HUMAN RİGHTS WATCH
Covid-19
Triggers Wave of Free Speech Abuse
Scores of Countries Target Media, Activists, Medics, Political Opponents
Police block a street in Russia’s capital,
Moscow, on July 15, 2020, during a protest against the results of voting on
constitutional amendments. The mayor’s office had banned the protest, citing
the need to prevent the spread of Covid-19. © 2020 AP Photo/Alexander Zamlianichenko
At least
83 governments worldwide have used the Covid-19 pandemic to justify violating
the exercise of free speech and peaceful assembly, Human Rights Watch said
today. Authorities have attacked, detained, prosecuted, and in some cases
killed critics, broken up peaceful protests, closed media outlets, and enacted
vague laws criminalizing speech that they claim threatens public health. The
victims include journalists, activists, healthcare workers, political
opposition groups, and others who have criticized government responses to the
coronavirus.
“Governments should counter Covid-19 by encouraging people to mask up, not
shut up,” said Gerry Simpson, associate crisis and conflict director at Human
Rights Watch. “Beating, detaining, prosecuting, and censoring peaceful critics
violates many fundamental rights, including free speech, while doing nothing to
stop the pandemic.”
Governments and other state authorities should immediately end excessive
restrictions on free speech in the name of preventing the spread of Covid-19
and hold to account those responsible for serious human rights violations and
abuses, Human Rights Watch said. The United Nations Human Rights Council in its
session beginning February 22, 2021, should commission a new report from the UN
High Commissioner for Human Rights focusing on states’ compliance with their
human rights obligations in responding to Covid-19, including the impact of
restrictions on free speech and peaceful assembly.
Special Feature: Covid Free Speech Abuses
At least
83 governments worldwide have used the Covid-19 pandemic to justify violating
the exercise of free speech and peaceful assembly.
Human Rights Watch reviewed national government responses around the world to
the Covid-19 pandemic and found that unlawful interference with free speech has
been one of the most common forms of overreach. In some countries, violations
were limited. In others, such as China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Russia, Turkey,
Venezuela, and Vietnam, government violations affected hundreds or thousands of
people.
In some countries, including Bangladesh, China, and Egypt, people remain in
detention at the time of writing simply for criticizing government responses to
Covid-19 months earlier.
They include Zhang Zhan, a 37-year-old citizen journalist, who in December was
sentenced to four years in prison by a Shanghai court
for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” by traveling in February 2020
to Wuhan and reporting from there on the coronavirus outbreak. Officials have
been force-feeding Zhang since she started a hunger strike soon after her
detention in May and her health is deteriorating, her lawyer said.
“I spend every day in fear,” Zhang said before her conviction.
“I am afraid when an Army officer threatens me. Or when the police tell me
they’d beat me to death. Or when a friend warns me that the National Security
Department is onto me. … I’m just documenting the truth. Why can’t I show the
truth?”
Human Rights Watch identified the following trends:
- Military or police
forces in at least 18 countries physically
assaulted journalists, bloggers, and protesters, including some who
criticized government responses to Covid-19 such as insufficient healthcare
funding, lockdowns, and a lack of masks and gloves for medical workers.
Abuses include firing live ammunition at peaceful protesters, beating them
at checkpoints, and assaulting them in detention, with apparent impunity.
In most cases, these forces said they were enforcing Covid-19-related
regulations. In Uganda, security forces also killed dozens
of protesters.
- Authorities in at
least 10 countries have
arbitrarily banned or broken up protests against government responses to
Covid-19, in some cases citing social distancing concerns, or have used
Covid-19 as a justification to disperse protests and other gatherings
critical of government policies unrelated to the coronavirus. In all
cases, the authorities intervened despite permitting other large
gatherings.
- Since January
2020, governments in at least 24 countries have
enacted vague laws and measures that criminalize spreading alleged
misinformation or other coverage of Covid-19, or of other public health
crises, which the authorities claim threaten the public’s well-being.
Governments can easily use imprecise laws as tools of repression. At least
five countries have also criminalized the publication of alleged
misinformation on a range of other topics, including public health.
