Human Rights Council Hears that New Climate Protection Technologies Interfere with Human Rights; that Systemic Racism Is Worsening; and that Reported Acts of Reprisal against Persons Cooperating with the United Nations Remain High

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Advisory Committee, and started an interactive dialogue on the report of the Secretary-General on cooperation with the United Nations and its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights.  The Council also concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples.

Milena Costas Trascasas, Chairperson of the Advisory Committee, said two reports had been finalised and were being submitted to the Council for its consideration.  The report on the "Impact of new climate technologies on the enjoyment of human rights" examined the human rights implications of two broad types of geoengineering: carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation modification.  The report concluded that new climate protection technologies interfered with the enjoyment of human rights, including the right to life; to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment; to an adequate standard of living; to access to food and water; and to access to justice and effective remedies.  At this stage of their development, it should be presumed that all these technologies were harmful to human rights.

The second report, entitled “Promoting racial justice and equality by eradicating systemic racism” highlighted that systemic racism was often hidden and was present in all States.  The report noted that systemic racism continued to advance, indicating that the overall situation was worsening.  The report further emphasised that the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action of 2001 represented, to date, the document that had achieved an international consensus on instruments to combat racism.  The report also discussed national measures to promote racial justice and underlined that addressing systemic racism required inclusive and holistic country-centred processes and a systemic response. 

In the discussion, some speakers said the impact of new technologies for climate protection on the enjoyment of human rights was a new and timely topic that could help advance a human rights-based approach to climate action.  There was need for transformative change that could aid achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, and the work of the Advisory Committee in this regard was appreciated, including with regard to the eradication of systemic racism.  The global march towards the 2030 Agenda, in which no one should be left behind and the farthest should be first reached, was a perfect opportunity to uplift societies that had for decades laboured under the weight of racism.  One speaker said the Advisory Committee was politicised and certain countries were manipulating its composition, in line with efforts to transform the Human Rights Council into a punitive body with quasi-judicial powers.  

Speaking in the discussion with the Advisory Committee were European Union, Panama on behalf of a group of countries, Republic of Korea, Brazil, Egypt, Poland, Malawi, China, Russian Federation, Maldives, Pakistan, Panama, Morocco, Cuba, Venezuela, Gambia, Greece, India, Spain and Iran.

Also speaking were Centre for International Environmental Law, FIAN International e.V., Sikh Human Rights Group, Stichting Global Human Rights Defence, iuventum e.V., and Amnesty International.

The Council then started an interactive dialogue on the report of the Secretary-General on cooperation with the United Nations and its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights.

Ilze Brands Kehris, United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, presenting the report of the Secretary-General on cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives, and mechanisms, said despite ongoing efforts, regrettably, the number of reported acts of intimidation and reprisal by State and non-State actors remained high and their severity was concerning.  The report highlighted the scope and breath of intimidation and reprisals due to cooperation with the United Nations.  This year’s report included 40 countries in all regions.  Fourteen were current members of the Council and many countries listed featured in almost every annual report. 

Ms. Brands Kehris said the global trends documented this year were similar to those identified in previous reports, but with new emerging tendencies.  The report documented the mass dissolution of civil society organizations under non-governmental organization regulatory frameworks, and the enactment and development of new restrictive laws, and their negative impacts.  The report also identified in 11 Member States a generalised climate of fear of reprisals for cooperation with the United Nations.  The report identified with concern the specificity and severity of acts of reprisals against women and girls, who represented half of the victims in the report.   Despite the serious situation, some good practices from Member States and United Nations entities gave hope.  The United Nations was determined to live up to the collective duty and responsibility to prevent and address intimidation and reprisals against those who cooperated with the Organization. 

In the discussion, many speakers strongly condemned all acts of intimidation or reprisal against all individuals seeking to engage or engaging with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights.  Such actions had a chilling effect, deterring individuals and communities from engaging in dialogue and cooperation with the United Nations, and in turn, hampering the collective pursuit of peace, security, and development.  Some speakers strongly condemned all unlawful acts by States and non-State actors targeted to discourage individuals from expressing their concerns and providing valuable information to the United Nations.  One speaker said the report was full of false, prefabricated and unfounded allegations, and did nothing to support cooperation, but was part of interventionist policies by certain countries that sought to portray these falsehoods as truth. 

