24 August 2018: A permanent state of emergency by any name is no substitute for respecting human rights

January 4, 2021 • • disabled comments

45 civil society organizations are calling on Turkey to provide a true end to the rights restrictions of the formally-ended state of emergency, by withdrawing recently passed legislation that replicates many of the state of emergency’s provisions.

We the undersigned organizations call on Turkey’s government to follow through on its promise to end the state of emergency by withdrawing recently passed legislation that replicates many of the state of emergency’s special provisions.

The adoption of rights-restricting laws that closely mirror those in force during the state of emergency makes a mockery of the government’s claim to have ended the state of emergency; if anything, it seems to be making the state of emergency more permanent.

Many of the new provisions continue to violate universally recognized human rights, including those to freedoms of thought, expression, peaceful demonstration and assembly.

Amongst the new legislation we believe violate fundamental rights and must be repealed, we would highlight:

The extension of detention without charge to up to 12 days via amendment of Turkey’s Anti-Terrorism law;

The granting of the authority to ban individuals from passage between and within provinces to provincial governors, and to forbid public assemblies at their discretion;

The renewal of arbitrary authority to dismiss individuals from academic, public and judicial service, and authority to confiscate the passports of those dismissed;

The relaxation of judicial review of the cases of individuals in pre-trial detention, from requiring in-person or video presentation of the detainee in court every 30 days, to requiring visual review only every 90 days.

These provisions harm and restrict the rights of individuals who are not genuine security threats to Turkey’s government or citizens, but who are critical of government policies or defending human rights- at a time when reconciliation would help to restore prosperity.

We must emphasize that the concerns of neither Turkish citizens nor the international community will be addressed by simply changing the laws under which rights violations are rationalized. If Turkey’s government wishes to be recognized as a responsible state that upholds human rights, it must commit to ending the specific practices and policies that violate those rights.

Signed,

Signatories
Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
ActiveWatch – Media Monitoring Agency
Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
Albanian Media Institute
ARTICLE 19
Asociación Mundial de Radios Comunitarias América Latina y el Caribe (AMARC ALC)
Association of Caribbean Media Workers
Bytes for All (B4A)
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
Foro de Periodismo Argentino
Freedom Forum
Fundamedios – Andean Foundation for Media Observation and Study
Globe International Center
Independent Journalism Center (IJC)
Index on Censorship
Instituto Prensa y Sociedad de Venezuela
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
International Press Centre (IPC)
International Press Institute (IPI)
Maharat Foundation
Mediacentar Sarajevo
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA)
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Media Watch
PEN Norway
Pacific Islands News Association (PINA)
PEN America
PEN Canada
PEN International
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
South East European Network for Professionalization of Media (SEENPM)
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
Articolo 21
Association of European Journalists
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
Fair Trials
Frontline Defenders
German PEN
Italian Press Federation
Global Editors Network
Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights (FTDES)

https://ifex.org/a-permanent-state-of-emergency-by-any-name-is-no-substitute-for-respecting-human-rights/

10 September 2018: Saudi Arabia must implement UPR recommendations protecting free expression

January 4, 2021 • • disabled comments

NGOs around the world urge their governments to publicly engage with Saudi Arabia to call for the release of detained writers and activists, and to issue strong recommendations to end restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.

Dear Mr./Ms. Foreign Minister,

We, the undersigned, are writing to you concerning Saudi Arabia’s upcoming 3rd Cycle Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in November 2018 and ahead of the 39th Session of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council (HRC 39) in September. The UN HRC and the kingdom’s UPR review are important opportunities to raise concerns about Saudi Arabia’s abysmal human rights record and to press for urgently needed reforms. We thus call upon your government to publicly engage with Saudi Arabia during the forthcoming HRC as well as the UPR in November, to call for the release of detained writers and activists, and to issue strong recommendations to end restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.

During Saudi Arabia’s 2nd UPR cycle in October 2013, the kingdom received nine recommendations pertaining to protecting and promoting the right to freedom of expression out of 225 total recommendations. Saudi Arabia fully accepted three of these freedom of expression-related recommendations and partially accepted the remaining one. Despite this commitment, the kingdom has failed to implement the recommendations, and we remain concerned over the continued criminalization of the right to freedom of expression and opinion as Saudi Arabia’s UPR approaches in November.

Fundamentally, the Saudi government does not recognize the right to freedom of expression and opinion. Rather, the kingdom’s de facto constitution – the Basic Law – grants authorities the power to “prevent whatever leads to disunity, sedition and division,” including peaceful criticism. It likewise proclaims that “mass and publishing media and all means of expression shall use decent language and adhere to State laws. Whatever leads to sedition and division, or undermines the security of the State or its public relations, or is injurious to the honor and rights of man, shall be prohibited.” Subsequent laws have enshrined further limitations on free speech, including the 2000 Press and Publications Law, the 2007 Anti-Cybercrime Law, the 2014 Law on Terrorism and Its Financing, the 2015 Law on Associations, and most recently, the November 2017 Penal Law for Crimes of Terrorism and Its Financing which explicitly criminalizes expression critical of the King and the Crown Prince.

This web of legislation empowers Saudi officials to arrest activists, journalists, writers, and bloggers who are accused of crimes related to religion, including blasphemy, atheism, and apostasy, as well as crimes filed under the counter-terror law related to speech critical of the royal family, government, or ruling structure.

Among those currently in prison for speech crimes related to religion and critical expression of the government are:

– Blogger Raif Badawi, arrested in June 2012 on atheism charges for his writings and sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes;

– Palestinian poet Ashraf Fayadh, arrested in January 2014 on charges of atheism and apostasy for his poetry and serving a sentence of eight years in prison and 800 lashes– reduced from an initial death sentence;

– Saleh al-Shehi, a columnist for al-Watan, arrested on 8 February 2018 and sentenced to five years in prison after he discussed corruption and the royal court on television;

– At least 15 other journalists, including Nadhir al-Majid, who was charged on 18 January 2017 with “slandering the ruler and breaking allegiance with him,” and Wajdi al-Ghazzawi, the owner of religious satellite broadcaster Al-Fajr Media Group, who was sentenced on 4 February 2014 to 12 years in prison after he criticized the government and accused it of corruption.

