On August 13, 2021, this author and Dr. Abusaleh Shariff of the US India Policy Institute published on this blog a discussion of certain anti-Muslim actions taken by the national government of India led by the party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which preaches a doctrine of Hindu Nationalism or “Hindutva.” (Shariff and O’Neal, “A Crisis Brews in India, and Not the One You Think”) The crisis we had in mind is having effects closer to home. In the past week, opponents of Hindutva who were scheduled to speak at an academic conference in the United States were subjected to threats and personal attacks in an orchestrated attempt at intimidation.
The conference went forward, although some speakers withdrew under the pressure. Nevertheless, this incident is of particular interest because the tactics employed here by the Hindu Nationalists so closely mirror tactics which The Advocates has encountered from opponents of human rights all over the world: partisan web sites that make false or grossly misleading claims, the painting of opponents as religious bigots, orchestrated pressure campaigns seeking to malign and professionally sabotage opponents, and, at worst, threats and in some cases actual violence against those opponents. The Advocates will soon be publishing a report on the use of such tactics to support a backlash against women’s and LGBTQ rights in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. These tactics appear globally, wherever there is an intolerant backlash against human rights.
Exploitation of religious differences to foment hatred and achieve political objectives has been always with us, but it has been made much easier in the internet era. It must be overcome. It is not anti-Hindu to support the religious equality promised by India’s Constitution and to advocate for the human rights of all people in India, regardless of their creed.
By James O’Neal, Board Chair, Advocates for Human Rights
The Advocates for Human Rights is a nonprofit organization dedicated to implementing international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law.
Curious about volunteering? Please reach out. The Advocates for Human Rights has an opportunity for you.
Eager to see change? Give to our mission, our vision, our work. Your gift matters.
The suffering of India’s massive population resulting from the coronavirus pandemic has received well-deserved attention and concern from the international community. A humanitarian crisis is brewing there, however, that is less well known outside India. It simmers in the same unholy cauldron that has produced so much misery for the world in recent years: intolerance, nationalism and authoritarianism. Ongoing efforts of the Indian government to create a “National
Registry of Citizens” (“NRC”) are intended to bring about the disenfranchisement, detention and statelessness of millions of Muslim citizens of that country. The international community must denounce those efforts, firmly and soon.
The party in power in India, dominated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, makes no secret of its disdain for India’s Muslim population. They preach a doctrine of Hindu Nationalism, frequently identifying India as a Hindu state despite language in the Indian Constitution preserving the religious neutrality of the government and forbidding discrimination based on religious belief. The government has been working since 2014 to create a registry identifying who should be considered a proper citizen of the country and who is “doubtful.” Such allegedly doubtful citizens are to be hauled before officials of questionable training and impartiality, at semi-judicial tribunals where the burden of proving citizenship is on the individual and requires production of detailed records—such as birth, marriage and death certificates—relating to not only the individual, but also family members and antecedents going back multiple generations. The Indian government does not reliably produce such records for its citizens, many of whom have minimal education. It has been estimated that as many as half of Indians do not have their own birth or marriage certificates, much less those for their antecedents.
The target of this campaign is clear. The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 allows for exempting practitioners of several major religions from the danger of losing citizenship, with one glaring exception: the Muslims. The NRC is a critical step in a long game of ethnic cleansing by Modi and his party, intended to disenfranchise, detain and deport millions of Muslims, many of whom have lived in India for generations.
While they might claim this to be an internal matter of no concern to the international community, no effective recourse is in fact available in India for the victims of this campaign. More than 100 lawsuits challenge the legality of the government’s actions, claiming violations of the Indian Constitution’s guarantees of religious equality and due process of law. The government is also violating Indian law by using minimally qualified census officers to gather the information that will be used to identify supposedly “doubtful” citizens, even though this is nowhere authorized in the Indian Census Act. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of India has refused to grant hearings to any of the lawsuits and also has taken the extraordinary step of forbidding lower courts around the country from hearing them. Only international pressure might stop the Modi government’s slow but inexorable creation of a humanitarian crisis.
The crisis has already begun. Based upon registry data compiled during an initial, highly controversial census in the state of Assam, hundreds of Muslims have been detained indefinitely. If no nation will accept the return of these people, many of whom have known no country but India, the detention may become a life sentence. Millions face the real possibility of losing their homes, livelihoods and citizenship despite the fact that Muslims make up nearly 15% of the population of India (more than 170 million people) and have been an important segment of Indian society for centuries.
The world cannot be a silent spectator to the possibility of another Rohingya-like crisis. The illegal linking of the NRC to the Census of India, along with the exclusion of Muslims in the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019, threatens to destabilize the social and family structure of Muslims, curtail their contribution to the national economy and deepen levels of poverty among them.
The United States government, a long-time ally of India, should condemn India’s attacks on its Muslim population, by Congressional resolution and otherwise. Other well-meaning countries and the United Nations should follow suit. It would be tragic indeed if, after the ravages suffered by Indian citizens in the COVID pandemic, a blend of intolerance, nationalism and authoritarianism should double down with a humanitarian crisis of the government’s own making.
By Abusaleh Shariff, Ph.D, Chief Scholar, US India Policy Institute and James A. O’Neal, Board Chair, The Advocates for Human Rights
The suffering of India’s massive population resulting from the coronavirus pandemic has received well-deserved attention and concern from the international community. A humanitarian crisis is brewing there, however, that is less well known outside India. It simmers in the same unholy cauldron that has produced so much misery for the world in recent years: intolerance, nationalism and authoritarianism. Ongoing efforts of the Indian government to create a “National
Registry of Citizens” (“NRC”) are intended to bring about the disenfranchisement, detention and statelessness of millions of Muslim citizens of that country. The international community must denounce those efforts, firmly and soon.
The party in power in India, dominated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, makes no secret of its disdain for India’s Muslim population. They preach a doctrine of Hindu Nationalism, frequently identifying India as a Hindu state despite language in the Indian Constitution preserving the religious neutrality of the government and forbidding discrimination based on religious belief. The government has been working since 2014 to create a registry identifying who should be considered a proper citizen of the country and who is “doubtful.” Such allegedly doubtful citizens are to be hauled before officials of questionable training and impartiality, at semi-judicial tribunals where the burden of proving citizenship is on the individual and requires production of detailed records—such as birth, marriage and death certificates—relating to not only the individual, but also family members and antecedents going back multiple generations. The Indian government does not reliably produce such records for its citizens, many of whom have minimal education. It has been estimated that as many as half of Indians do not have their own birth or marriage certificates, much less those for their antecedents.
The target of this campaign is clear. The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 allows for exempting practitioners of several major religions from the danger of losing citizenship, with one glaring exception: the Muslims. The NRC is a critical step in a long game of ethnic cleansing by Modi and his party, intended to disenfranchise, detain and deport millions of Muslims, many of whom have lived in India for generations.
While they might claim this to be an internal matter of no concern to the international community, no effective recourse is in fact available in India for the victims of this campaign. More than 100 lawsuits challenge the legality of the government’s actions, claiming violations of the Indian Constitution’s guarantees of religious equality and due process of law. The government is also violating Indian law by using minimally qualified census officers to gather the information that will be used to identify supposedly “doubtful” citizens, even though this is nowhere authorized in the Indian Census Act. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of India has refused to grant hearings to any of the lawsuits and also has taken the extraordinary step of forbidding lower courts around the country from hearing them. Only international pressure might stop the Modi government’s slow but inexorable creation of a humanitarian crisis.
The crisis has already begun. Based upon registry data compiled during an initial, highly controversial census in the state of Assam, hundreds of Muslims have been detained indefinitely. If no nation will accept the return of these people, many of whom have known no country but India, the detention may become a life sentence. Millions face the real possibility of losing their homes, livelihoods and citizenship despite the fact that Muslims make up nearly 15% of the population of India (more than 170 million people) and have been an important segment of Indian society for centuries.
The world cannot be a silent spectator to the possibility of another Rohingya-like crisis. The illegal linking of the NRC to the Census of India, along with the exclusion of Muslims in the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019, threatens to destabilize the social and family structure of Muslims, curtail their contribution to the national economy and deepen levels of poverty among them.
The United States government, a long-time ally of India, should condemn India’s attacks on its Muslim population, by Congressional resolution and otherwise. Other well-meaning countries and the United Nations should follow suit. It would be tragic indeed if, after the ravages suffered by Indian citizens in the COVID pandemic, a blend of intolerance, nationalism and authoritarianism should double down with a humanitarian crisis of the government’s own making.
