Geneva Updates
Our strategic presence in Geneva sets us apart as the sole NGO exclusively committed to economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights. This permits us to play a pivotal role in promoting and protecting these rights globally.
57 head of States signed a declaration without precedent against commercialisation of education
The 57 head of the member States of the Francophonie organisation published on the 27 of November the “Antananarivo Declaration” which concludes the 16th General Assembly of the International Organisation of La Francophonie (OIF). The Declaration contains a paragraph addressing the issue of commercialisation of education and supporting public schools. This declaration is the strongest declaration so far by States against commercialisation of education, in favour of public schools, and supporting the regulation of private actors in education. The declaration recognises in particular, the importance of civil society’s role in the work against commercialisation of education and requests the OIF to work in partnership with civil society on the issue.
Paragraphe 39 of the Antananarivo Declaration which can be found here http://bit.ly/2gMyRS5 [in French], follows the important mobilisation of the Francophone civil society through an Appeal of the Francophone civil society against commercialisation of education, and conveys some of its key demands. It reads:
“39. Noting the development of academic and educational establishments with a commercial purpose, and committed to public, free and of quality education for all, we ask the OIF and the Conference of the Ministers of Education of States and Governments of the Francophonie (Confémen), in collaboration with civil society, to continue the reflection raised during the Kinshasa Summit (2012), and to take measures to promote efficient institutional mechanisms for the regulation of private actors in education, in order to ensure quality and equity of education services;”
-
For more information in French on privatisation of education and our work on the subject, you can visit http://bit.ly/privfr
-
For more information in English, see http://bit.ly/educprivat
-
To stay informed on all the latest developments concerning private actors in education and human rights, join our mailing list http://bit.ly/privatnews
[updated 25/01] Court upholds Uganda's Ministry of Education's order to close BIA schools
On Friday 4th November, Bridge International Academies' (BIA) court case in Uganda relating to the closure of Bridge schools was dismissed with costs. Bridge International Academies had previously secured a temporary court injunction against the Ministry of Education's order to close their schools until the ruling of the decision. The Ministry had ordered for the closure of BIA schools on the ground that they are unlicensed and below minimum standards. The injunction was lifted on the 4th November and BIA's application dismissed with costs. Bridge International Academies will have to close its schools in Uganda, if the government maintains their decision to have them closed. Following the judgement Bridge filed a notice of appeal, the High Court has granted a stay of execution allowing all Bridge schools to remain open until 8th December.
The multinational company has other cases pending, notably in Busia county, Kenya, where the County Education board has issued an order to close all BIA schools in the county as they are unregistered and fail to meet the required minimum standards. The first hearing took place on Friday 4th November and a ruling has been scheduled for 30th November.
More information will be available soon concerning these cases, and the pages in this website will be regularly updated.
Updates
For press statements, see http://bit.ly/2aNxoZc
-
25 January: Government announces unregistered private schools will not be allowed to open for first term: http://bit.ly/2krm35d
-
16 November: In a press release Bridge has stated they been granted a stay of execution allowing for all 63 of their schools to remain open until 8th December, notice of appeal has been filed by the company : http://bit.ly/2fweaW1
-
16 November: Legal Brains Trust Ltd have taken legal action against Bridge, suing them at the High Court Civil Division with the accusation that managers deliberately disobeyed the general education policy and laws of Uganda: http://bit.ly/2fF8WrQ
-
15 November: The Minister of Education and Sports has issued a press release in the New Vision asking parents to put their children in other schools and for local authorities to find alternative schools of parents' choice : http://bit.ly/2fTPquz
-
14 November: Parents and children have been asking to be reimbursed their fees: http://bit.ly/2gcYfjy
-
11 November: the government closes two Bridge schools : http://bit.ly/2fGXhvj
-
9 November: the Government of Uganda announced that "this situation, following several reminders, led the Ministry to invoke section 33 (4) of the Education Act 2008, to close Bridge International Academy" and "The Chief Administrative Officers in the district’s where these “schools” are located, the IGP, the Director Education Standards, all town clerks, all Municipal Education Officers, all District inspectors of schools, all DEO’s and Parents are informed and requested to make arrangements to have these children from these schools absorbed into the nearest UPE schools."http://bit.ly/2eVg967
-
7th November: Following the decision there have been a few instances of Bridge organised protests against the closure, including by organising children: http://bit.ly/2fOcKuW
-
4th November: It appears that the Ugandan Ministry of Education has asked for Bridge schools to be closed on Monday 7th November: https://twitter.com/cathkemi/status/794449903091060737.