The Saudi government has also arrested several women activists over their speech, including a number of prominent women human rights defenders arrested on 15 May 2018. According to nine UN Special Rapporteurs, although many of the women had advocated for gender equality and the lifting the ban on women driving, “reports state they were accused of engaging in suspicious communications with foreign groups allegedly working to undermine national security, and of trespassing against the country’s religious and national foundations.” In a demonstration of the kingdom’s attempt to silence women and activists, reports recently emerged that the government was seeking the death penalty against activist Israa al-Ghomgham, who was arrested in 2015 for her role in organizing protests and for calling for the release of political prisoners and an end to anti-Shia discrimination.

Saudi Arabia’s suppression of free expression demonstrates the kingdom’s failure to implement its 2nd Cycle UPR recommendations. We therefore see both the UN HRC session in September and the kingdom’s UPR in November as important and significant opportunities to raise concerns not only about ongoing restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, but also the kingdom’s failure to abide by its commitments to reform. To that end, we call upon your government to publicly urge Saudi Arabia to lift restrictions on free expression, call for the release of activists, journalists, and writers, urge implementation of its 2nd Cycle UPR recommendations, and offer serious follow-up recommendations during the 3rd Cycle UPR in November.

Signed,

This web of legislation empowers Saudi officials to arrest activists, journalists, writers, and bloggers.

Signatories
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE)
Bytes for All (B4A)
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Freedom Forum
Fundamedios – Andean Foundation for Media Observation and Study
Independent Journalism Center (IJC)
Index on Censorship
Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
International Publishers Association (IPA)
Mediacentar Sarajevo
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
PEN Norway
PEN America
South East Europe Media Organisation
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
AlQst
Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC)
Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia (AHRE)
Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
Caucasus Civil Initiatives (CCIC)
Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
CIVICUS
European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Karapatan (Philippines)
Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED)
Odhikar, Bangladesh

https://ifex.org/saudi-arabia-must-implement-upr-recommendations-protecting-free-expression/

8 October 2018: Rights groups call for public inquiry into Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder

January 4, 2021 • • disabled comments

The public inquiry must be completely independent of the Maltese police, government and politicians, and it should be conducted by a panel of respected international judges with no political or government links.

This joint letter was originally published on pen-international.org on 8 October 2018.

Dear Prime Minister Joseph Muscat,

I write to you on behalf of the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom and 24 organisations (listed below) representing thousands of journalists and human rights activists concerning Malta’s response to the assassination of journalist Ms Daphne Caruana Galizia.

Following her murder on 16 October 2017, the Maltese authorities initiated criminal proceedings against the men who allegedly detonated the bomb that killed Ms Caruana Galizia and a parallel magisterial inquiry into whether others should be charged with criminal offences for commissioning the alleged assassins. Both the criminal proceedings and magisterial inquiry focus solely on criminal culpability. Neither process is investigating the wider and even more serious question as to whether the Maltese state is responsible for the circumstances that led to Ms Caruana Galizia’s death.

Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires Malta – as a Member State of the Council of Europe – to comply with its protective obligation by examining (a) whether Malta knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to Ms Caruana Galizia’s life; (b) the adequacy of any steps taken by Malta to guard against that risk; and (c) any steps that Malta needs to take to prevent future deaths of journalists and/or anti-corruption campaigners.

On 9 August 2018, a team of international lawyers from Doughty Street Chambers and Bhatt Murphy Solicitors in London issued a legal opinion finding that Malta has failed to institute any inquiry into whether the Maltese state bears any responsibility for the loss of Ms Caruana Galizia’s life. Following the legal opinion, the family has submitted the following request to your government:

To establish a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act that is completely independent of the Maltese police, Government and politicians, and that is conducted by a panel of respected international judges, retired judges and/or suitably qualified individuals with no political or government links.

We fully support the request and urge you to reconsider your position[1] and to respond immediately and positively to the request of the family of Ms Caruana Galizia. Protecting the lives and voices of journalists in Malta and across Europe depends upon this public inquiry. There is nothing to fear from this inquiry but the truth.

Seeking justice for Ms Caruana Galizia and protection for those who continue her legacy remains our top priority.

We would appreciate your written response to our appeal.

Flutura Kusari
Legal Advisor
The European Centre for
Press and Media Freedom
kusari@ecpmf.eu
+383 49 236 664

[1] Interview of Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, BBC Radio, 22 September 2018, available here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/b0bkzk0d (minute 49)

List of organisations
PEN International
ActiveWatch – Media Monitoring Agency
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Index on Censorship
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
International Press Institute (IPI)
PEN America
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
IFEX
Access Info
aditus foundation
Article 21
Blueprint for Free Speech
European Federation of Journalists
Global Editors Network
Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights
Integra Foundation
OBC Transeuropa/ Centro per la Cooperazione Internazionale
Ossigeno per l’Informazione
Platform of Human Rights Organisations in Malta (PHROM)
Press Emblem Campaign
Transparency International
The Critical Institute
The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom

https://ifex.org/rights-groups-call-for-public-inquiry-into-daphne-caruana-galizias-murder/

5 November 2018: A letter to Aung San Suu Kyi: Overturn conviction, free Reuters journalists

January 4, 2021 • • disabled comments

IFEX members and other groups respond to Aung San Suu Kyi’s invitation to prove why the prosecution of two Reuters journalists in Myanmar was flawed and should be overturned.

Aung San Suu Kyi
State Counselor
Naypyidaw
Myanmar

Your Excellency,

Recently, at the World Economic Conference in Hanoi, Viet Nam, you defended the September 3 conviction and sentencing of Reuters reporters Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo for violating the Official Secrets Act, and invited anyone who believes in the rule of law to point out why the judgment was problematic. As a concerned group of more than 50 human rights and free expression organizations from around the world, we would like to take this opportunity to respond to your invitation and to call for Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo’s immediate and unconditional release.