- Authorities in at
least 51 countries have
used laws and regulations adopted to prevent the spread of Covid-19, as
well as counterterrorism and other measures pre-dating the pandemic, to
arbitrarily arrest, detain, and prosecute critics of government responses
to the coronavirus, or of policies unrelated to the pandemic, resulting in
fines and imprisonment. Those targeted include journalists, bloggers and
others posting online, opposition figures and activists, protesters,
academics, healthcare workers, students, lawyers, cartoonists, and
artists.
- Using the new
laws, laws pre-dating the pandemic, or without citing any laws, at
least 33 governments have
threatened critics, in some cases with prosecution, if they criticize the
authorities’ response to the pandemic. Eight of these countries
investigated, threatened, and dismissed medical staff for speaking
publicly about the authorities’ response to the pandemic. At least eight countries have
also suspended or restricted the right to request and receive information
from the authorities, including on public health matters. At least 12
countries have blocked specific Covid-19-related media reports or shut
down media outlets for their reporting on the pandemic.
Governments
are obligated to protect the right to freedom of
expression, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information of all
kinds online and offline, including on public health. The right to freedom of
expression is integral to the enjoyment of
freedom of assembly, including for public protest. Human rights treaties,
including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), permit
restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly only if they are provided
for by law, are strictly necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate
aim, including the protection of national security, public order or public
health, and morals, and are nondiscriminatory. Other legitimate aims include the protection of
the rights or reputation of others in the case of free speech, or, in the case
of freedom of assembly, the protection of the “rights and freedom” of others.
When governments face a public emergency that “threatens the life of
the nation” or “the independence or security” of a country,
and they cannot achieve their public health
or other public policy objectives by imposing only these restrictions, key
international human rights treaties allow them temporarily to further restrict
or even suspend some rights, including freedom of speech. They may do this by
entering a derogation from their obligations. In such cases, governments should declare a state of emergency, show why more “severe” restrictions are necessary, and provide for such
restrictions in law with sunset clauses that will ensure the temporary nature
of the exceptional restrictions. As with any limitation on rights, restrictions
imposed under a derogation must be nondiscriminatory. They should register
these acts of derogation from their human rights obligations with the UN and,
for states parties to either European or American regional instruments, with
the Council of Europe or the Organization of American States, whose relevant
bodies may assess the legitimacy of the derogations and monitor the
restrictions
Only 44 of the 83 countries that Human Rights Watch found to have breached
freedom of expression or assembly rights have declared a state of emergency.
However, none registered derogations relating to freedom of speech and only
eight registered derogations relating to freedom of assembly. Failing to
register derogations makes it easier for governments to evade international
oversight that could curb the abuse of extraordinary powers. Countries that are
parties to the ICCPR and that declare states of emergencies without registering
derogations nonetheless remain bound by international law governing them.
Governments also have an international obligation to provide the public with
access to accurate information on
health threats, including methods of preventing and controlling them. Disproportionate
curbs on free speech can make it harder to counter misinformation about
Covid-19, including conspiracy theories about false and dangerous treatments
that have flourished on social media
and offline.
“Excessive and sometimes violent crackdowns on critical speech by governments
signify a perilous willingness to sideline a fundamental freedom in the name of
countering Covid-19,” Simpson said. “The obligation of governments to protect
the public from this deadly pandemic is not a carte blanche for placing a chokehold
on information and suppressing dissent.”
Methodology
On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared Covid-19 a “public
health emergency of international concern” and on March 11 it declared the coronavirus a
pandemic. Since then, Human Rights Watch has identified violations of the
rights to freedom of expression and assembly in 83 countries, based on its own
research, as well as outside sources including the Covid-19 Civic Freedom Tracker of the
International Center for Not-For-Profit Law (ICNL) and European Center for
Not-For-Profit Law (ECNL), reports by other nongovernmental organizations and
the United Nations, and international and local media.
Human Rights Watch collaborated closely with ICNL, ECNL, and the UN special
rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms while countering terrorism in preparing this report, and shared all
cases identified during the research with the ICNL for its tracker. The true
extent of the abuses may be greater. Production of this report was supported in
part by a grant from the Open Society Foundation.