-
4th November: In a press release Bridge announced that it would appeal the Court decision: http://bit.ly/2eeyBul
More information
-
The High Court ruling upholding the order for closure of BIA schools in Uganda can be accessed here
-
For background information on the known court cases where Bridge Academies is a party, see the following information brief: http://bit.ly/2naXJ6b
-
Human rights bodies statements related to States’ obligations with regards to Bridge International Academies: http://bit.ly/2fXvM11
-
For media coverage of BIA's closure in Uganda, see: http://bit.ly/2aNxoZc
-
For our monitoring page on commercial schools and the right to education, see: http://bit.ly/commerceduc
-
To remain informed about key developments on private actors and the right to education, sign up to our mailing list: http://bit.ly/privatnews
Information statement on going cases involving Bridge International Academies LTD
Recently the Government of Uganda and the Government of Kenya have sought to suspend the expansion of BIA. In Uganda and Busia County in Kenya, authorities have expressed intentions to close BIA schools under their jurisdiction over allegations of BIA failing to meet required standards of operation for institutions of basic education and failing to register legally. In response BIA has resorted to court action to challenge the government action against them.
Ahead of Friday, where progress will be made on two of these cases, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Initiative for Social and Economic Rights and East African Centre for Human Rights have prepared a brief providing an update on known pending legal proceedings involving Bridge International Academies in Uganda and Kenya with the intention of bringing increased transparency to these cases and the issues they seek to address.
Read the full statement here
ESC Rights Update from Geneva: 59th session of Committee on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights (19 September to 7 October 2016)
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) held its 59th session from 19 September to 7 October 2016. Immediately following the session, a Working Group of the Committee held the ‘pre-session’ from 10 – 14 October. This Update provides a summary of the meetings and key developments:
Sustainable Development Goals
During the opening of the session on 19 September, Ms Peggy Hicks, Director of the ‘Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures and Right to Development Division’ of OHCHR gave an address focusing on the sustainable development agenda and goals (SDGs). Ms Hicks acknowledged input by the treaty body Chairs into the High Level Political Forum and encouraged the Committee to continue to consider ways to engage with the SDGs process. She underlined the importance of ensuring that the collection and analysis of data on the implementation of the SDGs, respects human rights principles and drew attention to the OHCHR Guidance Note on the topic. She noted the many links between the SDGs and the Covenant and said:
‘Human rights mechanisms, including treaty bodies, offer the opportunity of promoting accountability of those responsible for implementing the agenda, and ensuring that they do so in full conformity with human rights law. Building strong links between the Agenda, the Covenant and the High Level Political Forum and your monitoring work will be crucial to this, and to helping ensure the voices of the most marginalized are heard.’ ___________________________ It is interesting to note also that the Committee appears to have added to its Concluding Observations a standard paragraph addressing the SDGs:
‘The Committee recommends that the State party take fully into account its obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and ensure the full enjoyment of these rights in the implementation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda at national level, with the support of international assistance and cooperation when needed. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals shall be significantly facilitated by the State party establishing independent mechanisms to monitor progress, and by treating beneficiaries of public programs as rights-holders who can claim entitlements. Building the implementation of the SDGs on participation, accountability and non-discrimination shall ensure that no one is left behind in the process.’ (note this is the advance unedited version)
This is a welcome development and hopefully the beginning of a deeper engagement by the Committee with the SDGs process. This paragraph highlights the importance of ensuring that implementation of the SDGs occurs in a manner compliant with ICESCR and that it has as its foundation the human rights principles of participation, accountability and non-discrimination. Given the strong resistance by States to independent monitoring and any true accountability mechanism within the 2030 Agenda, CESCR can play a significant role in emphasising the importance and benefits of these elements. It might also be interesting for CESCR to develop some more specific guidance to States on how to do these things, including perhaps through States aligning or integrating their SDGs and CESCR reporting processes.
State Reporting Procedure
The following States were reviewed during the session:
Costa Rica, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Philippines, Poland, Tunisia
The Committee has published its Concluding Observations for these countries HERE.
During the ‘pre-session’ the Committee considered Lists of Issues for the following States: Australia, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Uruguay
The Committee has published Lists of Issues for these States HERE. The State dialogue for each of these States will be held in May/June 2017.
Overdue and non-reporting States
The Secretariat has published a
of the reporting status of all State Parties to the Covenant. It shows which States are overdue in reporting, including some States that have never reported. Civil society organisations may wish to use the report to identify when a State is due to submit its report, whether it is overdue and to encourage the State to engage in the reporting process.
Another useful resource which provides the reporting status for each State for all treaties can be found HERE.
Communications under the OP-ICESCR
The Committee considered 1 Communication during this session and found it
inadmissible
. The documentation is being finalised and the decision will be published
in approximately 3 weeks.
Guidance for third party interventions The Committee also discussed and adopted ‘guidance on third-party interventions, which would regulate the intervention of individuals and entities which might wish to file an amicus brief in an individual communication procedure’ (Guidance). The Guidance is a welcome clarification of the Committee’s practice with respect to third party interventions. It confirms that the Committee can ‘accept relevant information and documentation submitted by third-parties when necessary for the proper determination of the case’ and that it can also request such third party information. Intervenors must observe the requirements set out in the Guidance, including for instance:
-
Interventions can only be submitted after making a written request to intervene and receiving the Committee’s authorization;
-
The authorization will indicate the dead-line, word limit, the issues which the intervention is permitted to address and any confidentiality requirements;
-
All third party interventions will be provided to the parties for comment; and
-
Third parties will not be considered parties to the Communication and will not have access to the case file or documentation.