First and foremost, contrary to your comments, the case is a clear attempt to restrict freedom of expression and independent journalism in Myanmar. Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were arrested on December 12, 2017, in the course of doing their job as professional journalists: investigating military operations in northern Rakhine State. Specifically, the two men were investigating a massacre that took place in the village of Inn Din, during which 10 Rohingya men and boys were summarily executed by the security forces—a crime which the military later admitted to. This investigation—which came at a time when the Myanmar military and the civilian-led government rejected mounting reports of human rights violations in northern Rakhine State—was clearly in the public interest, and still is.

The law that was then used to prosecute them—the colonial-era Official Secrets Act—is one of a number of repressive laws that have been used to prosecute journalists and stymie media freedom. The Act is broadly worded, and grants wide powers to the government to determine what classifies as a “secret”—indeed, the entire Act goes well beyond the restrictions on the right to freedom of expression which are permitted under international human rights law on the grounds of national security.

Even within the terms of the Act itself, for a conviction under Section 3.1 (c), evidence should demonstrate that the accused had in their possession secret documents that “might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy.” However, evidence and testimony presented during the pre-trial and trial hearings failed to demonstrate this was the case and instead established the following facts:

• The documents Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo are accused of possessing are not secret, but contain information already in the public domain;

• There is no evidence of intent to turn documents over to an enemy or to harm the country;

• Police testimony regarding the circumstances of their arrest was contradictory;

• Moreover, a police whistleblower credibly testified that the two journalists had been framed: namely, that police were ordered by their superiors to invite Wa Lone to a meeting so he could be handed documents and then immediately arrested;

• Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were subject to ill-treatment after their initial arrest, including incommunicado detention for two weeks, hooding, and sleep deprivation.

In summary, we believe that that Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo should never have been arrested in the first place, let alone prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned. Their trial, which was already manifestly unfair, was made more so by the repeated failure to uphold key tenets of the rule of law and to build a convincing evidence-based case against these journalists.

We therefore call on the Myanmar authorities to immediately and unconditionally release these two men, and reject the convictions against them. We further urge your government to work towards the swift review and amendment of all laws that can be used to unlawfully restrict the right to freedom of expression, so as to bring them into line with international human rights law and standards.

Yours respectfully,

Signatories
PEN America
Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
Afghanistan Journalists Center (AFJC)
Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC)
Albanian Media Institute
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
ARTICLE 19
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE)
Bytes for All (B4A)
Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR)
Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Freedom Forum
Fundamedios – Andean Foundation for Media Observation and Study
Globe International Center
Human Rights Watch
Independent Journalism Center (IJC)
Index on Censorship
Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
International Press Institute (IPI)
Mediacentar Sarajevo
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA)
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Media Rights Agenda (MRA)
Mizzima News
PEN Norway
OpenMedia
Pakistan Press Foundation
PEN Canada
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers
Amnesty International
Athan – Freedom of Expression Activist Organization
Burma Campaign UK
Civil Rights Defenders
CSW
English PEN
Equality Myanmar
Free Expression Myanmar
Myanmar Media Lawyers’ Network
Norwegian Myanmar Committee
PEN Myanmar
Society for Threatened Peoples – Germany
South East Asian Journalist Unions (SEAJU)
The Swedish Burma Committee

https://ifex.org/a-letter-to-aung-san-suu-kyi-overturn-conviction-free-reuters-journalists/

13 November 2018: 88 rights groups call for Facebook to implement appeals process for removed content

January 4, 2021 • • disabled comments

An open letter to Mark Zuckerberg from 88 rights groups is calling for a transparent appeal process for user content that is restricted on Facebook.

Dear Mark Zuckerberg:

What do the Philadelphia Museum of Art, a Danish member of parliament, and a news anchor from the Philippines have in common? They have all been subject to a misapplication of Facebook’s Community Standards. But unlike the average user, each of these individuals and entities received media attention, were able to reach Facebook staff and, in some cases, receive an apology and have their content restored. For most users, content that Facebook removes is rarely restored, and some users may be banned from the platform – even in the event of an error.

When Facebook first came onto our screens, users who violated its rules and had their content removed or their account deactivated were sent a message telling them that the decision was final and could not be appealed. It was only in 2011, after years of advocacy from human rights organizations, that your company added a mechanism to appeal account deactivations, and only in 2018 that Facebook initiated a process for remedying wrongful takedowns of certain types of content. Those appeals are available for posts removed for nudity, sexual activity, hate speech or graphic violence.

This is a positive development, but it doesn’t go far enough.

We, the undersigned civil society organizations, call on Facebook to provide a mechanism for all of its users to appeal content restrictions, and, in every case, to have the appealed decision re-reviewed by a human moderator.

Facebook’s stated mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. With more than two billion users and a wide variety of features, Facebook is the world’s most-used communications platform. We know that you recognize the responsibility you have to prevent abuse and keep users safe. Social media companies, including Facebook, also have a responsibility to respect human rights. International and regional human rights bodies have a number of specific recommendations for improvements here, notably concerning the right to remedy.

Facebook remains far behind its competitors when it comes to affording its users due process. [1] We know from years of research and documentation that human content moderators, as well as machine learning algorithms, are prone to error, and that even low error rates can result in millions of silenced users when operating at massive scale. Yet Facebook users are only able to appeal content decisions in a limited set of circumstances, and it is impossible for users to know how pervasive erroneous content takedowns are without increased transparency on Facebook’s part. [2] Furthermore, civil society groups around the globe have criticized the way that Facebook’s Community Standards exhibit bias and are unevenly applied across different languages and cultural contexts.