Violence Against Journalists, Peaceful Protesters, Opposition
Activists, Lawyers
Security forces or state officials in at least 18 countries have
physically assaulted journalists and bloggers reporting on Covid-19-related
policies, as well as protesters, opposition activists, and lawyers, including
some who criticized government responses to Covid-19. In most cases, the
security
People in Uganda’s capital Kampala flee on
November 18, 2020 during clashes between security forces and
demonstrators protesting the arrest of opposition candidate
Robert Kyagulanyi for allegedly breaching Covid-19 regulations by
mobilizing large crowds for his campaign rallies. Security forces used teargas
and live bullets, killing at least 54 and injuring 45. © 2020 AP Photo
forces
justified their excessive use of force by saying they were enforcing Covid-19
regulations.
In at
least one country, Uganda, security forces killed
protesters. In November, the security forces arrested Robert Kyagulanyi, a
presidential candidate, for allegedly breaching Covid-19 regulations by
mobilizing large crowds for his campaign rallies. They then used teargas and
live bullets against supporters protesting his detention, killing at least 54
and injuring 45. During the same period, the authorities allowed large
pro-government rallies. Security Minister Elly Tumwine warned against further
protests and told the public that the police have the right “to shoot you and
kill you.” On November 29, President Yoweri Museveni promised to investigate
the killings and to compensate some of the victims.
In India, police officers in March
beat 10 journalists with sticks as they tried to report that a checkpoint which
police in Andhra Pradesh state had set up to limit the spread of Covid-19 had
cut off villagers from their homes. Seven journalists required treatment at a
local hospital.
“We tried reasoning with the police to … move the check post further because it
was affecting residents of at least seven villages,” one of the journalists,
Chalamashetty Srinivas, told local media. “The deputy superintendent of police
… got down from the car and charged at us with a lathi [bamboo police baton].”
Security
forces in Cuba between April and
November used regulations designed to prevent the spread of Covid-19 to harass
and imprison critics, arbitrarily detaining and assaulting several opposition
activists for allegedly breaching Covid-19 public health restrictions,
including wearing a face mask improperly.
In Malawi on January 22, at
least seven police officers assaulted a journalist in the capital Lilongwe with
pipes and sticks for several minutes after he asked permission to photograph
them enforcing Covid-19 regulations. At the time, the police were beating
people for not wearing face masks. Police then refused to record the
journalist’s complaint. In Ecuador in May, security
forces beat and injured peaceful protesters demonstrating against government
responses including a lack of guidance for handling the bodies of people
suspected of having died from Covid-19, and insufficient allocation of funds to
address the pandemic.
In Ukraine on January 19,
police beat, detained, and charged 13 activists for breaching the country’s
Covid-19 regulations. Those charged were among about 30 activists gathered for
an annual commemoration of the 2009 killing in Moscow of a human rights lawyer
and a journalist.
One of the activists reported that a police officer who was breaking up the
event said, “The Constitution is not working now.” The police hit, shoved, and
verbally abused the 13, dragged them to a police bus, and one punched the
protest organizer in the face. In January, the authorities had allowed other
protests, involving hundreds of people gathering for many days.
Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, Prosecution
At least 51 governments have used
Covid-19-related public health measures or laws pre-dating the pandemic to
arbitrarily arrest, detain, or prosecute thousands of people expressing their
opposition to the authorities’ responses to the pandemic or other government
policies unrelated to Covid-19. As of early February, people in at least three
countries who criticized the response to Covid-19 were behind bars, either in
pretrial detention or in prison after being convicted, including in Bangladesh, China, and Egypt.
At least
41 countries have targeted journalists, bloggers, and others posting online.
In China, the central government announced in January
2021, that over 17,000 people were “investigated” in 2020 for “fabricating and
spreading Covid-19-releated false information online.”
Turkey’s Interior Ministry
said that between March and May, 1,105 social media users had “shar[ed] provocative
Coronavirus posts,” resulting in the detention and questioning of
510 people. In the last three weeks of March, police also detained at least 12
journalists for their reporting on the pandemic. They include İsmet
Ciğit, editor of Kocaeli Ses, a
local newspaper in the western province of Kocaeli, who was arrested after the
paper’s website posted an article reporting two Covid-19-related deaths in a
local hospital.