The Guidance is available HERE.
Thematic areas of work
ESC Rights in the context of Business Activities
The Committee will hold a ‘Day of Discussion’ on ‘the Draft General Comment on State Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of Business Activities’ on 21 February 2017, during its next session.
The Day of Discussion will be open to all stakeholders and written submissions in advance of the Day of Discussion are invited. More information about the Day of Discussion is available HERE, including:
-
the draft of the proposed General Comment (only in English at this stage, but French and Spanish versions to be available before the Day of Discussion);
-
details on how to make written submissions; and
-
details on how to register to attend the Day of Discussion.
A programme of the Day of Discussion will be made available on the same webpage in the coming months.
Human Rights Defenders of Economic, Social & Cultural Rights
On 7 October 2016 the Committee adopted a STATEMENT on ‘human rights defenders of economic, social and cultural rights’ (E/C.12/2016/2).
The statement was made by the Committee following a briefing and discussion paper prepared jointly by GIESCR, the International Service for Human Rights and the International Platform Against Impunity. A coalition of over 300 civil society organisations coordinated by these NGOs also wrote to the Committee in May 2016 urging it to take action.
This is the first comprehensive public Statement by a UN human rights treaty body specifically addressing human rights defenders. It provides a clear articulation of the Committee’s views on this topic and strong guidance to States on the protection of defenders of ESC rights. Importantly, the Statement commences by recognising the essential contribution of civil society to the effective promotion, protection and realization of ESC rights, especially in monitoring and evaluating States’ compliance with the Covenant and dissemination of information about the ICESCR and the Committee’s work.
The Committee notes its ‘alarm’ at ‘past and present incidences .... regarding the situation of human rights defenders working in the field of economic, social and cultural rights’ and underlines the importance of human rights defenders ‘being able to work freely without any threat or fear’. It ‘reminds States parties of their responsibility to ensure that human rights defenders are effectively protected against any and all forms of abuse, violence and reprisal which they might experience while carrying out their work to promote the realization of these rights’ and urges compliance with the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. It also outlines specific measures that States should adopt to safeguard defenders of ESC rights.
A key advance in the Statement is the confirmation that it considers ‘any threat or violence against human rights defenders to constitute violations of States’ obligations towards the realization of Covenant rights’.
Committee membership
This was the final Committee session for 3 members of the Committee who will be stepping down from 31 December 2016: Mr Ariranga Pillay (Mauritius); Mr Nicolaas Schrijver (Netherlands); and Mr Sergei Martynov (Belarus). The chairmanship of Mr Waleed Sadi will also come to an end on the first day of the next session. The Committee will elect a new Chair at the beginning of its first session in 2017.
At the first session in 2017, three new Committee members will commence their terms on the Committee:
-
Ms Laura-Maria Craciunean Romania
-
Ms Sandra Leibenberg South Africa
-
Mr Michael Windfuhr Germany
Practical matters
-
The process for accreditation for CESCR sessions is likely to change. We recommend you consult the CESCR website for further information when preparing for accreditation.
-
During the June 2017 session there will be a change of practice in respect of the time for NGOs to brief the Committee. The convention has been for this briefing to occur on the Monday morning of the week during which the relevant State dialogue is scheduled. However, instead, the NGO briefings will be distributed differently over the first three weeks of the session. Check the website for details of the program and the time and date for the NGO briefings.
-
It is expected that both the February and June sessions in 2017 will be at Palais Wilson.
Next session
The next session will be held from
20 – 24 February 2017
. Unusually, no States will be reviewed at the next session.
The Committee intends to use the session time for General Comment development, addressing Communications and addressing the issue of non-reporting States and long overdue State reports.
Immediately after the February session, a Working Group of the Committee will hold a ‘pre-session’ (27 February – 3 March) during which it will consider the Lists of Issues for:
Colombia, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation
The deadline for civil society reports/submissions in respect of the List of Issues for these countries is 13 January 2017 (preferable), but 30 January at the latest.
The State review for each of these States will be held in September/October 2017. The Committee also plans to review the first two reports to be submitted under the simplified reporting procedure (Spain and New Zealand) at the September/October 2017 session.
The sixty-first session of the Committee will be held from 29 May to 23 June2017 during which the Committee will consider the reports of:
Australia, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Uruguay
The deadline for civil society reports/submissions in respect of the review of these countries is 18 April 2017 (preferable), but 5 May at the latest.
New page on private actors in education services of Francophone countries
A number of countries grouped in the Francophonie are confronted with the non-respect of the right to education with the growth of private actors in the education sector, supported by certain donors and international institutions. The aim of this page is to gather information produced by the Francophonie on the questions of commercialization and privatization of education [in French].