By Abusaleh Shariff, Ph.D, Chief Scholar, US India Policy Institute and James A. O’Neal, Board Chair, The Advocates for Human Rights
The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS) at UC Hastings College of the Law protects human rights by working in the intersections of gender and migration. Karen Musalo, the founding director of GGRS, served as the lead attorney in Matter of Kasinga. In this groundbreaking 1996 legal victory, she won protection for Fauziya Kassindja, a young woman from Togo. Ms. Kassindja had fled to the United States to escape female genital mutilation (FGM) and a forced polygamous marriage to a much older man. The decision in this case established FGM as a recognized form of persecution – and it was the first time in the U.S. that asylum was granted to an asylee based on gender.
Since its inception in 1999, CGRS has been an important partner of The Advocates. Over the years, CGRS has provided invaluable services to support individual asylum cases, led litigation to challenge the government’s improper implementation of immigration laws, and developed innovative practices. For example, CGRS staff started to partner with psychologists in representing traumatized asylum seekers – a practice that has since become standard. CGRS has grown into an internationally respected resource for gender asylum, renowned for its knowledge of the law and ability to combine sophisticated legal strategies with policy, advocacy, training, technical assistance, litigation, and human rights interventions. Volunteer attorneys from around the country benefit from the support and resources of CGRS.
The Advocates’ board member and volunteer attorney Sam Myers praises the work of CGRS:
“In my work with The Advocates, representing Central American children seeking Special Immigrant Juvenile Status and asylum, the substantive research and tactical mentorship of the staff at CGRS has been invaluable. They are thorough, creative, and aware of the needs of volunteer lawyers. Their title understates the activist nature of their organization and their extraordinary value to volunteer lawyers.”
CGRS protects the fundamental human rights of refugee women, children, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others who flee persecution and gender-based violence in their home countries. In fact, CGRS has played a key role in every major precedent-setting victory in gender-based asylum claims, breaking new legal ground and dramatically expanding the availability of protection for asylum seekers. In one important case last year, CGRS and the American Civil Liberties Union successfully challenged the previous administration’s attempts to roll back asylum protections for victims fleeing domestic violence and gang brutality.
CGRS takes the lead on controversial issues, participates as co-counsel or amicus curiae in impact litigation, produces an extensive library of litigation support materials, maintains an unsurpassed database of asylum records and decisions, and works in coalitions with immigrant, refugee, LGBTQ+, children’s, and women’s rights networks. CGRS has been an essential ally of The Advocates and similar organizations providing life-saving legal representation to asylum seekers and working for immigration policy that reflects human rights principles.
Sarah Brenes, the director of The Advocates’ Refugee and Immigrant Program, explains:
“Asylum protections took a hard blow over the past four years. The prior administration took direct aim at granting asylum for gender-based claims, trying to take back advancements in protecting domestic violence survivors and people affected by gang violence. At the same time, we saw unprecedented numbers of asylum seekers driven from their homes, seeking safety in the U.S. Coordination among agencies like CGRS and The Advocates proved critical to respond to individuals, and litigation prevented harmful regulations from going into effect.”
For more than 20 years, CGRS has also engaged in international human rights work to address the underlying causes of forced migrations that produce refugees – namely, violence and persecution, committed with impunity when governments fail to protect their citizens. This unwavering commitment to promoting human rights inspires us and makes us hopeful for the future. It is with great honor that The Advocates for Human Rights presents a 2021 Don & Arvonne Fraser Human Rights Award to CGRS.
Please join us on Thursday, June 24 for the Human Rights Awards Dinner to celebrate CGRS and all of our 2021 award recipients. RSVP on our website to receive access information.
After the guilty verdicts in the trial of former officer Derek Chauvin, the next court proceeding will be the sentencing hearing. Judge Peter Cahill will determine what criminal penalty is appropriate for Chauvin’s murder of George Floyd.
In documents filed May 12, 2021, Judge Cahill announced his conclusion that Derek Chauvin’s actions support four aggravating sentencing factors in causing the death of George Floyd. Many are demanding and hoping that Judge Cahill will impose “the maximum sentence” for second-degree unintentional murder – a term of 40 years. Outrage at this offense has been expressed worldwide. The attention to the case was perhaps magnified because of the videos that documented these human rights violations for all to see. Few disagree that Mr. Chauvin deserves accountability for his actions.
The court must follow the rule of law and provide due process to Mr. Chauvin
Regardless of the attention on this case, however, Judge Cahill must base his ruling on Mr. Chauvin’s actions, according to the law on sentencing. In Minnesota, felony sentencing is determined by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. The purpose of the Sentencing Guidelines is to provide consistent sentencing by judges throughout the state. The Guidelines sentence is based mainly upon the criminal history of the offender and the offense upon which the court is passing sentence. The court must impose the Guidelines sentencing term – the presumptive sentence – unless the court finds substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the sentence.
Four aggravating factors support departure from the Sentencing Guidelines
Judge Cahill found four aggravating factors:
Mr. Chauvin behaved with particular cruelty in pinning Mr. Floyd with indifference for six minutes while Mr. Floyd was alive, begged for his life, and knew he would die. Mr. Chauvin then continued to pin Mr. Floyd even after his unconsciousness and death.
At least 3 children witnessed the murder, including teens and a 9-year-old, visibly a child.
Mr. Chauvin violated the position of trust given to police, entrusted to use reasonable force. Mr. Chauvin failed to limit his use of force to reasonable force standards.
Mr. Chauvin acted as part of a group, involving 3 other officers, who acted in concert as Mr. Floyd died.
When such factors are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as Judge Cahill has found here, they can support a departure from the presumptive Guidelines sentence. In this case, second-degree unintentional murder is the most serious offense Mr. Chauvin faces, and thus the only sentence that will be imposed. The longest presumptive Guidelines sentence for that offense is 15 years. But the finding of aggravating factors gives Judge Cahill the discretion to depart upward from that sentence, and if so, how much to depart.
Limitations on judicial discretion in sentencing
The judge’s departure discretion is not unlimited, however. Minnesota appellate court decisions generally cap the judge’s departure discretion to double the presumptive sentence. That would be 30 years for this offense. Even with four aggravating factors, the court generally cannot depart beyond double the presumptive sentence. Only in “extremely rare” cases have the reviewing courts allowed more than double the presumptive sentence. Those have generally involved very gratuitous, intentional infliction of injury or cruelty, a very lengthy history of criminal behavior, or meticulous planning or scheming in the commission of the offense.
Giving the finding of four aggravating factors, it would be unsurprising for Judge Cahill to depart and impose more than the presumptive sentence. But it is unlikely that he will try to justify departing more than double the presumptive sentence; the extreme factors needed for such a departure are likely not present here. A double departure to 30 years equates this case with the presumptive sentence for intentional murder in the second degree – when a defendant intended to kill the victim. A reviewing court would consider that equation if Judge Cahill departs to more than 30 years. Judge Cahill is unlikely to impose “the maximum sentence” called for by many, and that will be the result of following the rule of law in this case.
George Floyd suffered a tragic, tortuous death at the hands of a person sworn to protect rather than kill. But the State of Minnesota has enacted a series of protections and limitations to help ensure that the trial judge does not get carried away by the anger and sorrow of a horrible situation. Minnesota, after all, has one of the four lowest rates of state incarceration in the United States. It is times like this that emphasize the need for consistency and proportionality in the treatment of the criminal defendant.
The court should not be swayed by the communal anger and sorrow engendered by this case. The collective fury at the historic disparate treatment of Black people and other marginalized groups by police and criminal systems cannot be the basis for Judge Cahill’s sentence.
In other words, the outrageousness of Mr. Floyd’s death cannot justify ignoring the rule of law. That is precisely what Derek Chauvin did – ignored the rule of law by killing Mr. Floyd without due process. Ignoring the legal limitations on sentencing is not justified because Mr. Floyd’s death was unjust.
If Minnesotans are disappointed by the presumptive sentence for this offense, committed at the hands of an agent of the State, they can lobby to change it. Perhaps residents would support enhanced penalties for violations of human or civil rights by police officers. That can be discussed for future offenses. But Mr. Chauvin is entitled to sentencing under the scheme applicable at the time of his offense. To do otherwise would itself violate the human rights concepts of due process and other rights in the administration of justice.
Conclusion
In very challenging or tragic circumstances, it is tempting to throw out the rules and act out of anger or sorrow. In such times it is perhaps most important for state actors such as Judge Cahill to adhere to the rule of law, making decisions with cool precision rather than untamed emotion. When the rule of law prevails in hard cases, it protects all our human rights.
By Kaarin Long, staff attorney with The Advocates’ Women’s Human Rights Program and former prosecutor.
The Advocates for Human Rights is a nonprofit organization dedicated to implementing international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law.
Curious about volunteering? Please reach out. The Advocates for Human Rights has an opportunity for you.
Eager to see change? Give to our mission, our vision, our work. Your gift matters.