Speaking in the discussion on the Secretary-General’s report on reprisals were Luxembourg on behalf of a group of countries, Latvia on behalf of a group of countries, Lithuania on behalf of a group of countries, European Union, Australia on behalf of a group of countries, Ireland on behalf of a group of countries, Russian Federation on behalf of a group of countries, Luxembourg on behalf of a group of countries, United Nations Development Programme, Ecuador,  Costa Rica, Egypt, Switzerland, Germany, France, Iraq, United States, Malaysia, State of Palestine, Armenia, Indonesia, Russian Federation, South Africa, Cameroon, Pakistan, Yemen, Algeria, Cuba, Togo, Venezuela, Philippines, Czechia, India and Botswana.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples.

Francisco Cali-Tzay, Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, in concluding remarks, said the solution to cover the gaps between green finance and indigenous peoples was to have a human rights-based approach that included indigenous persons.  During the past year, he had continued to receive a high number of reports regarding violations of indigenous peoples’ rights, including reports of harassment, intimidation and reprisals, from around the world, which were deeply concerning.  Mr. Cali-Tzay urged all States to ensure that no one who cooperated with his mandate would suffer intimidation, threats, harassment or punishment, or be subjected to judicial proceedings or any other kind of reprisals.

In the discussion, some speakers said that at all times, human rights-based approaches must be ensured, with the necessary social and environmental safeguards put in place to protect the lives and livelihoods of indigenous peoples.  Indigenous peoples must be given all the benefits of the access to green financing projects, and they must be consulted in their elaboration.  One speaker said it was important to take into account the particularities, historic and socio-economic development and particular interests of States when assessing the effectiveness of green financing to support and uphold the rights of indigenous people. 

Speaking in the discussion on indigenous peoples were Malaysia, Armenia, China, Indonesia, Russian Federation, South Africa, Cameroon, Peru, Tanzania, Panama, Cuba, Togo, Venezuela, Philippines, Guatemala and Iran.

Also speaking were Burundi: Commission nationale indépendante des droits de l'homme, as well as the following non-governmental organizations: International Work Group For Indigenous Affairs, Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy, Iepe - Instituto de Pesquisa e Formacao Indigena, Conectas Direitos Humanos, FIAN International e.V., Peace Brigades International, Conselho Indigenista Missionário, Action Canada for Population and Development, Right Livelihood Award Foundation, and Amnesty International.

The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here.  All meeting summaries can be found here.  Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s fifty-fourth regular session can be found here.

The Council will next meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, 29 September, when it will continue the interactive dialogue on the Secretary-General’s report on cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights.  This will be followed by a briefing by the President of the Economic and Social Council, and the general debate under agenda item five on human rights bodies and mechanisms.

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples started in the previous meeting and a summary can be found here.

Intermediary Remarks

FRANCISCO CALI-TZAY, Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, said to ensure the better participation of indigenous women, the State and the private sector needed to take steps to ensure indigenous women were consulted on projects which may affect their rights and interests.  States needed to scale up funding for indigenous women and their organizations.  When investing in green finances, funding should be targeted directly to indigenous women.  A whole chapter in the report discussed the Trust Fund developed to support the global development framework.  Private funders had more flexibility in operational requirements and could channel direct support to indigenous persons.  Indigenous peoples had spoken at COP27 on principles and guidelines for direct climate actions. 

Addressing a question on how the mandate could close protection gaps and ensure meaningful participation in green finance, Mr. Cali-Tzay said he closely cooperated with other indigenous peoples’ mechanisms to identify early warning signs.  However, his calls did not always receive the necessary attention.  He called on States to respond favourably to his country requests. 