ESC Rights Update from Geneva: 33rd session of the Human Rights Council (13 to 30 September 2016)
Economic, social and cultural rights at the 33rd session of the UN Human Rights Council 13 September to 30 September 2016
This Update aims to provide a summary of the initiatives regarding economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights at the 33rd session of the Human Rights Council (September 2016). There were not so many ESC rights specific initiatives at this session, although a number of related initiatives. One theme running through the discussions, reports and resolutions was linking thematic human rights issues with the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and ensuring a human rights based approach to the implementation and monitoring of the SDGs.
It was also interesting to hear the High Commissioner for Human Rights specifically mention ESC rights in his Opening address. He stated:
'Human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent; if States pick and choose which rights they will uphold, the entire structure is undermined. Yet I am frequently surprised by assertions my Office is insufficiently concerned with economic and social rights. This is a statement often made by representatives of States which have few or no national accountability mechanisms to ensure that economic and social rights are effectively protected – and have adopted no legislative framework to give domestic legal effect to the CESCR. I am convinced civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right to development, can only be effective when they are viewed as mutually supportive. And although there is no one correct model, applying human rights in practice requires that they be addressed as rights – not as neutral commodities or optional policy outcomes. I urge all Member States of this Council to move swiftly to establish the legal frameworks which can ensure implementation and accountability for economic and social rights.'
This Update provides information about:
Rights to water and sanitation
The Special Rapporteur on the right to water and sanitation presented his report on the topic of gender equality (A/HRC/33/49), to the Human Rights Council. It is an important report as it highlights the importance of gender equality in the context of the rights to water and sanitation, explains its meaning and pulls together much of the work on gender equality undertaken by the successive mandate holders. The report explores women and men’s different access, use, experiences and knowledge of water, sanitation and hygiene. It shows how cultural, social, economic and biological differences between women and men consistently lead to unequal opportunities for women in the enjoyment of the rights to water and sanitation, and impacts on other human rights, such as health, housing, education and food, and to gender equality more generally.
The Special Rapporteur underlines the importance of focusing ‘on the needs of women and girls at all times, throughout their whole lifecycle, and of not overlooking the needs of women and girls with disabilities, living in poverty or suffering from other disadvantages’.
He also highlights the need for ‘concerted efforts in meeting women’s material needs, such as access to affordable menstrual products, as well as their strategic needs, such as tackling harmful gender stereotypes and structural determinants of inequalities that affect access to water, sanitation and hygiene’. The Special Rapporteur takes a broad definition of gender equality emphasising that it includes the rights and experiences of transgender and gender non-conforming people. He notes that transgender and gender non-conforming people also experience discrimination in the realisation of their rights to water and sanitation, and states:
‘Water and sanitation facilities must be safe, available, accessible, affordable, socially and culturally acceptable, provide privacy and ensure dignity for all individuals, including those who are transgender and gender non-conforming.’
He discusses intersectionality and the impact of multiple forms of discrimination, such as where women also are living in poverty, with a disability, suffer from incontinence, live in remote areas, lack security of tenure, are imprisoned or are homeless.
The Special Rapporteur calls for a transformative approach which addresses the ‘root causes of inequalities and the dismantling of structural barriers, taboos, stereotypes and social norms that prevent the equal enjoyment of rights on the basis of gender.’ He underlines that it is necessary to challenge social norms, stereotypes and intra-household patterns, while also promoting gender-responsive interventions that prioritize the implementation of women’s specific needs. In terms of gender stereotyping, he urges: ‘States cannot dismiss stereotyping and stigma as a social phenomenon over which States have no influence; instead, they must actively combat practices that are based on harmful stereotypes of men and women, including in the private sphere’.
For instance, he discusses sociocultural norms about ‘feminine modesty’ and stigma and taboo surrounding female menstruation, as examples of how gender stereotyping impacts on women’s rights to water and sanitation, as well as many other human rights. He also discusses gender-based violence that women fear in accessing public toilets and open defecation sites and that trans-gender people face when accessing gender-segregated sanitation facilities.
Resolution
The annual resolution on the right to water and sanitation was adopted at this session (A/HRC/RES/33/10) by vote of 42 for and 1 against (Kyrgyzstan). Spain and Germany were the main proponents of the resolution. Kyrgyzstan proposed an amendment which attempted to limit the scope of state obligations to the realization of the rights ‘within the states’ and ‘on their own territories’. The amendment was rejected and the resolution passed easily.
The resolution begins by reaffirming the important advances in the normative content of the rights, thereby solidifying the recognition in international law of distinct legal rights to water and to sanitation and also the elements of those rights.