The COVID-19 pandemic has acted like an X-ray on society, revealing flaws in a system that has been perpetuating public health inequalities on a global and national scale. Women leaders have led the charge this past year fighting the many disparities and social inequalities COVID-19 has brought to our attention. With International Women’s Day around the corner, it is time to celebrate their achievements in leadership and the ways in which their work has helped to create a more equal future in a COVID-19 world. The Advocates for Human Rights’ Women’s Program has been at the forefront of this work, particularly with respect to addressing domestic violence under COVID-19.
On March 23, 2020, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz issued Executive Order 20-14 suspending evictions, writs of recovery, and tenancy terminations. The order states that, for “property owners, mortgage holders, or other persons entitled to recover residential premises…after the termination of the redemption period for a residential foreclosure, after a residential lease has been breached, or after nonpayment of rent,” eviction filings would be temporarily suspended. Shortly after the order’s implementation, fact-finding revealed that some judges expressed reluctance to issue OFPs in light of the Governor’s order. The Advocates communicated these concerns to the governor’s office. On March 25, 2020, Governor Walz issued another statewide order that specifically exempted cases covering OFPs from the temporary ban on evictions.
The Advocates’ fact-finding took place in the broader context of research on the impact of COVID-19 on victims/survivors of domestic abuse. The Advocates generated quick turn-around analyses to local partners Violence Free Minnesota, Standpoint, and the Minnesota Coalition against Sexual Assault. The Advocates assembled a research team to answer various questions, such as: (1) What was the cause of the initial decrease in domestic violence during the stay-at-home period? (2) What barriers are victims facing in the court system under COVID-19? (3) What are the current needs of domestic violence victims? The COVID-19 research team at The Advocates were able to provide insight into the increased unemployment, housing instability, food insecurity, and loss of childcare that victims of domestic violence were experiencing due to the pandemic. Their research highlighted some of the ways that individuals are using conditions of isolation, borne out of COVID-19 restrictions, to manipulate victims. Their findings serve as critical information for system actors who are not at these scenes. As Nikki Engel, Policy and Legal Systems Program Manager at Violence Free Minnesota, notes:
The ability of the COVID-19 Research Team at the Advocates for Human Rights’ to quickly organize, conduct, and summarize interview data with advocates and systems actors was instrumental in giving the Coalition a robust picture of victim needs and criminal-legal system response during the early stages of COVID-19.
The Advocates’ work has not only affected policies but also improved the situation for victims affected under the pandemic. For example, The Advocates and others’ firsthand information helped Violence Free Minnesota secure $240,000 in funding from Minnesota Disaster Relief Fund for direct cash assistance for victims and their children. This research has been crucial in helping to achieve an equal future for survivors in a COVID-19 world and deserves to be acknowledged on this upcoming International Women’s Day.
By Jenna Schulman, University of Pennsylvania student and active volunteer for The Advocates For Human Rights
The Advocates for Human Rights is a nonprofit organization dedicated to implementing international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law.
Curious about volunteering? Please reach out. The Advocates for Human Rights has an opportunity for you.
Eager to see change? Give to our mission, our vision, our work. Your gift matters.
NGOs and human rights defenders are increasingly found as the targets of a new strategy designed to limit the speech of those with less power or resources. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) refers to a process by which litigants target the defendants with what are usually frivolous defamation lawsuits. Although anti-SLAPP statutes, such as measures that provide for early dismissal of frivolous suits, can provide some safeguards against SLAPPs, many jurisdictions have yet to implement such statutes. SLAPPs also pose a threat to freedom of expression for many human rights defenders and civil society.
SLAPPs are a form of “lawfare,” a tactic that involves “legal strategies such as litigation and engaging with human rights bodies at national, European and international level[s].”1 Lawfare can also include leadership infiltration.2 SLAPPs, defined as lawsuits targeting those who communicate with the government or speak out on issues of public interest, have increasingly emerged as a prominent subcategory of lawfare.3 Such lawsuits are used as a means to silence and harass critics by forcing them to face the prospect of a lengthy, expensive court case.4 Even though these suits are usually meritless, they can be very effective because defending such suits requires a lot of resources,5 which non-profit organizations do not always have.
Litigants of SLAPPs usually sue under claims of defamation, though litigants have also sued under claims of interference with contract or economic advantage (in reference to supposedly harming the plaintiff’s business relationship with a third party), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy.6 The Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association has also described the use of the U.S. Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Corporations Act (RICO) law to “intimidate advocacy groups and activists by enabling corporations to smear these groups as “criminal enterprises” while claiming exorbitant damages.”7Defamation is also a criminal offense in most EU member states, meaning that defendants in SLAPP cases may also face the prospect of criminal penalties.8
Though it is hard to officially define a SLAPP case, a report commissioned by the European Union lists the following common features: the presence of the “speaker” (e.g., a human rights defender), public interest in the speaker’s content, the “chilling effect,” the intent to intimidate, vertical power relationship between the speaker and the litigant, exaggerated damages claims, and meritless claims.9 There are also multiple factors that influence how easily SLAPPs can be used in different jurisdictions. Such factors include the cost of legal fees, the elasticity or ambiguity in laws targeting speech, and the existence of safeguards such as anti-SLAPP statutes or cost awards against abuse of process.10
Protecting Against SLAPPs
There are varied approaches to combatting SLAPPs. In individual cases, sources recommend quickly dismissing the case and taking measures to recover attorney fees and other costs.11 Other recommendations include diligent fact-checking, obtaining insurance, and exploring options for legal representation.12 To a large extent, the ability to protect against SLAPPs depends on whether different domestic legal contexts have anti-SLAPP laws. Anti-SLAPP statutes generally allow for an early dismissal of SLAPP suits, reimburse the defendant for any costs, and include measures penalizing abuse of the legal system.13 The European Centre for Press & Media Freedom notes the difficulty in writing anti-SLAPP statutes without making it overly difficult to pursue legitimate defamation claims.14
The availability of anti-SLAPP statutes greatly varies depending on the legal context. Australia, Canada, and the United States are among the jurisdictions with more highly developed anti-SLAPP statutes. Twenty-six states in the United States and one U.S. territory have anti-SLAPP statues.15 There are no European Union member states, however, that have anti-SLAPP statutes on the books.16 Some individuals surmise that the difference in the availability of anti-SLAPP statutes is linked to the different ways that legal systems address free speech. Free speech in the United States, although restricted in various contexts, is viewed in more absolute terms.17 The European Convention on Human Rights, however, more explicitly balances free speech with other rights such as reputation.18 This balancing of free speech and reputation facilitates a slightly larger window of protection against defamation, thus creating more of a window for SLAPP suits.
Recognizing the dangers that SLAPPs pose to free speech, many European NGOs and others have called for a more robust, harmonized legal framework in Europe to protect against SLAPPs. The nature of online media allows for the same material to be available in numerous jurisdictions, which opens the door for litigants to sue in more favorable jurisdictions by claiming that the alleged damage occurred in a location with limited anti-SLAPP protections.19 This process, known as “forum shopping,” puts the defendant at risk of being sued even if they reside in an area with stronger anti-SLAPP protections.20 There have been some attempts to regulate this process, but there still exists flexibility within the European legal system to choose a more favorable jurisdiction.21 Recognizing this trend, over 60 organizations, including D.i.Re, the Association of European Journalists, the Centre for Peace Studies, and the Guardian News and Media Limited, have signed onto a proposal for the European Union to adopt an anti-SLAPPs law.22 Among other provisions, this draft law includes measures providing for early dismissal of “abusive lawsuits” and awarding financial compensation to the defendants in these cases.23
SLAPPs in the International System
There is a growing recognition of the problem that SLAPPs pose to free speech as protected under numerous international mechanisms. Annalisa Ciampi, the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, contextualizes SLAPPs within the broader human rights framework. Ciampi also notes the prominence of rights to expression, peaceful assembly, and association in Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Articles 19 – 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.24 Although restrictions on speech are permitted, Ciampi writes that they only may occur in “the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public),” and in the “protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”25
There are standards within human rights treaties and from UN Special Procedures that can proffer protection against SLAPPs. In General Comment No. 24 (2017), the International Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights discussed the obligations states have to protect individuals from interference by third parties.26 A joint report from the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions found that “states have an obligation to ensure due process and to protect people from civil actions that lack merit.”27 The Working Group on Business and Human Rights also recommended that states enact anti-SLAPP legislation as a way of protecting human rights defenders.28
In addition to state responsibility to protect against SLAPPs, the private sector also has a responsibility to protect free expression. The International Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights has placed a responsibility on business entities to “exercise human rights due diligence in order to identify, prevent and mitigate the risks of violations of Covenant rights.”29 Additionally, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights recognize the obligations that private actors have to protect rights.30
Caselaw from the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) also provides further guidance against SLAPPs. In Handyside v. United Kingdom (1976), the Court recognized that “democratic society should tolerate ideas that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population”.31 The case Steel Morris v. United Kingdom (2005) involved two members of London Greenpeace who were required to pay McDonald’s 40,000 euros for damaging the company’s reputation by publishing a pamphlet titled “What’s wrong with McDonald’s?”32 The ECtHR found that the United Kingdom violated the European Convention on Human Rights by not providing legal aid to low-income individuals against a wealthy company such as McDonald’s.33
Examples of SLAPPs
There are many examples that illustrate how actors have used these lawsuits to constrain the work of activists, human rights defenders, journalists, and NGOs. In addition to defamation suits, many individuals have been targeted with criminal sanctions. Between 2015 and 2019, more than 170 people providing humanitarian assistance to migrants have been charged with “facilitation of illegal entry.”34 Those prosecuted under this charge include journalists, filmmakers, people involved with faith-based organizations, and individuals from organizations such as Medecins Sans Frontieres and Save the Children.35 While these charges are a departure from civil defamation suits that tend to characterize SLAPPs, they do represent an attempt to leverage legal power to inhibit the actions of NGOs and human rights defenders. Included are additional examples of SLAPPs in various legal jurisdictions.