Earlier this year, a group of advocates and academics put forward the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation, which recommend a set of minimum standards for transparency and meaningful appeal. This set of recommendations is supported by the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of the right to freedom of expression and opinion David Kaye, who recently called for a “framework for the moderation of user-generated online content that puts human rights at the very center.” It is also supported by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

While we acknowledge that Facebook can and does shape its Community Standards according to its values, the company has a responsibility to protect its users’ expression to the best of its ability. Offering a remedy mechanism, as well as more transparency, will go a long way toward supporting user expression.

Specifically, we ask Facebook to incorporate the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation into their policies and practices, and to provide:

Notice: Clearly explain to users why their content has been restricted.

Notifications should include the specific clause from the Community Standards that the content was found to violate.

Notice should be sufficiently detailed to allow the user to identify the specific content that was restricted, and should include information about how the content was detected, evaluated, and removed.

Individuals must have clear information about how to appeal the decision.

Appeals: Provide users with a chance to appeal content moderation decisions.

The appeals mechanism should be easily accessible and easy to use.
Appeals should be subject to review by a person or panel of persons not involved in the initial decision.

Users must have the right to propose new evidence or material to be considered in the review.

Appeals should result in a prompt determination and reply to the user.

Any exceptions to the principle of universal appeals should be clearly disclosed and compatible with international human rights principles.

Facebook should collaborate with other stakeholders to develop new independent self-regulatory mechanisms for social media that will provide greater accountability.

Numbers: Issue regular transparency reports on Community Standards enforcement.

Present complete data describing the categories of user content that are restricted (text, photo or video; violence, nudity, copyright violations, etc.), as well as the number of pieces of content that were restricted or removed in each category.

Incorporate data on how many content moderation actions were initiated by a user flag, a trusted flagger program, or by proactive Community Standard enforcement (such as through the use of a machine learning algorithm).

Include data on the number of decisions that were effectively appealed or otherwise found to have been made in error.

Include data reflecting whether the company performed any proactive audits of its unappealed moderation decisions, as well as the error rates the company found.

1 See EFF’s Who Has Your Back? 2018 Report https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2018, and Ranking Digital Rights Indicator G6, https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2018/indicators/g6/.

2 See Ranking Digital Rights, Indicators F4 https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2018/indicators/f4/, and F8, https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2018/indicators/f8/ and New America’s Open Technology Institute, “Transparency Reporting Toolkit: Content Takedown Reporting”, https://www.newamerica.org/oti/reports/transparency-reporting-toolkit-content-takedown-reporting/

3 For example, see Article 19’s policy brief, “Self-regulation and ‘hate speech’ on social media platforms,” https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Self-regulation-and-%E2%80%98hate-speech%E2%80%99-on-social-media-platforms_March2018.pdf.

ACLU Foundation of Northern California
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Arab Digital Expression Foundation
Artículo 12
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
CAIR San Francisco Bay Area
CALAM
Cedar Rapids, Iowa Collaborators
Center for Democracy and Technology
EFF Austin
El Instituto Panameño de Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías (IPANDETEC)
Electronic Frontier Finland
Elektronisk Forpost Norge
Fundaciõn Acceso
Fundaciõn Ciudadano Inteligente
Fundaciõn Datos Protegidos
Fundaciõn Internet Bolivia.org
Fundaciõn Via Libre
Garoa Hacker Club
HERMES Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights
Hiperderecho
Homo Digitalis
Idec – Brazilian Institute of Consumer Defense
Instituto Nupef
Internet Without Borders
Intervozes – Coletivo Brasil de Comunição Social
La Asociaciõn para una Ciudadanía Participativa ACI Participa
May First/People Link
New America’s Open Technology Institute
NYC Privacy
Open MIC (Open Media and Information Companies Initiative)
Panoptykon Foundation
Peninsula Peace and Justice Center
Portland TA3M
Privacy Watch
Raging Grannies
Ranking Digital Rights
ReThink LinkNYC
Rhode Island Rights
SHARE Foundation
SumOfUs
Syrian Archive
t4tech
Techactivist.org
Viet Tan
Witness
Xnet

IFEX member signatories
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
7amleh – Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media
Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC)
Albanian Media Institute
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
ARTICLE 19
Asociación Mundial de Radios Comunitarias América Latina y el Caribe (AMARC ALC)
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE)
Bytes for All (B4A)
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
Center for Independent Journalism – Romania
Center for Media Studies & Peace Building (CEMESP)
Child Rights International Network (CRIN)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Digital Rights Foundation
Foro de Periodismo Argentino
Foundation for Press Freedom – FLIP
Freedom Forum
Fundamedios – Andean Foundation for Media Observation and Study
Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
Human Rights Watch
Independent Journalism Center (IJC)
Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
International Press Centre (IPC)
MARCH
Mediacentar Sarajevo
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Media Rights Agenda (MRA)
OpenMedia
Pacific Islands News Association (PINA)
PEN America
PEN Canada
SFLC.in
Social Media Exchange (SMEX)
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
Visualizing Impact (VI)

https://ifex.org/88-rights-groups-call-for-facebook-to-implement-appeals-process-for-removed-content/

10 December 2018: Google must end censored search engine Project Dragonfly

January 4, 2021 • • disabled comments

60 rights groups are joining Google employees in calling for termination of Project Dragonfly, a censorship and surveillance equipped search engine in development for use in China.

Dear Mr Pichai,

We are writing to ask you to ensure that Google drops Project Dragonfly and any plans to launch a censored search app in China, and to re-affirm the company’s 2010 commitment that it won’t provide censored search services in the country.

We are disappointed that Google in its letter of 26 October failed to address the serious concerns of human rights groups over Project Dragonfly. Instead of addressing the substantive issues set out in the August letter, Google’s response – along with further details that have since emerged about Project Dragonfly – only heightens our fear that the company may knowingly compromise its commitments to human rights and freedom of expression, in exchange for access to the Chinese search market.

We stand with current and former Google employees speaking out over recent ethical scandals at the company, including Project Dragonfly. We wholeheartedly support the message from hundreds of Google employees asking Google to drop Dragonfly in their open letter of 27 November, and commend their bravery in speaking out publicly. We echo their statement that their “opposition to Dragonfly is not about China: we object to technologies that aid the powerful in oppressing the vulnerable, wherever they may be.”