For instance, the operative paragraphs begin by welcoming ‘the recognition by the General Assembly of the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation as components of the right to an adequate standard of living and essential for the full enjoyment of the right to life and all human rights’. It goes on to reaffirm the General Assembly’s recognition of the elements of the right to safe drinking water: ‘without discrimination, to have access to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic use…’ and the elements of the right to sanitation: ‘physical and affordable access to sanitation, in all spheres of life, that is safe, hygienic, secure, socially and culturally acceptable and that provides privacy and ensures dignity….’[1]
The resolution then follows the theme of the Special Rapporteur’s report, by calling on States to take action to eliminate gender inequality in the realization of the rights to water and sanitation, for instance by:
-
reforming laws that have direct and indirect discriminatory consequences;
-
tackling systemic inequalities and achieving substantive gender equality, including through targeted gender-responsive policies, budgets and measures;
-
preventing and combating root causes of gender inequalities, such as social norms, stereotypes, roles and taboos with regard to both women and men, through public campaigns, education and the media;
-
using an ‘intersectionality lens’ in policy initiatives; and
-
enabling the meaningful participation of women and girls at all stages of planning, decision-making, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.[2]
Finally, the resolution extends the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for another 3 years and: ‘Encourages the Special Rapporteur to continue to contribute to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, in particular Goal 6 ….’.
An unofficial summary of the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on water and sanitation is HERE. GIESCR’s Oral Statement for the Interactive Dialogue is HERE.
A/HRC/33/10 paragraph 2
A/HRC/33/10 paragraph 9
Right to health
The Council adopted a resolution on ‘the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health’ (A/HRC/33/9). The resolution is short and does not address a thematic topic. It merely extends the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and takes note of his report to the previous session of the Human Rights Council.
In addition, as is increasingly occurring with the ESC rights resolutions of the Council, the mandate holder is ‘encouraged’ to align his work with the SDGs:
‘…in fulfilling the mandate, to submit proposals that could support the implementation of the health-related Sustainable Development Goals and targets.’
Cultural rights
The Human Rights Council adopted a resolution on cultural rights and the protection of cultural heritage (A/HRC/RES/33/20). The resolution’s main sponsors were Cyprus, Ethiopia, Greece, Iraq, Ireland, Mali, Poland, Serbia and Switzerland. It was adopted without a vote after an oral amendment by Russia and Venezuela attempting to remove the references to ‘human rights defenders’ and replace it with ‘those involved in the protection of cultural heritage’, was defeated.
The resolution:
-
urges all parties to armed conflicts to refrain from any unlawful military use or targeting of cultural property, in conformity with their international humanitarian law obligations;
-
calls for enhanced international cooperation in preventing and combating the organized looting, smuggling, theft and illicit trafficking of cultural objects and in restoring the cultural property to its countries of origin;
-
calls for the development of partnerships between national authorities and civil society, with the aim of enhancing the protection of cultural rights and for the identification of best practices for the prevention of violations of cultural rights and of damage caused to cultural heritage, both tangible or intangible; and
-
calls for the recognition of cultural heritage protection as an important component of humanitarian assistance, including in armed conflict and vis-a-vis displaced populations.
The resolution also encourages States to adopt a gender-sensitive approach to the protection of cultural heritage and rights and calls for the protection of cultural rights defenders.[1]
In relation to the destruction of cultural heritage, it calls on States to adopt strategies, including documenting cultural heritage, implementing educational programmes on the importance of cultural heritage and rights and training military forces concerning the protection of cultural heritage, both during and in the aftermath of armed conflict. In this respect, the Council also encouraged States to ‘consider implementing the recommendations on intentional destruction of cultural heritage made by the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights in her reports presented to the Human Rights Council and to the General Assembly.’[2][3
Finally, the Council requests the OHCHR to ‘convene a one-day intersessional seminar on ways to prevent, contain and/or mitigate the detrimental impact of the damage to or destruction of cultural heritage on the enjoyment of human rights…’ and prepare a summary report.
A/HRC/RES/33/20, OP 9 & 10.
See A/71/317
A/HRC/RES/33/20, OP 12
A/HRC/RES/33/20, OP 13
Maternal mortality and morbidity
Pursuant to the request in resolution A/HRC/RES/27/11, the OHCHR submitted a report on ‘Follow-up on the application of the technical guidance on the application of a human rights-based approach to the implementation of policies and programmes to reduce preventable maternal mortality and morbidity’ (A/HRC/33/24).
The report provides details of various initiatives related to the implementation of the technical guidance on the application of a human rights-based approach to the implementation of policies and programmes to reduce preventable maternal mortality and morbidity (the Guidance). It discusses progress in the dissemination of the Guidance, national initiatives and NGO law reform advocacy utilizing the Guidance and legislative reforms aligning national laws with the Guidance. It also provides examples of the Guidance being used in government planning and budgeting, training of health care workers and in monitoring and review processes.
The report also contains a very useful and interesting discussion of the importance of ensuring a human rights based approach to preventable maternal mortality and morbidity in the implementation of the SDGs, including consideration of human rights-sensitive indicators and a human rights-based approach to the collection, production, analysis and dissemination of data.
The report insists that accountability must be at the heart of a rights-based approach and not an afterthought once a violation has occurred. In the context of the SDGs, the report recommends that the country and thematic reviews to be undertaken by the high-level political forum on sustainable development should systematically draw upon information and recommendations from the UN human rights mechanisms, ensuring that implementation of the 2030 Agenda is consistent with binding human rights obligations. Such reviews should also include review of the actions of private actors, such as private hospitals and pharmaceutical companies.