Discussion

In the discussion, some speakers hoped that the Special Rapporteur would engage more States to share their best practices in safeguarding and promoting the rights of the indigenous peoples.  The full application and respect of the human rights of indigenous peoples, as enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, was vital for promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous communities.

A speaker agreed with the Special Rapporteur that if a human rights-based approach was used, the shift to green finance could be an opportunity for indigenous peoples to obtain funding to preserve their lands, knowledge and distinct ways of life, and to create economic opportunities that may maintain and strengthen their identity.  The key role played by indigenous peoples, particularly women and girls, when combatting climate change and the loss of biodiversity, must be acknowledged by all, another speaker said.  Green financing was important, another speaker said, as it could stop the disappearance of certain eco-systems and conservation areas.  It was vital for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and the attainment of the various goals set in international treaties. 

At all times, human rights-based approaches must be ensured, with the necessary social and environmental safeguards put in place to protect the lives and livelihoods of indigenous peoples.  Indigenous peoples must be given all the benefits of the access to green financing projects, and they must be consulted in their elaboration.  Action and advocacy needed to continue to ensure that developed countries continued their commitment to support the efforts of the Global South in the area of development, which would allow them to fulfil the needs of all vulnerable parts of the population, including the indigenous.  The economic, social and cultural rights of the indigenous peoples must be upheld. 

Some speakers supported the efforts of the Special Rapporteur to protect and promote the human rights of indigenous peoples: host countries had the primary responsibility to establish a legal framework to support the rights of indigenous peoples in green financing projects.  The Special Rapporteur’s report mentioned that there was no significant improvement of the rights of indigenous peoples in some countries, and that historic and systematic discrimination continued: States must take time to respect their rights, in particular their rights to land and resources in the context of project financing, a speaker said.

One speaker pointed out that it was important to take into account the particularities, historic and socio-economic development, and particular interests of States when assessing the effectiveness of green financing to support and uphold the rights of indigenous peoples.  What was needed was an assessment of the environmental impact of a just transition from the existing economy to the so-called green economy, and the speaker asked whether this would not be erasing indigenous knowledge, in attempting to reduce the risk of climate change and improve adaptation.  There were high risks for indigenous peoples which were not always taken into account by specialists.

Among questions posed to the Special Rapporteur were: could his research identify exemplary and effective practices of green financing by States aimed at empowering indigenous populations; given the need for a just green transition that would require development financing, involving indigenous peoples as equal partners, what should be the main priorities for the transformation and reform of the multilateral development banks, to make them fit for this purpose; and how to incorporate the concept of human rights in the elaboration of the human rights economy, a term recently used by the Special Rapporteur?

Concluding Remarks

FRANCISCO CALI-TZAY, Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, said the solution to cover the gaps between green finance and indigenous peoples was to have a human rights-based approach that included indigenous persons.  Multilateral banks were bound under international law.  States that borrowed from these institutions also continued to be bound by their own international human rights obligations, which gave rise to due diligence on the part of the banks.  Mr. Cali-Tzay thanked everyone who had participated in the dialogue.  During the past year, he had continued to receive a high number of reports regarding violations of indigenous peoples’ rights, including reports of harassment, intimidation and reprisals, from around the world, which were deeply concerning.  Mr. Cali-Tzay urged all States to ensure that no one who cooperated with his mandate would suffer intimidation, threats, harassment or punishment, or be subjected to judicial proceedings or any other kind of reprisals.

There had been some positive developments for the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, such as the recent vote in a referendum in Ecuador against the oil drilling of a protected area in the Amazon that was home to two uncontacted tribes, and served as a biodiversity hotspot.  However, it was still concerning that a draft bill was currently being discussed in Congress, which sought to establish through legislation the same temporal restriction which had now been rejected by the Supreme Court of Brazil.  Mr. Cali-Tzay concluded by expressing gratitude to all indigenous peoples, States and civil society organizations that had cooperated with him and his mandate.

Interactive Dialogue with the Advisory Committee

Reports

The Council has before it the reports of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the impact of new technologies intended for climate protection on the enjoyment of human rights (A/HRC/54/47) and on advancing racial justice and equality by uprooting systemic racism (A/HRC/54/70).