New details leaked to the media strongly suggest that if Google launches such a product it would facilitate repressive state censorship, surveillance, and other violations affecting nearly a billion people in China. Media reports state that Google has built a prototype that censors “blacklisted” search terms including “human rights”, “student protest” and “Nobel Prize”, including in journalistic content, and links users’ search queries to personal phone numbers. The app would also force users to sign in to use the service, track and store location information and search histories, and provide “unilateral access” to such data to an unnamed Chinese joint venture company, in line with China’s data localization law – allowing the government virtually unfettered access to this information.

Facilitating Chinese authorities’ access to personal data, as described in media reports, would be particularly reckless. If such features were launched, there is a real risk that Google would directly assist the Chinese government in arresting or imprisoning people simply for expressing their views online, making the company complicit in human rights violations. This risk was identified by Google’s own security and privacy review team, according to former and current Google employees. Despite attempts to minimize internal scrutiny, a team tasked with assessing Dragonfly concluded that Google “would be expected to function in China as part of the ruling Communist Party’s authoritarian system of policing and surveillance,” according to a media report.

Actively aiding China’s censorship and surveillance regime is likely to set a terrible precedent for human rights and press freedoms worldwide. A recent Freedom House report warned that the Chinese government is actively promoting its model of pervasive digital censorship and surveillance around the world. Many governments look to China’s example, and a major industry leader’s acquiescence to such demands will likely cause many other regimes to follow China’s lead, provoking a race to the bottom in standards. It would also undermine efforts by Google and other companies to resist government surveillance requests in order to protect users’ privacy and security, emboldening state intelligence and security agencies to demand greater access to user data.

Many governments look to China’s example, and a major industry leader’s acquiescence to such demands will likely cause many other regimes to follow China’s lead, provoking a race to the bottom in standards. It would also undermine efforts by Google and other companies to resist government surveillance requests in order to protect users’ privacy and security, emboldening state intelligence and security agencies to demand greater access to user data.

Google’s letter makes several specific points that are directly contradicted by other sources. The letter states that it is “not close” to launching a search product in China, and that before doing so the company would consult with key stakeholders. However, as reported by the media, comments made in July by Ben Gomes, Google’s Head of Search, suggested the product could be “six to nine months [to launch]” and stressed the importance of having a product ready to be “brought off the shelf and quickly deployed” so that “we don’t miss that window if it ever comes.”

The letter also states that Google worked on Dragonfly simply to “explore” the possibility of re-entering the Chinese search market, and that it does not know whether it “would or could” launch such a product. Yet media reports based on an internal Google memo suggest that the project was in a “pretty advanced state” and that the company had invested extensive resources to its development.

Google’s decision to design and build Dragonfly in the first place is troubling. Google’s own AI Principles commit the company not to “design or deploy” (emphasis added) technologies whose purpose contravenes human rights. Given the company’s history in China and the assessment of its own security team, Google is well aware of the human rights implications of providing such an application. Moreover, Google’s letter fails to answer many questions about what steps, if any, the company is taking to safeguard human rights, including with respect to its current Chinese mobile app offerings, consistent with its commitments.

We urge Google to heed concerns from its own employees and from organizations and individuals across the political spectrum by abandoning Project Dragonfly and reaffirming its commitment not to provide censored search services in China. We also note that the letter makes no reference to whistle-blowers, and thus we urgently repeat our call to the company that it must publicly commit to protect the rights of whistle-blowers and other workers voicing rights concerns.

We welcome that Google has confirmed the company “takes seriously” its responsibility to respect human rights. However, the company has so far failed to explain how it reconciles that responsibility with the company’s decision to design a product purpose-built to undermine the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.

Signatories
ARTICLE 19
ActiveWatch – Media Monitoring Agency
Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Bytes for All (B4A)
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR)
Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Child Rights International Network (CRIN)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Foro de Periodismo Argentino
Freedom Forum
Globe International Center
Hong Kong Journalists Association
Human Rights Watch
Independent Journalism Center (IJC)
Index on Censorship
Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
Latin American Observatory of Regulation, Media and Convergence – OBSERVACOM
Mediacentar Sarajevo
Media Rights Agenda (MRA)
PEN Norway
OpenMedia
Pacific Islands News Association (PINA)
Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA)
PEN America
PEN International
Privacy International
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
SFLC.in
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
Access Now
Amnesty International
Articulo 12 – Son Tus Datos
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
Asociacion para una Ciudadania Participativa
Briar Project
Center for Democracy & Technology
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Fundación Datos Protegidos (Chile)
Fundación Internet Bolivia
Human Rights in China (HRIC)
Human Rights First
Independent Chinese PEN Center (ICPC)
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR)
International Campaign for Tibet
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
International Tibet Network Secretariat
Internet Sans Frontières
NetBlocks
Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD)
New America’s Open Technology Institute
Students for a Free Tibet
Tibet Action Institute
Việt Tân
WITNESS
World Uyghur Congress
Signed in individual capacity (affiliations for identification purposes only):
Chinmayi Arun, Assistant Professor, National Law University Delhi
Arturo J. Carrillo, Clinical Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
Richard Danbury, Associate Professor, Journalism, De Montfort University Leicester
Ronald Deibert, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Citizen Lab, University of Toronto
Molly K. Land, Professor of Law and Human Rights, University of Connecticut School of Law
Rebecca MacKinnon, Director, Ranking Digital Rights
Deirdre K. Mulligan, Associate Professor, School of Information and Faculty Director, Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, University of California, Berkeley
Paloma Muñoz Quick, Director, Investor Alliance for Human Rights (IAHR)
Edward Snowden, President, Freedom of the Press Foundation
Lokman Tsui, Assistant Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

https://ifex.org/google-must-end-censored-search-engine-project-dragonfly/

16 December 2018: Open letter to Bahraini authorities: Drop all charges and release Nabeel Rajab

January 4, 2021 • • disabled comments

Over 50 NGOs call on Bahraini authorities to drop all charges and immediately release human rights champion Nabeel Rajab, unjustly detained since June 2016.