Finally, the report annexes a very useful table containing ‘Indicators for assessing compliance with human rights obligations, especially related to sexual and reproductive health and rights’. The table lists the elements of the core content of the right to sexual and reproductive health as described in the CESCR’s General Comment No. 22 (2016) on sexual and reproductive health, and, in respect of each element, offers numerous indicators for determining whether it has been complied with.
Resolution
The Council adopted a resolution on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights (A/HRC/RES/33/18). The resolution is often considered sensitive and sometimes controversial, particularly given its link to women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights. For example, paragraphs that raised sensitive issues for some States include:
-
‘reaffirming that the human rights of women include a woman’s right to have control over, and to decide freely and responsibly on, matters related to her sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, and that equal relationships between women and men in matters of sexual relations and reproduction, including full respect for the integrity of the person, require mutual respect, consent and shared responsibility for sexual behaviour and its consequences’[1]; and
-
‘regretting the multitude of factors that can lead to maternal mortality and morbidity, including lack of accessible and appropriate health-care services, information and education, lack of access to emergency obstetric care, poverty, all types of malnutrition, harmful practices, including child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation, denial of contraception, unsafe abortion, discrimination against women, gender inequality and gender-based stereotypes’.[2]
Some of these sensitivities were reflected in Russia’s proposal of 14 amendments to the text, 5 of which were voted on and succeeded and 9 of which were withdrawn. Eventually the text was adopted without a vote after oral revisions reflecting the majority of the Russian revisions. The revisions mainly removed references to a ‘right to sexual and reproductive health’ and ‘sexual and reproductive rights’ and referred instead to the right to health, including sexual and reproductive health as an integral part of this right.[3] The revisions also removed the encouragement for States to adopt the recommendations of the OHCHR follow-up report.
Nevertheless, overall the text remains strong, including for instance the acknowledgment that:
-
'the failure to prevent maternal mortality and morbidity is one of the most significant barriers to the empowerment of women and girls in all aspects of life, the full enjoyment of their human rights, their ability to reach their full potential and to sustainable development...'[4]
The operative paragraphs urge States to renew their political commitment to eliminate preventable maternal mortality and morbidity, including through development partnerships and international assistance and cooperation arrangements which should be undertaken using a human-rights based approach. The text also urges States to ensure the availability of effective accountability and monitoring mechanisms and access to justice for women[5] and addresses:
-
‘interlinked causes of maternal mortality and morbidity, such as lack of accessible, affordable and appropriate health-care services for all, and of information and education, poverty, all types of malnutrition, harmful practices, including child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation, early childbearing, gender inequalities and all forms of discrimination and violence against women, and to pay particular attention to eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls, especially adolescent girls, while ensuring the meaningful and effective participation of women and girls …’.[6]
The resolution also ‘encourages States to consider using general comment No. 22 (2016) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ in their efforts to reduce preventable maternal mortality and morbidity.[7] Unfortunately references to the SDGs in 2 paragraphs were deleted in the oral amendments to the resolution.
The Council also takes note of the OHCHR report mentioned above and decides to convene, at its 34th session, a panel discussion on the linkages between the SDGs relating to preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and sexual and reproductive health and rights, and requests the OHCHR to prepare a summary report.[8]
Finally, it requests the High Commissioner to present to the Council at its 39th session, a follow-up report on good practices and challenges in the application of a human rights-based approach to the elimination of preventable maternal mortality and morbidity, including through the utilization of the Guidance.[9]
A/HRC/RES/33/18, PP 13 and see also OP 4
A/HRC/RES/33/18, PP 20
Eg : PP3, PP6, PP10, PP19
A/HRC/RES/33/18, PP 23
A/HRC/RES/33/18, OP 9
A/HRC/RES/33/18, OP 3
A/HRC/RES/33/18, OP 8
A/HRC/RES/33/18, OP 11
A/HRC/RES/33/18, OP 12
Other initiatives of interest:
-
On 26 September the Human Rights Council held is annual discussion on the ‘Integration of a gender perspective throughout the work of the Council and its mechanisms’, which focused on gender integration in the resolutions and recommendations of the Council. GIESCR’s Joint Oral Statement made during the discussion, which addresses gender balance on UN human rights bodies and mechanisms is HERE. An unofficial summary of the Panel Discussion is HERE.
-
The Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes (A/HRC/33/41), presented his report at this session, together with his mission reports on the Republic of Korea and Germany. The report discusses the impacts of toxics and pollution on children’s rights, and the obligations of States and responsibilities of businesses in preventing exposure by children to such substances.
-
The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences presented her report to the Council on debt bondage (A/HRC/33/46). The report outlines the legal definition of debt bondage and the trends in different regions. It explains:
-
'People enter the status or condition of debt bondage when their labour, or the labour of a third party under their control, is demanded as repayment of a loan or of money given in advance, and the value of their labour is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length of the service is not limited and/or the nature of the service is not defined. Consequently, bonded labourers are often trapped into working for very little remuneration, or in some cases none, to repay the loan or advance, even though the value of their labour exceeds that sum of money'.