Police then arrested the newspaper’s editor, Güngör Arslan, who was questioned
by the state prosecutor. “[He] said to me ‘don’t write these articles,’” Arslan
said. “He literally said that to me … I have no idea whether this will turn
into a prosecution, but it was certainly intimidating.”
According to human rights monitors, the Russian authorities between
March and June prosecuted at least 190 people, mostly journalists, activists,
and politicians, for allegedly spreading false information relating to
Covid-19. Authorities across India said that between
late March and early May they arrested at least 640 people including bloggers,
students, teachers, government employees, and traders, for allegedly publishing
false information relating to Covid-19. Free speech activists accused the
government of carrying out the arrests to curb criticism of authorities.
At least 13 countries have targeted opposition figures and activists.
In Azerbaijan in March and
April, the authorities sentenced at least six activists and a pro-opposition
journalist to between 10 and 30 days in detention on spurious charges,
including breaking lockdown
Police detain an activist at a peaceful
protest against far-right violence in Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, on January 19,
2021. Police beat, detained and charged 13 of the activists at the protest with
breaching the country’s Covid-19 regulations. © 2021 Human Rights Center ZMINA
rules or
disobeying police orders relating to Covid-19. All had criticized conditions in
government-run quarantine centers or the government’s failure to provide
adequate compensation to people struggling financially due to the pandemic.
In Cuba in November, security
forces broke up a meeting of 14 members of an artists’ coalition organizing
anti-government protests and detained 13 for hours, and one overnight, after
alleging that one of them had violated Covid-19 rules by failing to retake a
Covid-19 test.
At least 14 countries have targeted protesters using Covid-19 policies as
pretext. Following bans and shutdowns on
protests in April, the Russian authorities used
Covid-19 social distancing measures as pretext to deny permission for a protest
in July over a constitutional referendum, despite lifting almost all other
restrictions on public gatherings including in cinemas and sports venues. They
then arrested at least 132 protesters who demonstrated anyway.
In January, the Russian authorities again
cited Covid-19 social distancing rules for refusing to sanction peaceful
protests against the detention of the opposition leader Alexey Navalny, warned
people to avoid mass gatherings, maintain social distancing, and
wear masks and gloves under Covid-19 rules; and then announced that gatherings
were illegal and demanded that protesters leave. As of late January, the
authorities had placed five protest organizers and protesters under house arrest after opening criminal investigations
into possible breaches of sanitary measures.
At least 10 countries have targeted medical workers.
In Egypt between March and
June, the authorities detained and charged at least nine medical staff with
“spreading fake news,” “misusing social media,” and – under terrorism laws –
“joining an unlawful organization” for speaking publicly about the lack of
personal protective equipment and Covid-19 testing for medical staff. Two were
members of the country’s Doctors’ Syndicate’s governing council. In August, the
Syndicate’s secretary general resigned after security agencies threatened to
arrest him.
“Any doctor in the current situation is not safe,” one doctor, Ibrahim Bediwy,
27, warned in May in an online
message referring to the government’s targeting of healthcare workers who spoke
publicly about the authorities’ response to the pandemic. “And neither is his
family.” Days later, security agents burst into the home of Bediwy’s parents.
Bediwy was arrested on May 27 and detained on terrorism
charges until he was conditionally released in
late January following a court order.
“The government wants full buy-in for its Covid-19 measures, so it constantly
tries to control the narrative by shutting down information the government
views as inaccurate,” Ayman Wafik, a right to health researcher, told Human
Rights Watch. “Is there a real problem with the Covid response? The government
doesn’t want anyone other than itself answering that question.”
In India in March, police
detained and charged Indranil Khan, an oncologist in Kolkata, with “causing
communal disharmony” and criminal intimidation after he posted photos online of
doctors wearing raincoats due to the lack of medically appropriate gowns in a
government hospital’s Covid-19 ward. “I was released the next day only after I
posted on social media that the state government is working hard for
doctors,” he said.
Academics, artists, lawyers, and students have been targeted in at least seven
countries.
