critical phase as short as possible, international human rights law requires the minimization of the period before a person is brought before a judge or another officer authorized by law to exercise judicial powers. However, suspects are frequently held in police custody for much longer than international human rights law allows, sometimes for weeks or months, and find themselves in a situation which is generally dominated by a feeling of vulnerability and fear. In many of the police stations the Special Rapporteur has visited, there was a palpable level of fear which manifested itself inter alia in the strong reluctance of detainees to speak with him. | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2010 | ||
Overview of main observations of five years fact-finding and research 2010, para. 54 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Given that most cases of abuse take place during the very early stages of detention, immediate access to an independent lawyer is crucial. In many countries, however, detainees are arrested, interrogated and indicted without having been able to access counsel. Even access to a lawyer at a later stage remains a hypothetical option for most detainees since they lack the financial resources to pay for it. Since persons from poorer social strata make up the majority of detainees, the inability to effectively access legal aid affects the majority of persons deprived of their liberty. The lack of legal counsel is in sharp contrast to the basic principles of equality before the law and fairness. Detainees are often not aware of their rights, even when it comes to which treatment is actually permissible during interrogations. However, even in States with legal aid schemes, many detainees voiced doubts regarding the independence of their State-appointed lawyers or reported that they requested additional payment, since State-provided remuneration did not meet the lawyers' fees. | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2010 | ||
Solitary confinement 2011, para. 39 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In its analysis of solitary confinement, the Court has noted that even when used in exceptional circumstances, procedural safeguards must be in place. For example, "the State is obliged to ensure that the detainee enjoys the minimum and non-derogable guarantees established in the [American] Convention and, specifically, the right to question the lawfulness of the detention and the guarantee of access to effective defense during his incarceration". Similarly, the Inter American Commission on Human Rights has consistently held that all forms of disciplinary action taken against detained persons must comport with the norms of due process and provide opportunity for judicial review. | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2011 | ||
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 28 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | While recognizing that States face an array of challenges in successfully combating and preventing mistreatment during questioning, the Special Rapporteur insists that the future protocol be of universal application. Except for those lawful limitations demonstrably required by the fact of detention and investigation, persons questioned and/or deprived of their liberty unequivocally retain their non-derogable human rights. The prohibition of torture or ill-treatment and the principle of humane treatment of detainees are fundamental and universally applicable rules and cannot be dependent on the material resources available to States (see A/68/295). It follows that the set of minimum standards identified in the protocol should be applied, as a matter of law and policy, to interviews conducted by all agents of all States. | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2016 | ||
Working methods, thematic priorities and vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy 2017, para. 44 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | So far, steps taken by the mandate to combat torture have focused almost entirely on States as potential perpetrators. Yet organized armed groups, private military and security contractors, mercenaries, foreign fighters and other non-State actors are increasingly engaged in conduct that adversely interferes with human rights, including the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. For the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to retain its practical relevance, however, it must also provide for practical protection against violations on the part of non-State actors. | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
The human rights of migrants on a 2035 agenda for facilitating human mobility 2017, para. 58 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | It is a worrying trend that immigration detention is extensively used as a border management and deterrence tool against migrants and too often as a means to prevent their access to justice. In line with international human rights law, freedom must be the default position and detention the exception, used only as a measure of last resort. Detention must be reasonable, necessary, proportionate, decided on a case-by-case basis and enforced for the shortest possible period of time. Administrative detention can be justified only if an individual presents a danger to the public or risks absconding when their presence is necessary in further proceedings, and such determinations must be made individually and on the basis of evidence. Furthermore, when detention becomes a routine measure of border enforcement, it may be, per se, arbitrary insofar as it is neither an exceptional measure of last resort, nor based upon a meaningful individualized assessment of risk. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
The human rights of migrants on a 2035 agenda for facilitating human mobility 2017, para. 61 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Unaccompanied migrant children and families with children must never be detained for reasons relating to their administrative immigration status. The detention of children, even for short periods, can have severe psychological consequences for their development. The Committee on the Rights of the Child and other human rights mechanisms have made it clear that immigration detention can never, ever, be in the best interest of a child and that the immigration detention of children, whether unaccompanied or with their families, always constitutes a violation of their rights. Consequently, both unaccompanied migrant children and families with children should always be provided with alternatives to detention. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
The human rights of migrants on a 2035 agenda for facilitating human mobility 2017, para. 68 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Access to public services, such as health care, education, local police, social services, public housing, labour inspection and health and safety inspection, is key to ensuring that such services are able to perform their mission with the trust of all beneficiaries, including migrants, and that migrants do not fear detection, detention and deportation. Too frequently, immigration enforcement services enlist other public services as auxiliaries for the detection of undocumented migrants or gain access to their databases. Unless firewalls are established between public services and immigration enforcement, vulnerable migrants will never report human rights violations, and perpetrators will benefit from practical immunity. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