-
The Special Rapporteur discusses how debt bondage is closely related to a number of forms of exploitation, including forced labour, the abuse of migrant workers, trafficking, and the worst forms of child labour. She notes that it is a global problem disproportionately impacting ‘vulnerable people’, such as ‘those belonging to minority groups, indigenous people, women, children, people determined as being of low caste, and migrant workers’ and that ‘many victims of debt bondage face multiple and intersecting sources of discrimination which make them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse’.
-
In considering the key drivers for debt bondage, the Special Rapporteur highlights poverty, lack of decent work, lack of access to land, lack of affordable health care and barriers to education. She also discusses how discrimination is a common theme and ‘significantly increases their vulnerability to debt bondage and at the same time limits their opportunities for escaping such abuse’. The Special Rapporteur also considers the challenges for addressing the problem of debt bondage, including: lack of measures to address underlying causes, such as poverty and lack of decent work; lack of access to justice; and corruption.
-
Finally, the Special Rapporteur promotes a human rights-based approach to the full eradication and prevention of debt bondage & provides recommendations for Member States.
-
The Council also adopted a resolution which renewed the mandate for a further 3 years of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences (A/HRC/33/1). It encourages the Special Rapporteur:
-
‘to compile and analyse examples of national legislation relating to the prohibition of slavery and slavery-like practices in order to assist States in their national efforts to combat contemporary forms of slavery.'
-
-
It also requests the Special Rapporteur to advise:
-
‘States, intergovernmental organizations, civil society and other stakeholders on the effective respect, protection and fulfilment of human rights of those affected by contemporary forms of slavery in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, and to undertake thematic research on the effective implementation of Goal 8, with a particular focus on target 8.7.’
UN experts outline States’ legal obligations to respect and protect defenders
States have a legal obligation under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to respect and protect human rights defenders working towards the realisation of those rights, according to a groundbreaking new statement by a UN Treaty Body.
In an authoritative statement, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said that ‘it considers any threat or violence against human rights defenders to constitute violations of States’ obligations towards the realisation of Covenant rights’.
‘This is a significant development, recognising that attacks or restrictions against, for example, human rights defenders working to oppose forcible evictions may actually amount to a violation of the right to housing itself,’ said Lucy McKernan of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR).
The statement was made by the Committee following a briefing and discussion paper prepared jointly by GI-ESCR, the International Service for Human Rights and the International Platform Against Impunity. A coalition of over 300 civil society organisations coordinated by these NGOs also wrote to the Committee urging it to take action.
In the most comprehensive statement on defenders issued by a UN treaty body, the Committee expresses serious concern as to the worsening risks and threats faced by many human rights defenders working to promote economic, social and cultural rights. It reiterates that States’ obligations towards defenders include an obligation to ensure they are ‘effectively protected against any and all forms of abuse, violence and reprisal’ and to investigate and ensure accountability for any such acts, whether perpetrated by State or non-State actors.
‘Investigating, punishing and ending impunity for attacks and violations against human rights defenders is crucial both to ensure accountability and to prevent and deter further violations,’ said Andrea Bolaños Vargas of International Platform Against Impunity.
The Committee’s statement also sets out a range of positive measures that States should take to protect defenders in line with their obligations under the Covenant. These steps include publicly recognising defenders' vital and legitimate work, reviewing and repealing laws and policies which criminalise or restrict such work, and developing and implementing specific laws and mechanisms for defenders’ protection.
Welcoming the statement, ISHR Director Phil Lynch said, ‘This is the first time that a UN treaty body has adopted an official statement on the situation of human rights defenders and the legal obligations of States to ensure a safe and enabling environment for their work. The statement also effectively recognises that States must respect and protect defenders' rights to freedom of expression, association, assembly and public participation as an aspect of their obligations under ICESCR. We encourage all treaty bodies to now follow CESCR’s lead by adopting General Comments, statements or recommendations which recognise States’ treaty obligations to respect and protect defenders and which provide them with concrete policy guidance in that regard.’
At the same session at which CESCR adopted its Statement on Human Rights Defenders and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it also made targeted recommendations to the Philippines and to the Dominican Republic about the specific Covenant obligations of those States in relation to defenders.
Contacts:
-
International Service for Human Rights – Phil Lynch at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. -
Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – Lucy McKernan at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. -
International Platform against Impunity – Andrea Bolaños Vargas at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Human Rights Beyond Borders: The Maastricht Principles Turn Five
Human Rights Beyond Borders: The Maastricht Principles Turn Five. Are human rights obligations breached by an intergovernmental organization or its governing States, when it tells a government to cut its public services? Can the obligations under the right to food be left completely to a State that is adversely affected by the climate impact of other countries? What about the human rights obligations of States whose powerful corporations can displace people abroad from their lands, because these people’s government does not protect them - being in the hands of foreign business networks? To defend human rights, it is not sufficient to look solely at the acts of national governments within their territory. Whether negotiating investment agreements, addressing climate-destruction - or providing legal frameworks for business enterprises: Human rights are increasingly integrated and have now become important terms of reference in international relations. This is necessitated by the universal reach of the values that human rights protect. But it is equally mandated by law.