Presentation of Reports

MILENA COSTAS TRASCASAS, Chairperson of the Advisory Committee, said two reports had been finalised and were being submitted to the Council for its consideration.  The report on the "Impact of new climate technologies on the enjoyment of human rights" examined the human rights implications of two broad types of geoengineering: carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation modification.  It assessed the physical, social, political and ethical risks posed by these technologies, and their impact on certain rights, as well as the impact on indigenous peoples, farmers, fishermen and other rural populations and frontline communities. 

The report concluded that new climate protection technologies interfered with the enjoyment of human rights, including the right to life; to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment; to an adequate standard of living; to access to food and water; and to access to justice and effective remedies.  At present, the development of any such technology and the formulation of policies would not conform to the standards of protection of the human rights regime.  At this stage of their development, it should be presumed that all these technologies were harmful to human rights.  Human rights law and obligations required the adoption of a precautionary approach and justified a moratorium on speculative technologies.

The second report, entitled “Promoting racial justice and equality by eradicating systemic racism” highlighted that systemic racism was often hidden and was present in all States.  The report also argued that the existence of systemic racism represented an obstacle to States' ability to implement the Sustainable Development Goals.  To achieve these goals, systemic barriers needed to be dismantled.  The report noted that systemic racism continued to advance, indicating that the overall situation was worsening.  The report further emphasised that the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action of 2001 represented, to date, the document that had achieved an international consensus on instruments to combat racism.

States were encouraged to re-familiarise themselves with the contents of the document and its true nature, and to engage in dialogue and support the ongoing processes within the United Nations to implement the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.  The report also discussed national measures to promote racial justice and underlined that addressing systemic racism required inclusive and holistic country-centred processes and a systemic response.  It was recommended to establish a national dialogue in each country on racism, and also to focus on the consolidation and coordination of actions with a view to maximising the work of the many United Nations bodies, agencies, legal instruments and treaty bodies dedicated to achieving racial justice.

The Advisory Committee continued to work on the other two mandates it had received from the Council, including the study on "the impact, opportunities and challenges of neurotechnology with regard to the promotion and protection of all human rights", and the study on "the implications of new and emerging technologies for human rights in the military field".  The study on neurotechnology and human rights was well advanced and the Committee was working with the intention of submitting it at the fifty-seventh session of the Council.  As the Council's think tank, the Advisory Committee provided the Council with research-based expertise and advice on a wide range of issues, providing a tool which enabled the Council to explore emerging human rights issues.  The Committee had the capacity to work on multiple mandates simultaneously. 

During the reporting period, the Committee submitted four research proposals to the Council on children's rights and climate change; human rights approach to addressing gender-based violence; protecting academic freedom and the free flow of research; and protection of the rights of victims in United Nations human rights mechanisms. 

Discussion

In the discussion, some speakers said the impact of new technologies for climate protection on the enjoyment of human rights was a new and timely topic that could help advance a human rights-based approach to climate action.  One speaker said that a growing number of human rights experts had sounded the alarm that some climate mitigation strategies, such as geoengineering, could have major adverse impacts on the enjoyment of human rights, and serious impact on biodiversity and the environment.  Climate action must be based on the Paris Principles and on international agreements.  There was a need for transformative change that could aid the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, and the work of the Advisory Committee in this regard was appreciated.

Some speakers agreed with the Advisory Committee that human rights standards and obligations should guide decision making and risk assessment related to the potential deployment of these climate protection technologies, and shared the Advisory Committee’s view that building confidence among the public and ensuring participation of the communities was essential in making a decision in their regard.   There must be a holistic, inclusive and comprehensive approach and the need for all stakeholders to collaborate in addressing the possible impacts, opportunities and challenges of new technologies with regard to the promotion and protection of human rights.