Maltese Journalist Daphne CaruanaGalizia
Maltese Journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia reported extensively on local corruption, including a report on a secret Panama-based companies tied to Maltese politicians.36 Caruana Galizia was assassinated on October 16th, 2017 in a bombing.37 At the time of her death, Caruana Galizia was facing 47 lawsuits.38 In addition to an outcry in Malta, the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia drew much international attention. In response to her assassination, a group of members of the European Parliament called for the EU Commission to promote an anti-SLAPP EU directive.39
Fortify Rights NGO in Thailand
Thammakaset Limited Company filed criminal complaints under grounds of defamation and libel against two staff members from the NGO Fortify Rights after the staff members made comments critical of the company in a press conference.40 Both staff members were eventually acquitted in this criminal defamation case.41 This case occurs within a broader trend of SLAPP actions from Thammakaset Limited Company, filing 38 criminal or civil complaints against 22 people over the last four years.42 New anti-SLAPP measures in Thailand likely aided the acquittals, including provisions giving the courts “power to dismiss cases filed by private parties with the intention to ‘harass or take undue advantage of a defendant, or to procure any advantage to which the complainant is not rightfully entitled’” and allowing defendants to “submit evidence during a preliminary hearing showing that a case ‘lacks merit.’”43 Progress has been made, but the article recommends that Thailand take steps to decriminalize defamation.44
SLAPPs in France
A series of lawsuits initiated by private companies in further illustrate the extent to which SLAPP actions appear in the European system. Two private companies, Socfin and Socapalm, initiated suits against three newspapers and two NGOs for defamation.45 These lawsuits stemmed from reporting by the newspapers and NGOs on villagers and farmers in Cameroon who accused the companies of exploiting their land.46 Similar to the Thammakaset Limited Company in Thailand, Socafin and Socapalm are no strangers to SLAPPs, having filed over 20 similar lawsuits since 2009.47
The protest group Attac France was the subject of a lawsuit from Apple after organizing a sit-in an Apple store to protest what they believed to be “massive tax evasion” by Apple. Though the court acknowledged that such protests should allow customers to have free access to the stores, it disagreed with claims from Apple that the activists created “imminent damage” to its stores products, and clients.48
Impact of SLAPPs
In addition to those directly targeted in SLAPPs, these actions also impact the broader society. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders wrote that “these patterns not only endanger the physical integrity and undermine the work of human rights defenders, but also impose a climate of fear and send an intimidating message to society at large.”49 This climate of fear has broad impacts on political institutions, and one report recognizes the impact SLAPPs has on democratic participation. In addition to the climate of fear that inhibits democratic participation, legal actions that intimidate free speech also limit the ability of the public to access to information necessary to participate in democratic processes.50 Despite a growing recognition of the impact of SLAPPs and the implementation of anti-SLAPP measures in various legal contexts, SLAPPs continue to pose a grave problem to free expression.
Written by Carter Mickelson, Program Assistant, International Justice and Women’s Human Rights Programs
Budgets. Human rights might not be the first thing that comes to mind when you hear this word, but respecting, protecting, and fulfilling human rights requires financial resources. Budgets are more than financial statements – they’re statements of values and priorities. Budgets that fund activities with a positive impact on the exercise of rights can turn our values into reality.
Last week, the Minnesota Legislature began to hear details of the Governor’s budget recommendations. For example, the Ways and Means Committee received a high-level overview of the budget recommendations, which highlighted three priorities:
Supporting small businesses and driving economic recovery;
Take action by watching live or recorded hearings online and contacting your representatives on issues that are important to you. The following schedule highlights some (but not all) of the hearings from this week that related to human rights issues in Minnesota, as well as links to recorded Committee sessions:
HOUSE – MONDAY, FEB 1
Committee Name
Relevant Items in Hearing Agenda
Meeting time
Link to recording
Ways and Means
Discussion of the Governor’s budget recommendations
It is a truth universally accepted that everyone has human rights. These rights are indivisible, interrelated, and interdependent. One right does not stand siloed from other rights, and fulfilling one right requires that other rights are fulfilled, too.
We see this principle reflected in the Minnesota Legislature’s work this week. Several committees in the Minnesota House of Representatives are reviewing the Select Committee on Racial Justice Report to the Legislature. The Racial Justice Report describes the “Minnesota Paradox,” in which some Minnesotans experience a high quality of life, and others experience some of the worst racial disparities in the country in unemployment, income, wealth, incarceration rates, arrest rates, homeownership rates, test scores, and life expectancy, among many others. It is important that multiple Committees view this report as relevant to their work, but it also demonstrates that racial discrimination in Minnesota is affecting the fulfillment of not just one, but several, human rights of Minnesotans.
We begin this series on Human Rights at the State Capitol in the hope that the Minnesota Legislature’s activities continue to reflect the understanding that when one human right is not fulfilled, others are impacted. You can take action by watching hearings online (either live or recorded) and contacting your representatives on issues that are important to you.
Minnesota House of Representatives hearing schedules and links:
January 25:
Ways and Means (recorded): Review of the Select Committee on Racial Justice Report to the Legislature
Housing Finance and Policy (recorded): presentation reviewing the COVID-19 Housing Assistance Program and previewing the incoming federal emergency rental assistance funding.
In other news, Governor Walz submitted his biennial budget proposal to the Minnesota Legislature on January 26. Minnesota’s COVID-19 Recovery Budget proposal addresses many topics that will impact human rights in Minnesota, including ensuring access to high-quality education, additional funding for the Economic Development and Housing Challenge program, and increasing tax credits, such as the Working Families Tax Credit. A summary of the proposal is available on the Governor’s website.
I’ve had an incredible experience interning with The Advocates in the International Justice Program this summer and fall. One of the things that made this such an impactful experience was the wide range of issues that I was exposed to, particularly through reading and working on reports for UN human rights mechanisms. I conducted background research for, wrote, and edited reports about human rights in various countries for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and treaty body reviews. I learned about issues like LGBTQI rights in Tanzania, civil and political rights in Ethiopia, and the death penalty in Yemen. I gained an understanding of how the human rights review process works at the United Nations and of the different human rights treaties and treaty bodies that enforce them. I really enjoyed learning about the role of civil society in contributing to human rights review within the United Nations, including all the steps that go into the production of reports for these review mechanisms. It was a unique experience not only to read about this process and learn about it on a theoretical level, but also to directly participate in it at the same time.
I also gained valuable knowledge from the other assignments that I worked on and from the opportunities that I had access to as an intern. Through writing case summaries for the Human Rights Tools for a Changing World manual, I learned about advocacy efforts like congressional lobbying by Uighur rights advocates and members of the Ethiopian and Armenian diasporas and other tactics for advancing human rights like coalition building through Mutual Assistance Associations. While writing summaries of past reports for The Advocates’ website, I learned even more about the human rights situations in countries that I had never read about in depth. I attended the online 2020 Upper Midwest Immigration Law Conference, where I was introduced to immigration law in more detail. I also learned about strategies that human rights defenders use in their research and advocacy work through events like a webinar on New Tactics in Human Rights’ Tactical Mapping Tool and an online course on field research. This variety of projects and events exposed me to human rights issues in so many different parts of the world and to a variety of strategies that can be used to address human rights violations.