Human rights obligations are now well recognized to extend beyond borders. These obligations are carried by one or more States at the same time, in some cases by the global community of States as a whole. From the point of view of individual States or victims of violations these obligations are “extraterritorial”. Five years ago, on 28 September 2011, some 40 experts in international law and human rights met at a conference convened by Maastricht University and the International Commission of Jurists. They adopted the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Principles are drawn from international law and based on extensive legal research. The experts came from all regions of the world and included current and former members of international human rights treaty bodies, regional human rights bodies, and former and current Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations Human Rights Council as well as academic and non-governmental experts.
“In their five years of existence, the Maastricht Principles have become an important point of reference in identifying just what States are expected to do in human rights terms beyond their borders”, says Ian Seiderman, Legal and Policy Director of the International Commission of Jurists, “On the one hand, States must respect and protect rights in their activities abroad; and, on the other, they have an obligation to help realize the rights of people globally through international cooperation and assistance.”
Extraterritorial State obligations are increasingly called upon in the UN Human Rights System and are on the agenda in treaty negotiations of States in relation to regulating transnational corporations and other business enterprises. When addressing the States in their first session in July 2015, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, said: “Fortunately, the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights go a long way to clarifying the application of law in this context, and will provide a powerful resource for the Intergovernmental Working Group to call upon for guidance.”
“Transnational business is just one example. Obligations across borders have a wide range of application”, says Professor Fons Coomans of Maastricht University, “The Maastricht Principles are increasingly used by civil society organisations to hold States accountable for their extraterritorial conduct. The application of the Principles has also become a subject of academic research. I am glad that the Principles have already proved useful in their first 5 years.”
ETO Consortium, Heidelberg, www.etoconsortium.org;
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is a member of, and serves on the Steering Committee of, the ETO Consortium.
28 September 2016.
Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Annual Report 2015
Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Annual Report 2015 Message from the Co-Executive Directors
The Global Initiative began in 2010, as an initiative to advance the realization of economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights globally, tackling the endemic problem of poverty and social injustice through a human rights lens. Our vision is of a world where the human rights framework reflects the real world experiences of all of us, effectively furthering social and economic justice and human dignity, and catalyzing change from the local to the global, and back to the local. To realize this vision, our role is one of catalyzing social change through leveraging of strategic spaces. This is work that we undertake in close partnership with local partners from around the world; what we like to call “making the UN work for the poor,” although it also encompasses strategic spaces beyond the UN.
2015 not only brought a celebration of our fifth anniversary, but was also a year of reflection and transformation, as we carefully moved from our startup phase to the next phase of our organizational development. This transformation involved a strategic planning process including broad consultation with partners and others with which we’ve worked over the past five years. That process identified that the launch phase had distinguishing characteristics: organizational agility, nimbleness, high quality technical insights, an eye for the strategic, partnering with and drawing upon other networks and advocates, and high appreciation for local actors and agency. These qualities and core values will be nurtured and sustained as growth and greater impact are pursued in this next phase.
GI-ESCR believes that scaling up to the next phase requires both the amplification of voices of local advocates by leveraging international law and mechanisms – and informing the content, meaning, and interpretation of international human rights norms from the perspectives of marginalized groups and communities. As such, this two-way exchange of information and advocacy results both in specific change at the local level and structural change within the international human rights normative framework, and a more intentional and profound symbiosis between the two. It is no longer enough to think globally and act locally; GI-ESCR works with partners to think and act, globally and locally, where work at one level is enriched by, and strengthens and supports the other.
2015 also brought several key results and accomplishments, as highlighted in this Annual Report. Our focus on innovative areas of human rights normative development and implementation continued, with successes in the areas of women’s rights related to access to land and other productive resources, extra-territorial human rights obligations, furthering additional avenues for enforcement of social rights, the human rights impact of privatization of social rights with a particular focus on the right to education, and increasingly focusing on systemic violations of economic, social and cultural rights and the need for positive measures to be taken to remedy such violations.
We also worked in more developed areas were we have deep expertise, such and the right to adequate housing, the rights to water and sanitation, strategic litigation to enforce social rights, and the human rights defenders focusing on economic, social and cultural rights.
As we exit 2015 and enter 2016, our goal is to build on these successes and strengthen both the substantive areas of our work as well as the organizations generally, including in the areas of governance and communications as well as our important presence in Geneva.
Our vision of the GI-ESCR in the next phase is a sustainable and mature organization and a more coherent organizational identity. We envision an organization which is recognized and valued for its leadership on a range of ESC rights issues. It is of an organization with a solid and growing base of donor support, with active and engaged staff, management and Board. Our aim is to ensure that concrete outcomes and impact not only further our mission but lay the foundation for future human rights advocacy of others.
Mayra Gomez and Bret Thiele, Co-Executive Directors
Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The 2015 Annual Report is available HERE.