We the undersigned call on Bahraini authorities to release Nabeel Rajab immediately, to repeal his convictions and sentences, and drop all charges against him. On 31 December 2018 the Court of Cassation in Bahrain may issue its verdict in the appeal of the five-year prison sentence handed to him for peaceful comments posted and retweeted on his Twitter account about the killing of civilians in the Yemen conflict by the Saudi Arabia-led coalition, and allegations of torture in Jau prison.

We are concerned that the authorities intend to increase Rajab’s prison sentence unopposed, by setting 31 December as the date for a hearing and possible issuing of a verdict, while most Bahrainis and people around the globe will be focused on year-end celebrations. This is not an idle concern, as, opposition leader Sheikh Ali Salman was arrested on 28 December 2014 and subsequently convicted and sentenced to four years in jail following an unfair trial. And last month, in yet another case brought against him on spying charges, the Court of Appeal overturned his initial acquittal and sentenced him instead to life in prison.

Rajab has been a tireless champion of human rights for many years, helping to found and run the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and the Gulf Centre for Human Rights, both members of the IFEX network.

He has been detained since his arrest on 13 June 2016. He was held largely in solitary confinement during the first nine months of his detention, violating UN rules on pre-trial imprisonment, and has been subjected to humiliating treatment. His books, toiletries, and clothes have been confiscated and his cell frequently raided at night.

Rajab was sentenced to two years in jail in 2017 on charges of “publishing and broadcasting false news that undermines the prestige of the state” during TV interviews he gave in 2015 and 2016 in which he stated that Bahraini authorities bar reporters and human rights workers from entering the country. He was sentenced in 2018 to five years in prison on charges of “disseminating false rumors in times of war” for tweets about torture in Jau Prison and the war in Yemen.

At its eighty-first session, 17-26 April 2018, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that Rajab’s “deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant – on the grounds of discrimination based on political or other opinion, as well as on his status as a human rights defender”.

We therefore urge Bahraini authorities to immediately and unconditionally release Nabeel Rajab, quash his convictions and sentences, and drop all charges against him; and undertake a prompt, impartial, independent and effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. The findings of the investigation must be made public and anyone suspected of criminal responsibility must be brought to justice in fair proceedings.

As this case is part of a pattern of abuse and harassment against human rights defenders and journalists in Bahrain, we also urge the authorities to cease all such actions and ensure that the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press is respected.

Signed,

Signatories
Bahrain Center for Human Rights
ActiveWatch – Media Monitoring Agency
Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC)
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI)
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE)
Association of Caribbean Media Workers
Bytes for All (B4A)
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Foro de Periodismo Argentino
Freedom Forum
Free Media Movement
Globe International Center
Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
Human Rights Watch
I’lam Arab Center for Media Freedom Development and Research
Independent Journalism Center (IJC)
Index on Censorship
Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
International Press Centre (IPC)
Maharat Foundation
Mediacentar Sarajevo
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Media Rights Agenda (MRA)
Media Watch
PEN Norway
OpenMedia
Pacific Freedom Forum (PFF)
Pacific Islands News Association (PINA)
Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA)
PEN America
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Social Media Exchange (SMEX)
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
South East European Network for Professionalization of Media (SEENPM)
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC)
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers
Amnesty International
Bahrain Institute for Human Rights
Bahrain Interfaith
Campaign Against Arms Trade
CIVICUS
FIDH under the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
Frontline Defenders
Gulf Institute for Human Rights
ISHR
Martin Annals
MENA Monitoring Group
OMCT under the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
RAFTO
Salam for Democracy and Human Rights

https://ifex.org/open-letter-to-bahraini-authorities-drop-all-charges-and-release-nabeel-rajab/

31 January 2019: Groups call on Michelle Bachelet for heightened UN scrutiny of human rights violations in Bahrain

January 4, 2021 • • disabled comments

NGOs call on UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet to continue to monitor the situation in Bahrain and to raise concerns at the highest level, both publicly and privately.

31 January 2019

H.E. Michelle Bachelet
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
United Nations
52 Rue des Paquis
1201 Geneva, Switzerland

Your Excellency,

We, the undersigned organizations, write to you to express our concern regarding the worsening situation for civil society in Bahrain. We believe coordinated international action coupled with public scrutiny are imperative to address the government of Bahrain’s ongoing attacks on civil society and to hold the kingdom accountable to its commitments to international human rights laws and standards. To this end, we call upon your Office to continue to monitor the situation in Bahrain and to continue to raise concerns at the highest level, both publicly and privately, with the government, as was done by your predecessor, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein. We believe heightened scrutiny of Bahrain’s human rights record and its ongoing human rights violations is particularly important now that the kingdom is a Member State of the Human Rights Council.

In the past two years, the Bahraini government increased its repression of the kingdom’s remaining civil society organizations, political opposition groups, and human rights defenders. In June 2016, Bahrain’s Administrative Court forcibly dissolved al-Wefaq, Bahrain’s largest political opposition society, a ruling that was upheld in February 2018. In May 2017, a court approved the forcible dissolution of the National Democratic Action Society, also known as Wa’ad. Only a month later, the government indefinitely suspended the kingdom’s last remaining independent newspaper, Al-Wasat, continuing its repression of free expression and press freedom.

While there were hopes that the government might ease repression in the run-up to elections for the lower house of parliament on 24 November 2018, these were dashed with a series of actions and policies that effectively precluded the elections from being free or fair, and that continued the broader assault on civil society. Only weeks ahead of ahead of the elections, the country’s highest appeals court sentenced Sheikh Ali Salman, the Secretary-General of Al-Wefaq, to life in prison on spurious charges of espionage dating from 2011. The government also enacted new legislation banning all individuals who had ever belonged to a dissolved political society from seeking or holding elected office, as well as anyone who has ever served six months or more in prison. This affects a large portion of Bahrain’s population, as the kingdom currently has around 4,000 political prisoners.

