Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 575 entities
7 columns hidden
Title | Date added | Template | Original document | Paragraph text | Body | Document type | Thematics | Topic(s) | Person(s) affected | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 2 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In examining the relationship between the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the international legal principles governing the use of force by State agents, and in developing concrete recommendations on the matter, the Special Rapporteur hopes to strengthen the capacity of States to ensure the effective prevention of and accountability for torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including in extra-custodial settings. Moreover, as a complement to existing international standards governing the use of force, the present report is aimed at contributing to the development of seamless guidance on the entire spectrum of the use of force, from non-lethal to deliberately lethal and from custodial to extra -custodial, and therefore at supporting States in complying with their relevant huma n rights obligations. The report is also aimed at facilitating synergies, both at the national and the international levels, between mechanisms tasked with protection against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and those involved in overseeing and regulating the use of force more generally. | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the context of natural resource exploitation projects 2015, para. 67 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | An environment that allows for the robust exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association is essential in ensuring that natural resource exploitation is fair, transparent and accountable and benefits citizens. These rights encourage access to information, public participation and free, prior and informed consent and also highlight the gaps in the enjoyment of other rights related to land tenure, the environment and self-determination. The Special Rapporteur believes that the more consultation on any particular exploitation issue, the better. He also wishes to highlight that the benefits of such consultation - and the improved planning that results from extensive consultation - can be immense for society at large. One example is the Government Pension Fund Global of Norway, which was set up in 1990 to hold surplus wealth produced by Norwegian petroleum income. It is now the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. | Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Impunity as a root cause of the prevalence of torture 2010, para. 52 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In Georgia, the Special Rapporteur received allegations that victims were encouraged by the prosecution to agree to plea-bargaining agreements without acknowledging their ill-treatment by the police. | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2010 | ||
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2017, para. 48 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | While the lawfulness of specific weapons and other means of warfare has long been regulated in international humanitarian law, it has more recently also become an issue of consideration under human rights law with regard to the wider context of law enforcement. It is increasingly recognized that certain weapons and other means of law enforcement may be inherently cruel, inhuman or degrading by nature or design and, accordingly, that their use, production and trade would be incompatible with the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (General Assembly resolution 66/150, para. 24, and resolution 68/156, para. 30). Ever since the establishment of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, mandate holders have expressed concern in this respect, starting in the very first report of the Special Rapporteur to the Commission on Human Rights, in 1986 (E/CN.4/1986/15, paras. 120-121), but most notably in a report prepared at the express request of the Commission in 2003 (E/CN.4/2003/69). | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 11 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | From the early days of the mandate’s work, Special Rapporteurs have elaborated on the right to information. In only the second report of the mandate, the Special Rapporteur highlighted the “vitally important” roles served by the right to information (E/CN.4/1995/32, para. 135), and the 1998 report emphasized that “the right to access to information held by the Government must be the rule rather than the exception”. The 1998 report also noted a specific right to information about “State security” and, in a notable statement, raised concerns about government prosecution of civil servants who disclose “information which has been classified”, adding that Governments “continue to classify far more information than could be considered necessary”. By this the Special Rapporteur meant that Governments should only withhold material in which “serious harm to the State’s interest is unavoidable if the information is made public and that this harm outweighs the harm to the rights of opinion, expression and information”. He concluded, “The tendency to classify or withhold information on the basis of, for example, ‘Cabinet confidentiality’ is too often the practice, which adversely affects access to information” (E/CN.4/1998/40, paras. 12 and 13). | Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
The Special Rapporteur's vision of the mandate 2017, para. 71 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Therefore, and as part of her working methods, the Special Rapporteur sees it as part of her duty to take part in strategic litigation cases before national, regional and international courts where issues relating to freedom of peaceful association and of assembly come to the fore. | Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
The Special Rapporteur's vision of the mandate 2017, para. 62 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | For the purpose of enhancing the visibility of her mandate, the Special Rapporteur intends to strengthen the content of the mandate website. She also intends to develop additional user-friendly tools to help the general public to better understand the findings and recommendations. | Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
State obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities 2017, para. 44 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | States parties have the duty to take necessary steps to address these challenges in order to prevent a denial of justice and ensure the right to effective remedy and reparation. This requires States parties to remove substantive, procedural and practical barriers to remedies, including by establishing parent company or group liability regimes, providing legal aid and other funding schemes to claimants, enabling human rights-related class actions and public interest litigation, facilitating access to relevant information and the collection of evidence abroad, including witness testimony, and allowing such evidence to be presented in judicial proceedings. The extent to which an effective remedy is available and realistic in the alternative jurisdiction should be an overriding consideration in judicial decisions relying on forum non conveniens considerations. The introduction by corporations of actions to discourage individuals or groups from exercising remedies, for instance by alleging damage to a corporation’s reputation, should not be abused to create a chilling effect on the legitimate exercise of such remedies. | Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2017 | ||