In Venezuela in April, police
in Chivacoa, Yaracuy state, arrested and detained Iván Virgüez, a 65-year-old
lawyer and president of a local human rights group, after he accused national
and local governments on social media of mishandling the pandemic and causing
fuel shortages. Police officers handcuffed him to a metal tube about two feet
off the ground, under the sun in their precinct jail yard, for two hours,
denied him access to the bathroom for 26 hours, and also refused his lawyer
access.
The police chief then ordered his transfer to a hospital, where healthcare
workers treated him just in time to avoid lasting harm to his bladder,
according to his niece. They then returned him to the police station, where he
was held overnight with seven others in a cell smaller than 20 square meters.
He was charged with public disturbance, contempt, defamation of
authorities, and instigation of rebellion, and was placed under house
arrest.
Malaysia arrested a migrant
worker in July for appearing in a documentary in which he criticized the
government’s treatment of migrant workers during the Covid-19 pandemic, and
deported him in August.
Censorship Through Laws, Threats, and Blocking Reporting
At least 52 governments have
prevented Covid-19-related reporting by enacting laws and regulations
criminalizing forms of media coverage that they deem undesirable. They have
also warned government critics to refrain from contradicting the authorities’
response, blocked specific reports, and shut down media outlets.
Human rights experts at the UN and regional bodies have long condemned governments for
using vague and ambiguous terms to outlaw the dissemination of certain types of
information, including terms such as “false [and] non-objective information.”
In May, the UN said that laws penalizing
speech about public health matters based on vague concepts such as “fake news”
are not compatible with the requirements for any free speech restrictions to be
lawful and proportionate responses to protect public health.
New Censorship Laws and Regulations
Since the start of the pandemic, at least 24 governments have introduced new
laws and regulations banning journalists and others from contradicting the
authorities’ official position on measures to counter Covid-19, or reporting
what the authorities deem to be misinformation or information that causes panic
or induces fear or mistrust relating to Covid-19 or public health generally.
Jeanine Áñez, then interim President of Bolivia, issued a decree in
March saying that “individuals who incite non-compliance with this decree or
misinform or cause uncertainty to the population will be subject to criminal
charges for crimes against public health.” The decree used overbroad language
and did not specify what actions or statements should be classified as
“misinformation” or actions that “cause uncertainty to the population.” In
response to a public outcry, the interim government made cosmetic changes to
the decree and in May revoked the provision.
Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia declared a
six-month state of emergency in early April in response to the pandemic, which
his government did not register with the UN Office of the Secretary-General.
The declaration included provisions restricting media reporting, which – much
like the country’s hate speech and disinformation law that came into effect two
weeks earlier – contained vague and undefined language that made it difficult
for journalists, activists, and anyone posting on social media to know what
speech or reporting would violate the law.
Before the Covid-19 pandemic, dozens of countries had
already criminalized what they broadly referred to as “fake news.” Since early
2020, at least five countries have used the pandemic as an opportunity to
follow suit, adopting new laws banning the publication or other dissemination
of information deemed to be false, either referring to Covid-19 or public
health as one reason for the restriction or without referring to public health
reporting at all. Penalties for breaching these new laws range from fines to
custodial sentences.
In Hungary, under the country’s
state of emergency powers relating to the pandemic, Parliament amended the
Penal Code to enable prosecution for spreading “false information,” with a
possible prison sentence of up to five years.
Threats, Including for Prosecution, Against Potential Critics
In addition to imposing laws and regulations censoring the media, officials in
at least 33 countries have threatened journalists, bloggers, and lawyers,
including with prosecution, for criticizing, contradicting, or undermining the
authorities’ response to Covid-19. Seven of these countries and Thailand have
also threatened or fired medical workers for that reason.
In China, the police have warned
human rights lawyers and activists not to comment on the pandemic on the
internet or to assist people seeking redress for any adverse impact of the
authorities’ response, including the government’s initial coverup and abuses
stemming from lockdowns, including lack of access to medical care and other
excessive restrictions. Officials at China’s justice bureaus have also summoned
human rights lawyers and warned them of the “three bans and six forbids,” which
include forbidding them from giving legal advice to families of those who
contracted the coronavirus, speaking to foreign media, and signing petitions.