Beyond rigging the election process at the expense of political opposition societies and free and fair participation, over this past year Bahrain has continued to target, harass, and imprison activists and human rights defenders for exercising their right to free expression. The government criminalized calls to boycott the elections, and, on 13 November 2018, arrested former Member of Parliament Ali Rasheed al-Asheeri for tweeting about boycotting the November elections. On 31 December 2018, Bahrain’s Court of Cassation – its court of last resort – upheld prominent human rights defender Nabeel Rajab’s five-year prison sentence on spurious charges of tweeting and re-tweeting criticism of torture in Jau Prison and the war in Yemen, drawing criticism from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. With this decision, Rajab has exhausted all legal remedies to reverse the charges, and will remain in prison until 2023. He has already served a two-year prison sentence on charges related to television interviews in which he discussed the human rights situation in the kingdom.

UN scrutiny is now even more necessary as Bahrain assumes a seat on the Council as a Member State.

While Bahrain has several institutions tasked with oversight responsibilities and enforcing accountability for human rights abuses, we have grave concerns over their effectiveness, their independence, and their commitment to fulfilling their mandates. Similar concerns have been raised about other Bahraini institutions – the National Institution for Human Rights (NIHR) and the Ministry of Interior Ombudsman – by the UN Human Rights Committee. In the Committee’s first evaluation of Bahrain under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in July 2018, it found the NIHR largely lacked sufficient independence from the government. The European Parliament has also criticized the NIHR, including in a June 2018 resolution where the body expressed “regret” for the honors it has bestowed upon the NIHR. In the resolution, the European Parliament cited the institution’s lack of independence to fulfill its duties. The Ministry of Interior (MoI) Ombudsman has received sharp criticism, including from the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT). The CAT cited the Ombudsman’s lack of independence, impartiality, and efficacy in addressing complaints submitted to the institution.

Bahrain’s national institutions not only fail to implement human rights reforms, they help perpetuate and whitewash abuses. Both the Ombudsman and NIHR have released reports that sanitize violations like police brutality, while neglecting to address or condemn violent police raids on peaceful protests.

The failure of Bahrain’s human rights institutions to address serious abuses both reflects and promotes a broader culture of impunity in the country, where the government can continue to suppress free expression and civil society.

Despite these abuses and despite concerns from UN bodies, Bahrain has not been the subject of collective action in the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) since a joint statement in September 2015 at HRC 30. Since then, the government has taken increased steps to limit fundamental freedoms, including restricting the rights to free expression, free assembly, free association, and free press, dissolving political opposition societies and jailing human rights defenders, religious leaders, and political figures. However, even as Bahrain has embarked on this campaign to suppress opposition and dissent, state action on Bahrain in the HRC has been limited to individual condemnations by various governments under Agenda Items 2 and 4.

Despite this lack of joint action, the Office of the High Commissioner has been consistently vocal about Bahrain’s rights abuses, and we are very appreciative of the Office’s attention over the past several years. Your predecessor raised concerns about Bahrain in his opening statements at the HRC, including at the 36th Council session, where he highlighted restrictions on civil society and the kingdom’s lack of engagement with international human rights mechanisms, and at 38th Council session, in which he reiterated past concerns and sharply criticized Bahrain for its continued refusal to cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner and the mandates of the Special Procedures.

We believe that this UN scrutiny is now even more necessary as Bahrain assumes a seat on the Council as a Member State.

We strongly urge you to continue to monitor the situation, to publicly express your concerns to Bahraini officials, and to call on the Bahraini government to meet its international obligations, including those concerning protecting and promoting civil society. Without an independent, viable civil society in the country there can be no serious domestic pressure on the government to relax restrictions and ease repression.

We call on you to highlight Bahrain’s restrictions on civil society, targeting of human rights defenders, dissolution of political opposition, and unrelenting attacks on free expression in your opening statement at the 40th Human Rights Council session, the first session of which Bahrain is a member of the Council.

Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
ARTICLE 19
Bahrain Center for Human Rights
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
Center for Media Studies & Peace Building (CEMESP)
Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Foro de Periodismo Argentino
Freedom Forum
Independent Journalism Center (IJC)
Index on Censorship
Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
Maharat Foundation
Mediacentar Sarajevo
Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA)
PEN Norway
OpenMedia
Pacific Islands News Association (PINA)
PEN America
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia (AHRE)
Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy
Cairo Institute to Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
CIVICUS
European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights
Odhikar (Bangladesh)
Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
Sudanese Development Initiative (Sudan)
JOINT Liga de ONGs em Mocambique
West African Human Rights Defenders Network
Latin American Network for Democracy (REDLAD)
Ligue Burundaise des Droits de l’homme ITEKA
Organisation Tchadienne Anti-Corruption (OTAC)

https://ifex.org/groups-call-on-michelle-bachelet-for-heightened-un-scrutiny-of-human-rights-violations-in-bahrain/

26 March 2019: The Formula One Group should support the safeguarding of human rights in Bahrain

January 4, 2021 • • disabled comments

NGOs around the world call on the Formula One Group to safeguard human rights in Bahrain during race events.

We, the undersigned human rights organizations, write to you in advance of the upcoming Formula One Grand Prix race in Bahrain, scheduled for 29-31 March, to raise concerns regarding the worsening human rights situation in the country and the specific human rights risks associated with the event.

We call on the Formula One Group to take concrete measures to safeguard human rights in Bahrain during the race, in accordance with its own “Statement of Commitment to Respect for Human Rights,” including instating a freedom complaints mechanism.

Bahrain’s human rights situation has continued to deteriorate over the years, and we have seen a trend of increased repression by the authorities in the lead up to, and during, Bahrain’s Grand Prix – notably the targeting and suppression of free expression in the context of the race. We are deeply concerned that the Bahrain Grand Prix has continued to take place in an environment of oppression, human rights violations, and constricted freedom of expression.