One of my favorite events was an early premiere of the film Welcome to Chechnya. The documentary focuses on violence against LGBTQI individuals in Chechnya, the work of LGBTQI rights activists to rescue individuals persecuted by the Chechen authorities, and the experiences of LGBTQI Chechen refugees. The Advocates organized a post-film discussion with director David France and staff at the Moscow Community Center for LGBT+ Initiatives featured in the film. Earlier in the summer, I helped edit a Suggested List of Issues about LGBTQI rights in Russia and contributed to expanding the section on abuses against LGBTQI individuals in Chechnya. While I had heard about violence against LGBTQI individuals in Chechnya in recent years, I didn’t know very much about the context or details until I worked on this assignment. Helping with this report provided me with the perfect amount of background information to really understand the documentary in context. I was amazed by the bravery of the human rights defenders who helped LGBTQI individuals escape Chechnya and the bravery of the individuals themselves who were forced to flee such extreme persecution. It was amazing to hear directly from Olga Baranova, one of the activists featured in the film, during the film discussion over Zoom. Her work made me realize what a significant difference one person, or a small group of people, really can make in fighting against injustice and in protecting people whose rights are violated.
I also loved attending RightsCon, an annual convention on human rights in the digital age, which was held remotely this summer. The discussions engaged with themes like protest, participation, and political change; content governance, disinformation, and online hate; privacy and surveillance; and civil society resistance and resilience, among others. I attended panels and seminars on a wide variety of topics, ranging from the use of data collection and open-source investigation in accountability work in the Middle East, to challenges in detecting the use of bandwidth throttling and internet shutdowns by governments, to the importance of archiving evidence of human rights violations using reliable platforms. Many of these topics were completely new to me and outside the range of issues, technologies, and strategies that had been on my radar.
During the summer portion of my internship, I also watched and took notes on Human Rights Council sessions related to human rights conditions in various countries like Belarus, Burundi, and Georgia. This assignment offered me an informative glimpse into what actually goes on in UN meetings. This summer in particular was an extremely interesting time for me as an American to observe Human Rights Council meetings. In June, following the killing of George Floyd, the Human Rights Council held an urgent debate about systemic racism in law enforcement and police violence against protesters in the United States. Philonise Floyd, George Floyd’s brother, spoke at the session. He urged the Human Rights Council to establish a commission of inquiry to investigate police brutality against Black people in America. The United States was not present at the meeting. At the intern and staff meeting following the urgent debate, we talked about the fact that this was unusual, as countries typically take the opportunity to respond to criticism or comments directed toward them at Human Rights Council meetings. It was helpful to hear comments about the urgent debate from the International Justice Program Director and Senior Staff Attorney because they highlighted noteworthy details I otherwise may not have noticed or understood.
One of the most valuable pieces of knowledge that I’ve gained from this internship is a much more well-rounded understanding of the human rights review process at the United Nations, as well as civil society’s role in holding countries accountable for human rights violations and for following through with promised reforms. I gained exposure to so many different human rights issues in different countries, as well as the unique issues that certain countries focus on when participating in peer review processes like the UPR. I also gained a better understanding of the politics that play out during the UPR and during Human Rights Council sessions, where the relationships between member states affect the issues that are emphasized or overlooked when a particular country’s human rights conditions are reviewed.
Interning with the International Justice Program has been immensely rewarding, and I’m so grateful to have had this experience. I’ve been so inspired by the International Justice Program staff and their dedication to working to address human rights issues around the world. Observing the work of the staff in all of The Advocates’ programs has been enriching and inspiring and I look forward to keeping up with The Advocates in the future and continuing to follow all of the incredible work they are doing.
By Sarah Borden, Yale undergraduate student and International Justice Program intern
Sarah Borden
The Advocates for Human Rights is a nonprofit organization dedicated to implementing international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law.
Curious about volunteering? Please reach out. The Advocates for Human Rights has an opportunity for you.
Eager to see change? Give to our mission, our vision, our work. Your gift matters.
In the early morning hours of January 13, 2021, the United States government violated its international obligations in taking the life of Lisa Montgomery. Lisa Montgomery was convicted of a terrible crime. But her conviction came after a trial in which the judge and jury were not given the full story of the horrific childhood abuse, including sexual torture, that she endured, nor of the multiple psychosocial disabilities she developed as a result of that abuse and of fetal alcohol syndrome because of her mother’s alcoholism. US courts refused, over the ensuing years, to grant Ms. Montgomery a new trial or sentencing hearing at which that evidence could have been properly considered. The Trump administration ignored many pleas for clemency.
The execution of Lisa Montgomery also violated the United States’ obligations under international law. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty to which the US is a party, guarantees that no one will be arbitrarily deprived of the right to life. It is clear that the failure to afford a death penalty defendant a fair trial makes the resulting death sentence arbitrary. Earlier this week, Ms. Montgomery’s attorneys obtained several stays of her execution, all of which were quickly vacated by the US Supreme Court. A federal district court in Indiana found that testimony of mental health experts established the threshold showing to require a hearing to determine whether Ms. Montgomery was able to understand why the government sought to execute her. Unfortunately, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, while agreeing that the requisite showing was made, ruled that the claim was raised too late. In other words, even though her execution was recognized to be unlawful under the US Constitution, it proceeded anyway.
The UN Human Rights Committee has explained in its General Comment 36 how Article 6 of the ICCPR applies in cases involving the death penalty. The execution of a person whose psychosocial disabilities impeded her defense, limited her moral culpability, or diminished her ability to understand the reason for her sentence, as well as the execution of a person who has suffered serious past human rights violations, all factors that applied in Ms. Montgomery’s case, also violate the ICCPR as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life.
The Inter-American Commission for Human Rights had recently called for a stay of the scheduled execution so that it could fully review alleged violations of Ms. Montgomery’s human rights due her psychosocial disabilities, lack of due process in her trial, and the conditions of her detention. Ms. Montgomery (the only woman on federal death row) was being held in solitary confinement. All of these rights are protected under both the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man and the American Convention on Human Rights. Article 7 of the ICCPR also prohibits prolonged solitary confinement as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
Ms. Montgomery’s execution followed the executions of ten other people put to death by the Trump administration over the last several months. Two more executions are scheduled this week. Tomorrow, January 14, the Trump administration plans to execute Corey Johnson. Mr. Johnson’s execution would also violate the ICCPR due to his intellectual disability. Like Lisa Montgomery, Mr. Johnson’s right to a fair trial was also violated because his intellectual disability was not adequately considered at his trial. Mr. Johnson is seeking a stay of his execution based on his intellectual disability claims.
Finally, on Friday, January 15, the Trump administration intends to execute Dustin Higgs. Mr. Higgs was a participant in a crime during which another man killed three women. It is undisputed that Mr. Higgs did not kill anyone. The UN Human Rights Committee explained in General Comment 36 that where the death penalty has not yet been abolished, it must be limited to only the “most serious crimes,” which include only those crimes in which the person sentenced to death intentionally killed someone.
The planned executions of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Higgs are currently subject to a stay issued by a Washington, DC, district court. The federal court held that the executions cannot be carried out until the two men have recovered from COVID-19 infections, due to the heightened risk that the lethal injection process would cause pulmonary edema and resulting terrible pain and sensation of drowning (similar to waterboarding, which is widely recognized as torture). Proceeding with the executions under these circumstances would also violate Article 7 of the ICCPR, which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
An additional tragedy here is that these executions come just days before the inauguration of President-Elect Joe Biden. Mr. Biden has stated his intention to halt further executions, and members of Congress are preparing to introduce legislation to formally end the federal death penalty. Had Lisa Montgomery been able to maintain a stay of her execution for just over a week, her execution would likely have never taken place. The Advocates for Human Rights deplores the Trump administration’s unlawful taking of these lives, and urges President-Elect Biden to immediately commute all remaining federal death sentences to ensure that those sentences will never be carried out.
Read The Advocates’ recent blog post about the IACHR’s resolutions regarding Lisa Montgomery and Tennessee’s only female death row prisoner, Christa Pike.
Learn about the movement to pass legislation to end the federal death penalty here.
Read a summary of Ford v. Wainwright, the US Supreme Court case holding that executing a person whose mental condition prevents him or her from understanding the reason for the execution constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
By Lisa Borden, International Justice Program Staff Attorney at The Advocates for Human Rights
The Advocates for Human Rights is a nonprofit organization dedicated to implementing international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law.
Curious about volunteering? Please reach out. The Advocates for Human Rights has an opportunity for you.
Eager to see change? Give to our mission, our vision, our work. Your gift matters.
When I began law school, I knew that I would like to one day work in advocacy or human rights work, preferably in the space of international law. While I was aware of organizations like The Advocates for Human Rights where these kinds of legal positions were available, I did not really understand the role of lawyers in advocacy work or how their work fits into international law spaces.
Since becoming an intern at The Advocates, one of the most valuable things I have gained is an understanding of what it means to be a lawyer in the field of human rights advocacy and how important all aspects of a civil society organization are in that work.
The first and most obvious way that lawyers have an impact in advocacy work is through direct representation of someone who experiences a human rights violation. Direct representation is one way to help someone seek justice for a human rights violation they experienced, either in the form of reparation or punishment for the perpetrator. As an intern in the International Justice Program, I knew that this sort of direct advocacy would not necessarily be in our realm of work; direct service is more in line with programs like The Advocates’ Refugee and Immigrant program.