The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 39 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | There is a tendency to draw a clear distinction between the judicial and the executive use of tainted information by some domestic courts. The latter is often allowed, the argument being, inter alia, that it does not impinge upon the liberty of individuals or that, when it does, as relating to powers of arrest, it is usually of short duration. Alternatively, that argument may refer to the "ticking-bomb scenario", i.e., that the executive agencies cannot be expected to close their eyes to information at the cost of endangering the lives of the citizens of their own countries. In other words, courts tend to endorse the use of information acquired through torture or other ill-treatment by the executive agencies in all phases of operations, except in judicial proceedings. In fact, some courts have ruled that the executive agencies have no responsibility to examine the conditions under which information was obtained, or to change their decisions accordingly. They have also ruled that it is not for the courts to discipline the executive agencies, unless by way of a criminal prosecution, and that their jurisdiction only exists to preserve the integrity of the trial process. | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2014 | ||
Sexual exploitation of children in travel and tourism 2013, para. 47 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | For extraterritoriality to be of real value, however, it also requires the abolition of the double-criminality requirement, ensuring thus that a person is liable for the crime of CST regardless of whether that offence is punishable in the country where the act has been committed. | Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children, including child prostitution, child pornography and other child sexual abuse material | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2013 | ||
Effective Implementation of the OPSC 2010, para. 35 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [The relatively few statements and reports filed does not reflect the actual extent of these offences and can be explained by the following:] The clandestine nature of these offences. | Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children, including child prostitution, child pornography and other child sexual abuse material | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2010 | ||
The right to participation of people living in poverty 2013, para. 86a (i) | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [In order to comply with their human rights obligations regarding the right to participation, the Special Rapporteur recommends States undertake the following actions:] Legal and institutional framework: Adopt a legal framework that includes the explicit right of individuals and groups to participate in the design, implementation and evaluation of any policy, programme or strategy that affects their rights, at the local, national and international levels. This should include:
a. Putting in place operational guidelines, policies and capacity-strengthening measures to enable public officials to apply these laws, and ensuring that these are adaptable to different contexts and allow innovation based on feedback from the ground.
b. Requiring the establishment of inclusive participatory mechanisms at the local and national levels.
c. Explicitly including the duty of policymakers and public officials to actively seek and support the meaningful participation of people living in poverty.
d. Setting and enforcing minimum standards for participatory processes, including thresholds for participation of people living in poverty and disadvantaged groups such as women, minorities and persons with disabilities. | Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2013 | ||
Access to justice for people living in poverty 2012, para. 96 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [States should:] Ensure that courts extend legal standing without discrimination to all persons regardless of, inter alia, their gender, ethnicity, legal status or lack of formal legal registration | Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2012 | ||
The exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the context of elections 2013, para. 13 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The centrality of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the context of elections is affirmed in various other international and regional human rights treaties and other bodies. Member States of the African Union in the Declaration on the Principles Governing Democratic Elections in Africa (sect. III (d)) explicitly commit themselves to safeguarding the human and civil liberties of all citizens, including the freedom of movement, assembly, association, expression, and campaigning, as well as access to the media on the part of all stakeholders, during electoral processes. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Copenhagen Document, which outlines the commitment of member States in the field of elections, explicitly guarantees the rights of peaceful assembly and of association (paras. 9.2 and 9.3). Although other regional instruments on democracy do not explicitly refer to the right to freedom of association, they recognize that political parties and other forms of associations are vital components for the strengthening of democracy. | Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2013 | ||
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 57a | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [Among steps that I would encourage are the following:] Review and, where necessary, revise national laws. National legislation increasingly adopts overly broad definitions of key terms, such as terrorism, national security, extremism and hate speech, that fail to limit the discretion of executive authorities. Legislation often limits the role of judicial or independent and public oversight. Proponents often give limited demonstration of how new legal rules are necessary to protect legitimate interests and proportionately address specific threats, and the legislative process often limits public engagement and debate. I would urge all States considering new legislation to ensure that their laws meet these requirements, and I encourage States to implement regular public oversight of laws that implicate freedom of expression to ensure that they meet the tests of legality, legitimacy and necessity. Where possible, States should not only adopt legal frameworks but also implement training, particularly among independent oversight bodies, of the principles of freedom of expression; | Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2016 | ||