Durable solutions for internally displaced persons: advancing the agenda: addressing the role of humanitarian and development actors in achieving durable solutions for internally displaced persons through peacebuilding in the aftermath of conflict 2013, para. 49 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Housing, land and property issues are among the most complex structural concerns that must be tackled in order to enable durable solutions. Dealing with the underlying structural sources of conflict, such as unequal access to land, insecurity of tenure for customary rights holders or in informal settlements and non-transparent decision-making regarding land use, can also be key to durable solutions. For example, restitution programmes intended to benefit internally displaced persons must be appropriately situated within broader efforts if they are to result in greater tenure security for displacement-affected communities. Poorly conceived responses to the housing, land and property concerns of internally displaced persons can have significant implications for gender equity, relations between displaced and non-displaced communities, susceptibility to land-grabbing and prospects for economic development. For example, in some instances, land belonging to internally displaced persons may have been purchased by others in good faith and/or investment and development activities may have been undertaken on the land in their absence. Identifying mutually beneficial ways to accommodate the rights and interests of internally displaced persons and investors or purchasers may be a critical step towards the sustainable resolution of displacement in many contexts. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons
| Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2013 | ||
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 66 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Rules should ensure that those potentially implicated in torture or other ill-treatment should immediately and for the duration of the investigation be suspended, at a minimum, from any duty involving access to detainees or prisoners because of the risk that they might undermine or obstruct investigations (see Principles on Effective Investigation, principle 3 (b)). Serious consideration should also be given to the creation of witness protection programmes that fully cover persons with a previous criminal record and staff (see E/CN.4/2004/56, para. 40). | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2013 | ||
Review of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners 2013, para. 29 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Similarly, in line with general comment No. 2 of the Committee against Torture, the Rules apply irrespective of whether the detention facilities are run by State or private companies (paras. 15 and 17). Authorities should ensure that the Rules and the principles stipulated therein are observed in all institutions and establishments within their jurisdiction where persons are deprived of liberty. The Rules should ensure that, in cases where certain services are outsourced, the State remains responsible for the adequacy of those services. | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2013 | ||
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 58 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | While such findings have been made in the particular context of international transfers of detainees, the reasoning applies with equal force to the collection, sharing and receiving of information by executive agencies and to the obligation of States to prevent and discourage torture and other ill-treatment. | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2014 | ||
Joint general comment No. 4 (2017) of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and No. 23 (2017) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on State obligations regarding the human rights of c ... 2017, para. 17b | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [More specifically, and in particular in the context of best interest assessments and within best interest determination procedures, children should be guaranteed the right to:] Be notified of the existence of a proceeding and of the decision adopted in the context of the immigration and asylum proceedings, its implications and possibilities for appeal; | Committee on Migrant Workers | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2017 | ||
Implementation of article 2 by States parties 2008, para. 17 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Committee observes that States parties are obligated to adopt effective measures to prevent public authorities and other persons acting in an official capacity from directly committing, instigating, inciting, encouraging, acquiescing in or otherwise participating or being complicit in acts of torture as defined in the Convention. Thus, States parties should adopt effective measures to prevent such authorities or others acting in an official capacity or under colour of law, from consenting to or acquiescing in any acts of torture. The Committee has concluded that States parties are in violation of the Convention when they fail to fulfil these obligations. For example, where detention centres are privately owned or run, the Committee considers that personnel are acting in an official capacity on account of their responsibility for carrying out the State function without derogation of the obligation of State officials to monitor and take all effective measures to prevent torture and ill-treatment. | Committee against Torture | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2008 | ||
Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside Their Country of Origin 2005, para. 25 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Pursuant to article 12 of the Convention, in determining the measures to be adopted with regard to unaccompanied or separated children, the child's views and wishes should be elicited and taken into account (art. 12 (1)). To allow for a well-informed expression of such views and wishes, it is imperative that such children are provided with all relevant information concerning, for example, their entitlements, services available including means of communication, the asylum process, family tracing and the situation in their country of origin (arts. 13, 17 and 22 (2)). In guardianship, care and accommodation arrangements, and legal representation, children's views should also be taken into account. Such information must be provided in a manner that is appropriate to the maturity and level of understanding of each child. As participation is dependent on reliable communication, where necessary, interpreters should be made available at all stages of the procedure. | Committee on the Rights of the Child | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2005 |