After the
first reports of a new virus emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December
2019, a 34-year-old local doctor, Dr. Li Wenliang, sent texts to fellow medical
school alumni about the virus. Soon after, the police accused him of spreading
rumors and told him to sign a statement acknowledging his “misdemeanor” and
promising not to commit further “unlawful acts.” He died of Covid-19 weeks
later, triggering nearly 2 million posts with the hashtag “I want freedom of
speech” on a popular Chinese blogging site, all of which the Chinese authorities removed overnight.
In one of his last interviews before his death, Li said, “A healthy society should
not have only one kind of voice.”
In Nicaragua, the authorities fired
at least 31 healthcare workers between June and August after they spoke out
against the government’s handling of the pandemic. In Papua New Guinea, a senior
police official threatened in March to prosecute anyone who disseminated
“false” or “unsanctioned” information during the Covid-19 state of emergency.
In Sri Lanka, the inspector general
in March ordered the police to arrest anyone who “criticizes” the government,
or who spreads “fake” or “malicious” information about the pandemic.
Blocking, Suspending, Shutting Down Media Outlets
At least 12 countries have blocked, suspended, or shut down newspapers, social
media accounts, and television stations over their reporting on the pandemic.
They include Myanmar, which has used
pre-Covid-19 laws to block websites for spreading “fake news” in an “emergency
situation.” Under the country’s March state of emergency, the Honduran president revoked
the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of expression for a week.
Authorities in at least seven countries have blocked individual news
reports or ordered online media or social media users to remove or edit
Covid-19 related content. Vietnamese authorities
summoned 650 Facebook users between January and March to question them about
publishing false information relating to the pandemic, forced all of them to
remove their posts, and fined over 160 of them. Vietnamese law does not only
target incorrect information, but information that is deemed to defame or
insult others’ reputation or honor.
While international standards permit some policing of information that could
cause imminent harm, it must be narrowly tailored to safeguard against
censoring information that is merely critical, contrary to a government
position, or viewed as dissenting, distasteful, or insulting by the
authorities.
Iran, Jordan, Oman, and Yemen suspended
all print media for a number of weeks even though the WHO said it was
unnecessary. Fiji blocked the
distribution of a newspaper generally critical of the government to Lautoka, a
city in lockdown.
China and Egypt have expelled foreign
journalists. Kyrgyzstan, at the start of its
state of emergency, withheld accreditation for non-state media. Malaysia investigated and raided offices belonging
to an international media outlet after it reported on the country’s treatment
of migrant workers during the Covid-19 pandemic and has refused to renew visas for
two of that outlet’s journalists. Zambia revoked a television
station’s license.
Restricting Access to Public Health Information
The right to freedom of expression includes the right to access information, including public health
information. At least eight governments temporarily
suspended or restricted the right to request and receive public health
information, or limited press accreditation for Covid-19-related press
briefings to pro-state media outlets, which put the health of their citizens at
risk.
The Turkish authorities
refused to publish exhaustive statistics on coronavirus infections between
March and late November, resulting in a vast initial under-counting of cases.
The authorities have also refused to answer an
opposition politician’s parliamentary question requesting information on the
rising number of Covid-19-related deaths in prisons.
El Salvador’s Legislative
Assembly suspended all public hearings and procedures in March. This included
public information requests, which prevented people from finding out their
coronavirus test results and how long they were required to stay in quarantine
facilities. The Bangladesh authorities
dropped the media in April from the list of emergency services exempted from
lockdown restrictions.
Banning Protests and Other Public Assemblies Critical of the
Authorities
Authorities in at least 10 countries have banned or
broken up protests against their Covid-19 response, or have used
Covid-19-related regulations to end protests and gatherings involving
opposition groups or other critics of government policies unrelated to
Covid-19. In all these cases, the authorities intervened despite allowing other
large gatherings to take place.
The UN
Human Rights Committee, which interprets the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR), has on multiple occasions emphasized the
interdependence of the rights of freedom of assembly, association, and
expression. The Committee in September 2020 reiterated that “full
protection of the right to peaceful assembly is possible only when other, often
overlapping, rights are also protected,” including freedom of expression.