I was surprised to learn that in the International Justice program there are opportunities, slightly different from representation, to directly help someone who has experienced a human rights violation. For example, the International Justice Program works with the Maldivian Democracy Network, a human rights organization that the Maldivian Government arbitrarily shut down in 2019. Providing support to and advising them during their legal proceedings to challenge the government’s actions is an aspect of advocacy that I had not thought about as part of a lawyer’s role before my internship. Although it is not direct representation, it still is an explicit way to help someone who has experienced a human rights violation.
I have also discovered a big impact that lawyers can have by effecting change on a big picture level, rather than the individual level that I just mentioned. Coming into the internship, I knew what some of the overarching goals of The Advocates were, but I was not sure about the role of a lawyer in achieving those goals. After a semester of observing this process, I think a lawyer’s role can be best described as someone who figures out how to get from where we are now to the end goal by navigating through existing law and finding the best path to make change happen. I have observed and participated in this part of the process by engaging with UN mechanisms designed to bring about change. Sometimes, this path can be very straightforward in that we just need to advocate for a country to uphold its international obligations. The path toward change can be more complicated when organizations lobby a country to adopt new international obligations. I’ve learned this process takes longer and its effects can be harder to see than direct representation. If you are successful, your efforts will prevent a rights violation from even happening in the first place.
Overall, it has become clear to me in my time at The Advocates that lawyers play a prominent role in human rights advocacy and international law. The path from recognizing the need for change and getting that result can be long, arduous, and likely impossible without a person specialized in knowing how to do so. YetI have also learned that a lawyer’s role is just one piece of the process of advocating for change and that all members of civil society and civil society organizations play a role that is just as important as a lawyer’s role.. The entire advocacy process would not be possible without people who recognize a problem and push for change, which provides space for lawyers to work toward a solution. Further, people who ensure implementation of a solution are also vital to the advocacy process.
My time at The Advocates so far has given me immeasurable experience in understanding the framework and process of human rights advocacy on an international scale. Understanding the role of a lawyer in this field has been extremely beneficial to honing a career path and has prepared me for any future endeavors in advocacy work.
By John Weber, University of Minnesota Law student and legal intern in The Advocates’ International Justice Program
John Weber, U of MN Law student and legal intern at The Advocates for Human Rights
The Advocates for Human Rights is a nonprofit organization dedicated to implementing international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law.
Curious about volunteering? Please reach out. The Advocates for Human Rights has an opportunity for you.
Eager to see change? Give to our mission, our vision, our work. Your gift matters.
Mrs. A and her husband with Professor Steve Meili and other members of the U of M legal team in November 2019
“We are not afraid anymore.” states Mrs. A, a client at The Advocates for Human Rights, who along with her husband and two children, recently received an asylum grant after four long years of uncertainty.
When Mrs. A contacted The Advocates, she and her family had been through a great deal. Mrs. A, her husband, and their two children lived in a neighborhood in Southern Mexico with a heavy cartel presence. Without sufficient finances to pay illegally demanded “rent”, the family faced life-threatening danger. Cartel members did not hesitate to show up in Mrs. A’s neighborhood, guns in hand. Open fire ensued, wounding Mrs. A in her side and causing her husband and children to have severe injuries. Afraid and desperate, Mrs. A ventured with her family to a place of safety at the home of her relatives in Minnesota. She knew the road to safety would be long and arduous, but the first step was leaving Mexico, a place where she no longer felt safe to raise her children. Over the course of the next four years, the family would have to persevere and hold on to a distant beacon of hope. Volunteer attorneys in collaboration with The Advocates for Human Rights strove to be this beacon.
In the US, limitations on asylum grants continue to increase, making an asylum win no small feat. According to the US Department of Homeland Security, only 3.4% of Mexican asylum seekers were granted this humanitarian protection in 2019[1]. In recent years, the federal government has dramatically increased restrictions on access to asylum protection for victims of cartel and gang violence. In 2019, the Trump administration implemented a policy that forces asylum seekers from Central America to return to Mexico for an indefinite amount of time while their claims are processed[2]. In addition to compiling evidence, volunteer attorneys must make sure clients can remain in the country during the processing of their case. Mrs. A commented how grateful she felt to be away from “the place that has caused [them] so much harm.”
The Advocates have a deep network of volunteers willing to work pro bono on asylum cases, including immigration clinics at all three Minnesota law schools. Professor Steve Meili, faculty director of the Immigration and Human Rights Clinic at University of Minnesota’s Binger Center for New Americans, took on Mrs. A’s case and along with his clinical students, they created a robust legal team.
Winning an asylum case is a collaborative effort. Staff at The Advocates for Human Rights’ Refugee and Immigrant Program provided support to the UofM legal team, providing strategy suggestions and helping to keep the team apprised of the frequent changes in asylum law over the course of the case. Because asylum cases have become more difficult to win in the United States, it is essential that refugees feel this network of legal support within their community. Mrs. A stated that her lawyers were “kind, attentive, efficient, and all meanings of the word”. After four long years since Mrs. A and her family’s arrival to the United States, the immigration judge granted asylum to her and her family. “Now I can see my kids run and play and know that I don’t have to worry.”
What does it mean to be a lawyer for an asylum seeker? As Mrs. A stated, her lawyers became her family. She states “I feel like they mix with us and live through us and are emotionally invested in the cases. I saw the lawyers as my lawyers, but also as my family. They were there for me in crisis and when I lost hope. They were always with me when I was desperate or when it was really hard for me to talk about my case and they were there to console me and say, ‘Okay you can take a break.’ Now that I am not working with them anymore, I feel like I am losing a part of me.” At The Advocates for Human Rights, volunteer attorneys work tirelessly to win cases like Mrs. A’s and in doing so incorporate themselves into the lives of clients.
Thank you to all our volunteer attorneys for the work you do to make refugees feel safe and free in this country. The commitment of pro bono attorneys with The Advocates makes a lasting and significant impact on the lives of people like Mrs. A, as she notes “Don’t give up. Help your lawyers as much as you can to build a strong case. Collect all the evidence you can from your country. And we can do it.”
[1] U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (September 2020). Refugees and Asylees: 2019. Annual Flow Report. Ryan Baugh.
[2] City News Service (December 2019) Only 0.1% Of Asylum Seekers Granted Asylum Under Trump’s Remain In Mexico Policy KPBS.org.
By Nechelle Dias, University of Connecticut student and Communications Intern at The Advocates for Human Rights
Nechelle Dias, UConn student and intern at The Advocates for Human Rights
The Advocates for Human Rights is a nonprofit organization dedicated to implementing international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law. The Advocates represents more than 1000 asylum seekers, victims of trafficking, and immigrants in detention through a network of hundreds of pro bono legal professionals.
Curious about volunteering? Please reach out. The Advocates for Human Rights has an opportunity for you.
Eager to see change? Give to our mission, our vision, our work. Your gift matters.
In 2013, the UN General Assembly proclaimed the International Decade for Persons of African Descent, to be observed from 2015 to 2024. More than halfway through the Decade, little progress has been made toward addressing the systemic racism faced by people of African descent in the US and around the world. As part of its ongoing advocacy for eradicating systemic racism in US law enforcement and urgently addressing racially biased police violence, The Advocates for Human Rights recently submitted statements to two United Nations human rights bodies that are currently examining these issues.
The Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent (WGEPAD) was established by the UN Human Rights Council in 2002. Its mandate broadly calls for it to study the racial discrimination faced by people of African descent living in the diaspora and to recommend measures to address and eliminate this discrimination in order to ensure full and fair access to justice and to promote the human rights of people of African descent around the world. In late November of 2020, in preparation for a full session in December, the WGEPAD held a series of regional meetings with civil society organizations to receive their input about the situation of human rights for people of African descent, including the most currently urgent concerns, and the measures civil society believes should be prioritized to address those concerns. The Advocates participated in the WGEPAD’s meeting with civil society in Western Europe and North America and was among the organizations presenting oral statements.
In early December of 2020, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights called for inputs from civil society to assist in the preparation of a report requested by the Human Rights Council. The Office of the High Commissioner is the leading UN human rights entity, established by the General Assembly in 1993. The report requested by the Human Rights Council is to address “systemic racism, violations of international human rights law against Africans and people of African descent by law enforcement agencies, especially those incidents that resulted in the death of George Floyd and other Africans and people of African descent, to contribute to accountability and redress for victims.” The request follows an unprecedented debate at the Council last summer on the subject of systemic racism in the U.S., urged by the African group of nations in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd. The debate has prompted renewed examination of issues of systemic racism and police violence. However, a resolution passed by the Council at the conclusion of the debate was unfortunately (and to widespread criticism) stripped of all references to the United States.