Targeting journalists for their coverage of protests surrounding the race has become commonplace. In 2012, 22-year-old videographer and journalist Ahmed Ismail Hassan was fatally shot by Bahraini security forces while covering protests around the Grand Prix. Witnesses stated that he was targeted because authorities saw his video equipment. In the seven years since, no one has been held accountable for his death.

In March 2016, Bahraini authorities refused to renew journalist Nazeeha Saeed‘s press credentials with foreign media outlets, seemingly as retribution for her previous coverage of police brutality during protests. She was then taken to court and fined for “working without a license.”

Additionally, journalists traveling to Bahrain for the 2017 Grand Prix were required to sign a form that stated they would only cover the Grand Prix or risk losing their visa – a strategy that has effectively muted coverage of protests and freedom of the press, while simultaneously bolstering Bahrain’s reputation, thereby providing cover for abuses to continue unabated.

Other instances of human rights abuses occurred during the Grand Prix in April 2017, including the use of tear gas against protesters. Bahraini activist, Najah Yusuf, was arrested following her online criticism of Bahrain’s Grand Prix, and has been subjected to arbitrary detention and torture. She was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in June 2018.

In 2012, 36-year-old father of five, Salah Abbas, was shot dead by Bahraini authorities after taking part in a peaceful demonstration on the eve of the Grand Prix. Protesters were concerned with the Bahraini government’s use of the race to deflect attention from broader issues in the country, especially following the violent government crackdown on Bahrain’s 2011 popular pro-democracy movement.

The 2016 Grand Prix was marked by the death of 17-year-old Ali Abdulghani, critically injured during his arrest in Shahrakan village, located within three miles of the Bahrain International Circuit. He was arrested in relation to his involvement in protests, and died on 4 April 2016, a day after the Grand Prix concluded. Witnesses state he was hit by a police vehicle and no credible investigation was ever carried out.

Authoritarian states use sports to raise their profile. Sporting bodies, including The Formula One Group, have a responsibility to protect and uphold human rights, including the right to free expression. The potential impact of interventions was recently demonstrated when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) successfully called for the release of imprisoned footballer Hakeem al-Araibi, who had been held in a Bangkok prison awaiting extradition to Bahrain and risk of torture and death.

In addition, major sporting organizations, including the IOC and FIFA, have instated freedom complaints mechanisms which enable individuals, particularly journalists and human rights defenders, to report human rights and press freedom violations.

We call on the Formula One Group to follow in the footsteps of the IOC and FIFA and implement a similar freedom complaints mechanism as a concrete demonstration of its own “Statement of Commitment to Respect for Human Rights,” in which it pledges to understand and monitor the potential human rights impacts of its activities, to identify and assess any actual or potential adverse human rights impacts, and to consider practical responses to any issues raised.

A freedom complaints mechanism through the Formula One Group would be a step in the right direction to address human rights abuses surrounding the Grand Prix in countries like Bahrain, and would help to protect the fundamental right to free expression.

Signatories
Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI)
ARTICLE 19
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE)
Bahrain Center for Human Rights
Center for Media Studies & Peace Building (CEMESP)
Freedom Forum
Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Media Watch
Mediacentar Sarajevo
Pakistan Press Foundation
PEN America
PEN Canada
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC)
Bahrain Interfaith
Bahrain Press Association (BPA)
Salam for Democracy and Human Rights

https://ifex.org/the-formula-one-group-should-support-the-safeguarding-of-human-rights-in-bahrain/

4 April 2019: International joint reaction Slovakia

January 4, 2021 • • disabled comments

After lawyer and civil rights activist Zuzana Čaputová was elected as Slovakia’s first female president on 30 March 2019, EFJ and several freedom of expression organisations joined the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) to send her a letter, drawing attention to the press and media freedom situation in the country.

To: Ms Zuzana Čaputová
2 April 2019
Dear President-elect Čaputová,
Congratulations for winning the presidential election in Slovakia on 30 March 2019. Your victory marks a strong demand of the Slovak people for change, for true democracy under the rule of law – one year after Ján Kuciak and his partner were murdered in your country.
Ján Kuciak often reported about corruption in Slovakia, including cases that involve the government. We believe corruption is one of the greatest enemies of press freedom, around the world and within the EU. We therefore support your fight against it.
We are confident, now that business owner Marian Kočner was charged with murder and the deputy general prosecutor resigned over his contact with him, that there will be no impunity in the Ján Kuciak murder case. This is an important sign for all other journalists, especially investigative reporters.
We welcome the initiative by the European Parliament, with the resolution adopted last week, to deplore shortcomings in the rule of law in EU member states, especially in Slovakia and Malta. This is an important reaction in these times of rising threats against journalists throughout Europe.
We are still concerned and ask for your support about two recent developments:
Robert Fico, former Prime Minister and chairman of the ruling Smer party, just recently renewed his attacksagainst the media and journalists by insulting and denigrating them. These allegations contribute to a toxic atmosphere for journalists amongst the public, which can easily cross international borders.
Likewise, the attempts to amend the Press Law 2008 by introducing a “right of reply” are a serious threat to press and media freedom. The proposal to oblige media to publish politicians’ replies to critical coverage is unnecessary, unacceptable and not in line with best European standards. It bears a high risk of massive political interference, which would lead to increased self-censorship in the media in Slovakia. We call on the parliament not to pass the amendment. The European media freedom community – and also the Slovak Press Publishers Association and more than 400 journalists who signed a petition, oppose it. We politely remind you that your predecessor President Andrej Kiska stated at the European Press Freedom conference in Bratislava on 5 March 2019 that if such a law were passed during his presidency, he would refuse to sign it.
We, the undersigned organisations, call on you to use your veto power against the proposed amendments to the Press Law, to uphold the European Charter on Freedom of the Press and do everything in your power to improve the safety of journalists in Slovakia.
We are happy to support you with our research and our international networks.
Yours sincerely,

European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
Article 19
Articolo 21 (Italy)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
Ossigeno per l’Informazione (Italy)
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)