Restrictions on physical gatherings may be necessary during health emergencies,
but they must be based on law, and be necessary and proportionate to the aim,
such as public health. The UN has said that governments are
therefore “encouraged to consider how protests may be held consistent with
public health needs, for example by incorporating physical distancing” and to
“constantly assess … restrictions … to determine whether they continue to be
necessary and proportionate.”
In Algeria, the government invoked
the pandemic to ban all street protests, which put an end to a year
Police block a street in Russia’s capital,
Moscow, on July 15, 2020, during a protest against the results of voting on
constitutional amendments. The mayor’s office had banned the protest, citing
the need to prevent the spread of Covid-19. © 2020 AP Photo/Alexander Zamlianichenko
of mass
demonstrations. Similarly, in Hong Kong, the authorities cited
Covid-19-related restrictions in October to ban pro-democracy gatherings and
arrested and fined those ignoring the ban.
In Cameroon, the government in
September scheduled the country’s first regional elections for early December,
prompting opposition protests due to procedural and security concerns. Several
regional authorities responded by indefinitely banning public meetings and
demonstrations, claiming they would endanger lives by spreading Covid-19. Yet
the central and regional authorities allowed bars, restaurants, nightclubs,
schools, training centers, churches, and mosques to remain open. Cameroon’s
communication minister warned political parties that the government would
consider protests “insurrection” and punish protesters under the country’s
counterterrorism law. In September, the main opposition party, Cameroon
Renaissance Movement, said that the ban “threatens to force our party
underground.”
Turkish authorities used
the pandemic as a pretext to try to reduce the influence of the country’s
leading bar associations, which have criticized the
government’s systemic human rights
violations. Under a July law, 2,000 or more lawyers in provinces where the bar
association has more than 5,000 members may establish rival associations.
Citing Covid-19, the Interior Ministry in July and October extended the initial deadline
to form a new association to March 2021, giving pro-government lawyers more time to meet the
threshold. Yet throughout October and November, political parties that are not
critical of the Turkish government met in large numbers to
hold internal elections.
The governor of Istanbul banned
public gatherings on January 6, citing Covid-19 risks, but only in the two
districts with Boğaziçi University campuses. The ban followed student protests
at the university against President Erdoğan’s appointment of a controversial
new rector, a move they criticized as an encroachment on academic freedom.
Recommendations
Governments should ensure that all Covid-19
responses comport with international and domestic law. Measures that curb
fundamental rights including free speech and assembly should be strictly
necessary and proportionate as well as temporary, with sunset clauses, and
subject to independent review. Governments that impose restrictions on free
speech and association rights under de facto or declared states of emergency
should register rights derogations with relevant treaty bodies to enable
independent oversight.
The UN Human Rights Council should request a new
report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on countries’ compliance
with their human rights obligations in responding to Covid-19, including the
impact of their restrictions on free speech and assembly. The Council should
mandate systematic monitoring of state responses with the aim of halting
violations and contributing to accountability and redress for victims, through either
enhanced capacity of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, or
the creation of a dedicated monitoring mechanism. Relevant UN human rights
experts including the special rapporteurs on freedom of expression, freedom of
assembly and association, on the promotion and protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, and on the right to physical
and mental health, should support this monitoring.
All treaty bodies, special procedures mandate holders, and international
and regional human rights mechanisms should monitor
disproportionate restrictions on human rights in response to Covid-19 and bring
them to the attention of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human
Rights Council, and the UN WHO, including in concert when appropriate.
During public health emergencies of
international concern, the UN World Health Organization should
expand reporting requirements for member states on how their responses respect
human rights, consistent with their obligations under the organization’s International Health
Regulations. WHO should also review independent experts’ and civil
society organizations’ reporting on policies or practices that may breach human
rights, and publish recommendations and examples of good practice to help
governments remedy any abuses. WHO’s International Health Regulations Review
Committee should strengthen language to clarify the limits of permissible
rights restrictions during health emergencies and support a call for the Human
Rights Council to mandate systematic reporting on countries’ compliance with
their human rights obligations in responding to
Covid-19.
No comments:
Post a Comment