In response to the call for inputs, The Advocates has submitted to the High Commissioner the same information it previously provided to the WGEPAD.
Here is the full text of our statement to both of these human rights mechanisms:
The case of George Floyd, a Black Minneapolis resident murdered by police officers last May in the city where The Advocates for Human Rights is headquartered, starkly illustrated the widespread and longstanding human rights violations experienced by people of African descent in the United States. The problems we address today are longstanding ones. The post-slavery era of racial segregation laws enforced by police violence and lynchings was nominally ended by laws passed during the 1960s and 70s, but soon gave way to the criminalization of Black Americans and the era of mass incarceration, with millions deprived of the right to vote following criminal convictions, as well as through widespread voter suppression and racial gerrymandering designed to dilute the influence of Black voters.
The most immediately urgent human rights concerns facing people of African descent in the US today are racially discriminatory police violence and criminalization, and the deliberate suppression of their right to participate in the political process. These challenges are intertwined, as the unequal criminalization of Black people is a tool for their disenfranchisement, and their disenfranchisement prevents them from exercising political power.
Consider these statistics on the scope of racially discriminatory police violence:
Black people are 3x more likely than white people to be killed by police.
Black men face a 1 in 1,000 chance of being killed by police.
Investigations of many killings by police are internal, not truly independent and impartial as required by international standards such as the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Deaths. Since 2013, 99% of such killings have NOT resulted in officers being charged with a crime. Of 100 officers who were charged with a crime in connection with a fatal shooting since 2009, only 35 were convicted of any crime. All 50 states and Washington, D.C. U.S. states fail to comply with international standards on the use of lethal force by law enforcement. Barriers to accountability include overly broad laws on reasonable use of force, and the legal doctrine of qualified immunity, which often shields officers from facing the consequences of their actions in even in civil courts.
The vast majority of protests prompted by Mr. Floyd’s murder were peaceful, but many were met with unnecessary and disproportionate use of force by law enforcement and National Guard troops, which deployed tear gas, rubber bullets, and flashbang grenades. There were also several hundred reported incidents of law enforcement physically attacking, intimidating, and arbitrarily arresting journalists covering the protests.
Racial disparities in the criminal justice system extend far beyond encounters with police. A Black man in the US faces a 1 in 4 chance of going to prison. Black men make up 34% of the prison population and 41% of those on death row.
In 2016, 31 States had laws disenfranchising more than 6 million people with felony convictions, with a hugely disproportionate impact on Black Americans – more than 7% of adult Black Americans were disenfranchised, while less than 2% of others were affected. Added to the nearly half million currently incarcerated Black Americans, about 3.5 million adult Black Americans are simply not allowed to vote at all.
While George Floyd’s murder has sparked examinations of police accountability and modest institutional reform, to date change has been limited. In Minneapolis, for example, police are now barred from using chokeholds but major reform measures are still being debated. During the next 5 years, The Advocates would like to see the following measures prioritized.
Dismantle existing policing systems and redesign them to ensure respect for and protection of human rights;
Adopt at local, state, and national levels comprehensive legislation prohibiting racial profiling;
Collect and publish disaggregated statistics about police stops, searches, and use of force, to monitor trends regarding racial profiling and treatment of minorities by law enforcement;
Establish independent oversight bodies with jurisdiction over police conduct, with real authority to conduct impartial investigations of all complaints of human rights violations;
Conduct a full review of police procedures and training to better comply with international human rights standards;
Provide adequate resources to train law enforcement officials de-escalation and other techniques and strategies to minimize use of force;
Assess the disproportionate impact of mandatory minimum sentences on racial and ethnic minorities;
Create a national commission to examine police tactics nationwide, including the use of excessive force, militarization of local police forces, and policing of protests.
Establish a national truth and reconciliation process to address the root causes and continuing impacts of structural racism that has existed since the beginning of the Transatlantic slave trade, and to determine appropriate avenues of redress including collective reparations.
In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, which is but one example of the rampant and senseless killings of Black Americans by law enforcement, The Advocates will continue to actively press for the intervention of the international community to call for urgent and substantive reform.
16 Days of Activism – November 25 through Human Rights Day, December 10
This October, a wave of protests and rallies spread across Bangladesh following several high-profile sexual assaults. In response, Bangladesh amended the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act to allow the death penalty for rape. This response from the government does not protect women victims of sexual assault, but rather deters them from reporting and decreases conviction rates. It also represents an impermissible application of the death penalty, giving rise to additional human rights violations. As in many other nations that have made capital punishment available for rape, this response is merely a smokescreen to avoid meaningful reform and temporarily quell calls for change.
The first of these assaults occurred on 5 January when the rape of a second-year student from Dhaka University sparked a widespread day-long protest led by thousands of University students. In response to this outcry, the High Court of Bangladesh ordered the law ministry to form a commission within 30 days to address the rise in sexual assaults. Nine months later, this commission has yet to be formed. The second assault occurred on 25 September. Six members of the Bangladesh Chhatra League- the student wing of the governing party in Bangladesh- were arrested and charged following the crime, a gang-rape of a woman in the city of Sylhet. Tensions in Bangladesh finally peaked when news of the earlier gang-rape of a woman in Noakhali district, which took place on 2 September, went viral in early October. Footage of the attack circulated on Facebook after her attackers released the video. Although eight people were arrested in direct connection with this assault, the resulting protests and social media movement had a significant impact. Hundreds of Facebook and Twitter users changed their profile photos to an empty black space and social media platforms were utilized by demonstrators to organize human chains, rallies, and demonstrations in cities across Bangladesh.
Sexual assault in Bangladesh is a pervasive and systemic problem. According to Ain-o-Salish Kendra, a Bangladeshi human rights organization, over 907 women and children were raped in the first nine months of 2020 alone. Of these reported assaults, more than a fifth were gang-rapes. These numbers only capture a small fraction of the true number of sexual assaults in Bangladesh, as most survivors face significant hurdles to reporting and accountability. Bangladeshi women and children who are victims of sexual assault face widespread social stigmatization, threats, and a systematic barring of access to justice and accountability. Survivors of sexual assault who go to the police often face reluctance to file cases, gender-based bias, victim-blaming, and humiliation. Minimal access to legal aid, medical care, safe shelter, witness protection, or psychological and social counseling characterizes Bangladesh’s typical response to assault survivors. Additionally, the Bangladesh government has yet to pass long promised and expected sexual harassment and witness protection laws.
Adopted in Bangladesh in 2000, the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act [“Act”] outlined punishments for sexual offenses, the trafficking of women and children, murder for dowry, sexual oppression, and other sexual violence crimes. Instead of creating a system for accountability, this Act has produced little change in Bangladesh. About 3.5% of cases filed under the Act have ended up in court. Altogether, the conviction rate for rape in Bangladesh is below 1% according to information gathered by Human Rights Watch. The wave of October protests prompted the Bangladesh Cabinet ministers to approve an Amendment to the Act on October 12. Whereas the Act previously stipulated life in prison as the maximum sentence for a rape conviction, the Amendment affirmed that anyone convicted of rape would be punished with “death or rigorous imprisonment for life.”
Imposing the death penalty for rape fails as a deterrent and as a mechanism for justice for sexual assault survivors. Stricter punishments are proven to have an inverse correlation with criminal convictions. Taqbir Huda, a research specialist at Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust, cautioned that allowing capital punishment for sexual crimes may result in lower conviction rates. Societal and governmental ambivalence toward rape and its victims is expressed through a high maximum penalty, such as the death penalty, which decreases the possibility of convictions or the imposition of any punishment. The introduction of the death penalty for rape also does nothing to address the core societal issues that lead to high rates of sexual assault in Bangladesh.
The Bangladesh Government should instead work to combat harmful stereotypes that make women and children more vulnerable to sexual assault, increase training on sexual assault for police and prosecutors, and establish protection measures and adequate remedies for victims.
The ramifications of the Amendment allowing for the death penalty for rape are already apparent. On October 15, in the first conviction since the introduction of the death penalty for rape, a Bangladesh special tribunal sentenced five men to death for the 2012 gang rape of a 15-year-old girl. The death penalty for rape in Bangladesh serves no meaningful legal, procedural, or social purpose. As best stated by Sultan Mohammed Zakaria of Amnesty International, “executions perpetuate violence, they do not prevent it.”
To learn more about the effects of establishing the death penalty for rape, please join us next Thursday, December 10th, at 7:00pm CST for a presentation with panelists Amy Bergquist, Kaarin Long, and Zaman Ashraf. Click here to register: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_H-M15xkHRTKLKSGsCzy4mw
By Anna Conrad, law student at St. Thomas University and legal intern with The Advocates’ International Justice Program
Anna Conrad, law student and legal intern with The Advocates for Human Rights
Each year on December 10, people all around the world celebrate Human Rights Day. The date was chosen to honor the United NationsGeneral Assembly‘s adoption on 10 December 1948 of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the first global statement of international human rights principles. The UDHR was the first international document that spelled out the “basic civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that all human beings should enjoy.” The UDHR has been translated into more than 500 languages, making it the most translated document in the world.