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 61 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | States, international organizations, corporations and civil society groups should promote online security. Given the relevance of new communication technologies in the promotion of human rights and development, all those involved should systematically promote access to encryption and anonymity without discrimination. The Special Rapporteur urgently calls upon entities of the United Nations system, especially those involved in human rights and humanitarian protection, to support the use of communication security tools in order to ensure that those who interact with them may do so securely. United Nations entities must revise their communication practices and tools and invest resources in enhancing security and confidentiality for the multiple stakeholders interacting with the Organization through digital communications. Particular attention must be paid by human rights protection mechanisms when requesting and managing information received from civil society and witnesses and victims of human rights violations. | Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 27 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Corporations in a variety of sectors play roles in advancing or interfering with privacy, opinion and expression, including encryption and anonymity. Much online communication (and virtually all of it in some countries) is carried on networks owned and operated by private corporations, while other corporations own and manage websites with substantial user-generated content. Others are active players in the surveillance and spyware markets, providing hardware and software to Governments to compromise the security of individuals online. Others develop and provide services for secure and private online storage. Telecommunications entities, Internet service providers, search engines, cloud services and many other corporate actors, often described as intermediaries, promote, regulate or compromise privacy and expression online. Intermediaries may store massive volumes of user data, to which Governments often demand access. Encryption and anonymity may be promoted or compromised by each of these corporate actors. | Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
The right to access information 2013, para. 73 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Described below are the principles developed to guide the design and implementation of national legislation on access to information, in addition to common obstacles to the implementation of such laws. | Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2013 | ||
Conclusion on civil registration 2013, para. (d) iii | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [Encourages States to make accessible civil registration, in particular through:] putting in place measures, as appropriate, to ensure that rural or remote locations are reached, such as through, for example, mobile registration units; | Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees | ExCom Conclusion |
|
| 2013 | ||
Conclusion on civil registration 2013, para. 1 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Recalling its previous Conclusions, notably Nos. 22 (XXXII), 47 (XXXVIII), 90 (LII), 91 (LII), 95 (LIV), 100 (LV), 101 (LV), 102 (LVI), 105 (LVII), 106 (LVII), 107 (LVIII), 108 (LIX), and 109 (LX ), and taking note of relevant UN resolutions, | Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees | ExCom Conclusion |
|
| 2013 | ||
General Conclusion On International Protection 1987, para. (s) | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Noted with renewed appreciation the contribution of nongovernmental organizations in actively supporting the High Commissioner's efforts in the field of international protection; | Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees | ExCom Conclusion |
|
| 1987 | ||
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2017, para. 26 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | While the distinction between torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment will always depend on the applicable treaty definition, the generic observations set out in the paragraphs below can be made. | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
Extra-custodial use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2017, para. 2 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In examining the relationship between the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the international legal principles governing the use of force by State agents, and in developing concrete recommendations on the matter, the Special Rapporteur hopes to strengthen the capacity of States to ensure the effective prevention of and accountability for torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including in extra-custodial settings. Moreover, as a complement to existing international standards governing the use of force, the present report is aimed at contributing to the development of seamless guidance on the entire spectrum of the use of force, from non-lethal to deliberately lethal and from custodial to extra-custodial, and therefore at supporting States in complying with their relevant human rights obligations. The report is also aimed at facilitating synergies, both at the national and the international levels, between mechanisms tasked with protection against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and those involved in overseeing and regulating the use of force more generally. | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
Adequacy of the international legal framework on violence against women 2017, para. 23 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Following her call for inputs, the Special Rapporteur received 291 submissions from civil society. The large number of responses received from civil society organizations highlights the remarkable engagement of civil society on this issue, with a variety of perspectives and particular concerns pointed out by some respondents. | Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 63c | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [Civil society organizations, the media and members of the public should:] Share information with other organizations and with the Special Rapporteur about the experience of engaging with intergovernmental organizations in the development of access policies. | Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 63b | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [Civil society organizations, the media and members of the public should:] Make requests for information from intergovernmental organizations as soon as possible, even before the development of access policies, in order to determine the way in which they currently handle such formal requests; | Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 63a | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [Civil society organizations, the media and members of the public should:] Engage directly and seek a formal role with intergovernmental organizations in the process of development of access to information policies, including by identifying for them the key areas of interest in information; | Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 80 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The protective role that States may exercise over the private sector can only go so far. They should not be promoting the economic gain of private entities over users’ rights to freedom of opinion and expression. Thus, States should prohibit attempts to assign priority to certain types of Internet content or applications over others for payment or other commercial benefits. | Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 7 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The government actions described below often fail to meet the standards of human rights law. Moreover, a lack of transparency pervades government interferences with the digital access industry. Failures of transparency include vague laws providing excessive discretion to authorities, legal restrictions on third party disclosures concerning government access to user data and specific gag orders. The lack of transparency undermines the rule of law as well as public understanding across this sector. | Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2017 | ||
SRSG on violence against children: Annual report 2011, para. 119 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Encouraged by the wide expression of support for the global campaign for universal ratification, which is rooted in significant commitments undertaken by the international community, the Special Representative will continue to actively promote the achievement of this goal. | Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children | SRSG report |
|
| 2011 |