For 2020, the Human Rights Day theme is “Recover Better – Stand Up for Human Rights”. As the world grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic, this year’s theme focuses on the need to ensure that human rights are central to recovery efforts.
Human Rights Day also provides the opportunity to raise awareness about the importance of human rights at the local, national, and international levels. For example, The City of Minneapolis and the United Nations Association of Minnesota in collaboration with other local organizations will offer a virtual panel discussion with local human rights leaders including The Advocates’ Amy Bergquist, senior staff attorney, at 11am CT on December 10. Additionally, The Advocates will hold a volunteer information session via Zoom on December 16 at noon CT, for anyone interested in learning more about ways to engage in human rights.
What are human rights? Human rights are the minimum standards that are necessary for all people to live with dignity, freedom, equality, justice, and peace. Every person has these rights simply because they are human beings – and they cannot be taken away. They are guaranteed to everyone without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. These rights are interconnected and indivisible. Human rights are essential for each of us to develop to our full potential, as individuals and as members of our communities.
Why do human rights matter? Human rights standards are are also part of international law, contained in multilateral treaties that define specific rights that countries are required to uphold. Countries often incorporate international human rights standards in their own national, state, and local laws. While it is international community agreement that defines the minimum human rights that must be protected and promoted, the impact of human rights is deepest at the individual and community level. Eleanor Roosevelt, who was Chairperson of the UDHR drafting committee and one of the primary authors of the UDHR, described it like this:
“Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home — so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. […] Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.”
Eleanor Roosevelt, a primary author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Why does The Advocates conduct international advocacy? The Advocates’ mission is to implement international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law. We engage with the UN to amplify the voices of our clients and partners to leverage the authority of the UN, pushing governments to uphold their responsibility to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. The Advocates’ international advocacy involves documenting human rights violations and submitting written reports. We work alongside our partners to brief UN treaty bodies, lobby delegates to the Human Rights Council, host panel discussions for UN audiences, and lodge formal complaints. (Read more about how we build our partners’ capacity to engage in UN advocacy here.)
How does The Advocates connect local human rights issues with the international human rights framework? The Human Rights Day theme Recover Better – Stand Up for Human Rights is particularly meaningful this year. The murder of George Floyd by police officers in May in Minneapolis, the city where The Advocates for Human Rights is headquartered, starkly illustrated the widespread and longstanding human rights violations experienced by Black people at the hands of armed State actors in our local community. Yet no major U.S. city, including Minneapolis, meets basic, minimum international standards regarding police use of force. (Read more in our article Police Use of Force: Minnesota Falls Short) Using international human rights standards to identify where U.S. laws and practices fall short can also help us to identify ways to address the gaps.
In June, The Advocates made a written statement and recommendations at a special session of the UN Human Rights Council about the urgent need to dismantle the systemic racism that both fuels police violence in the US and leads to impunity for law enforcement officers who commit such violence. As the U.S. government response to protests grew increasingly violent, we provided training to human rights defenders in the United States and around the world to document crackdowns on peaceful protests and submit complaints to the UN.
For the Universal Periodic Review of the United States in November, The Advocates submitted written information to the Human Rights Council addressing critical human rights issues here at home – asylum, labor trafficking, the death penalty, and police accountability. We engaged in electronic advocacy to educate Human Rights Council delegates about these issues and held online educational events on human rights in the U.S. and access to counsel in U.S. death penalty cases to encourage countries to take up our issues during their brief statements.
While these steps to Stand Up for Human Rights in the U.S. have been important, we still have a long way to go.You can join us in celebrating Human Rights Day 2020 by taking action to promote and protect human rights. Here are some ideas:
Learn more about human rights and why they are important in The Advocates’ Human Rights Toolkit
Watch The Advocates’ training video to get an overview of advocacy with the UN’s human rights system here.
Stand up for human rights by sharing on social media using hashtags #Standup4humanrights #HumanRightsDay
Participate in the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent’s public 27th session on “The Urgency of Now: Systemic Racism and the Lessons of 2020” on the key themes and priorities for the protection of the human rights of people of African descent and how to address systemic racism based on international human rights law. Livestreamed 30 November to 3 December, 14.00-16.00 (CET)/7 – 9 am (CST) and available subsequently on demand on UN WebTV.
Volunteer! Learn about more ways to engage in human rights at The Advocates’ volunteer information session via Zoom on December 16 at noon CT.
Join a virtual panel discussion about human rights at the local level, cosponsored by the City of Minneapolis and the United Nations Association Minnesota Chapter on Thursday, December 10 at 11am CT.
By Jennifer Prestholdt, Deputy Director and International Justice Program Director at The Advocates for Human Rights
The Advocates’ scorecard to track recommendations from the international community
There may be a few reasonsthe world’s eyes are on the United States in recent days, but for three and a half hours on Monday, those eyes will be focusing not on election results, recounts, or infection rates, but on our country’s human rights record.
From 7:30 to 11:00 a.m. (CST) on Monday, the United Nations’ Human Rights Council will meet in Geneva to hold its third Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the United States. Read more about the process here.
The U.S. Government is sending a delegation to Geneva headed up by Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Robert A. Destro. Destro and colleagues will describe the status of human rights in the country and any progress the country has made in implementing recommendations it accepted from the last UPR in 2015. The State Department recently submitted its own national report to inform the UPR process.
The national report presents the current administration’s views on pressing human rights concerns. For example, responding to 2015 UPR recommendations to address police profiling, excessive use of force, and systemic racism in law enforcement, the report asserts:
“Each of these recommendations assumes – wrongly in our view – that the United States and federal, state and local governments engage in “systemic” racial discrimination, racial profiling, and that federal, state and local law enforcement officers are regularly engaged in excessive uses of force. We reject the notion that law enforcement in the United States is “systemically” racist.“
As part of the UPR’s peer-review process, 120 countries have signed up to take the floor and offer their praise, criticisms, and recommendations for how the United States can better uphold its obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. Due to time constraints, each country will have just 55 seconds to provide its input. Slovakia will kick off the “interactive dialogue” on Monday and then the countries will proceed alphabetically, wrapping up with Singapore.
Ten countries have submitted advance questions for the U.S. delegation on topics ranging from LGBTI rights to the controversial Commission on Unalienable Rights to immigration detention and police violence.
For this UPR of the United States, The Advocates submitted reports to the Human Rights Council addressing three critical human rights issues – asylum, labor trafficking, and the death penalty. Separately, in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, The Advocates made a detailed statement to the Council about the urgent need to dismantle the systemic racism that both fuels police violence in the US and leads to impunity for law enforcement officers who commit such violence. We’ve been busy engaging in electronic lobbying and holding onlineevents to encourage countries to take up our issues during their brief statements.
Sadly, there have been significant adverse developments in all of the areas addressed by our submissions since the last UPR of the United States in 2015, and it is more important than ever for the international community to use its influence to pressure the US for change.
The federal government will have until March 2021 to decide whether to accept each recommendation it receives. Accepted recommendations set the stage for civil society to pressure the government toward implementation before the next UPR in 2025.
Here are some ways you can follow the UPR of the United States on Monday and get involved:
Follow our Twitter feed at @The_Advocates, where we will livetweet the review. If you see us tweet a recommendation you think is particularly relevant or effective, especially if it addresses one of our issues of concern, retweet it and thank the government that made the recommendation. If we’ve @ mentioned the government in our tweet, they’ll see your reply.
Join us on Facebook as we livestream two thematic debriefings on Tuesday, November 10:
At noon CST, we’ll have a conversation with staff, volunteers, and partners about immigration, worker rights, and police violence and accountability, where we’ll show clips of some of our favorite statements, celebrate successes, and plan our next steps.
At 1:15 CST, together with other U.S.-based members of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, we’ll focus on death penalty issues that came up in the interactive dialogue.
Join us as we collaborate on strategies to encourage the administration to accept recommendations before the Human Rights Council meets in March 2021 to conclude its review of the United States.
By Lisa Borden, staff attorney for the International Justice Program at The Advocates for Human Rights. Before joining The Advocates earlier this year, Lisa practiced law in Alabama and worked on civil rights litigation including numerous death penalty cases. Lisa was also a frequent pro bono volunteer for The Advocates while in private practice.
The Advocates for Human Rights is a nonprofit organization dedicated to implementing international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law. The Advocates represents more than 1000 asylum seekers, victims of trafficking, and immigrants in detention through a network of hundreds of pro bono legal professionals.