Speakers reiterated full commitment and support for the work of the Advisory Committee and encouraged its continuous engagement in the Human Rights Council.  With regard to the study on ‘Advancing racial justice and equality by uprooting systemic racism’, speakers agreed with the need to develop common understandings of this issue and its implications.  There was also appreciation of the proposal of the Advisory Committee to study the protection of victims’ rights in United Nations human rights mechanisms, with a focus on the right to a remedy and reparation for gross human rights violations.

The efforts made by the Advisory Committee were appreciated, including with regard to the study on the eradication of systemic racism, some speakers said.  States must fulfil their obligations under international human rights and make all efforts to eradicate systematic racism and compensate victims.  With the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Right and 20 plus years of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, it was noticeable that progress had been made in advancing racial justice and equality.  However, as the report noted, much radical and diligent work needed to be done, as systematic racism was deeply entrenched.  The global march towards the 2030 Agenda, in which no one should be left behind and the farthest should be first reached, was a perfect opportunity to uplift societies that had for decades laboured under the weight of racism.  Speakers said that to dislodge systemic racism would require systemic efforts at national and international levels to uproot the institutional and structural base upon which racism had thrived.

The Advisory Committee must limit itself to issues under its mandate, a speaker said, and noted that the reports contained superficial analysis and conclusions not based on scientific practice, calling upon the Committee to leave such issues to the appropriate experts.  The Advisory Committee was politicised and certain countries were manipulating its composition, in line with efforts to transform the Human Rights Council into a punitive body with quasi-judicial powers.  The speaker called upon the Committee to resist such steps.

Speakers asked how to encourage greater participation of civil society and young people in the work of the Advisory Committee; and could the Advisory Committee further elaborate on the recommendation to explore closer collaboration and synergy among treaty bodies and Special Procedures to advance racial justice.

Concluding Remarks

MILENA COSTAS TRASCASAS, Chairperson of the Advisory Committee, welcomed this genuinely interactive dialogue.  It was very useful, and the Advisory Committee welcomed such opportunities for interaction.  On the report relating to mechanisms to eradicate systemic racism, and how to ensure greater degrees of cooperation and synergy between the different mechanisms and treaty bodies to make headway on this issue, there was a recommendation in the report, namely number 58, and this provided an answer to the question.  The report’s annex was vital in understanding this issue: there was a need to focus on the consolidation of measures and tools in order to maximise their effects.  

On the report on climate protection technologies, it was important to introduce discussions on the theme of human rights when discussing this issue, and thus the Advisory Committee had tried to innovate on the theme, based on the respect for human rights, and tried to set a solid legal foundation to give this vision a perspective applicable both in terms of the environment and of human beings.  Civil society had a key role to play in disseminating the findings of the report.  The Chairperson concluded by saying the Advisory Committee had appointed a focal point responsible for introducing and considering how to interact with civil society: the theme of youth was definitely one to be explored further.  The gender perspective was introduced and considered systematically in the reports of the Advisory Committee. 

Interactive Dialogue on the Secretary-General’s Report on Cooperation with the United Nations, its Representatives and Mechanisms in the Field of Human Rights

Report

The Council has before it the United Nations Secretary-General’s report on reprisals (A/HRC/54/61).

Presentation of Report

ILZE BRANDS KEHRIS, United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, said she was presenting the report of the Secretary-General on cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives, and mechanisms.  This session, the Council would adopt the biennial resolution on reprisals and would have the opportunity to renew and strengthen its commitment to prevent and address the issue.  Despite ongoing efforts, regrettably, the number of reported acts of intimidation and reprisal by State and non-State actors remained high and their severity was concerning.

The report highlighted the scope and breath of intimidation and reprisals due to cooperation with the United Nations.  This year’s report included 40 countries in all regions.  Fourteen were current members of the Council and many countries listed featured in almost every annual report.  The global trends documented this year were similar to those identified in previous reports, but with new emerging tendencies.  First, evidence of self-censorship had increased, meaning the choice not to cooperate with the United Nations, or to do so under conditions of anonymity - due to fear of reprisals.  Second, online and offline surveillance of those who cooperated with the United Nations was reported in half of the Member States included in the present report.  Third, almost 45 per cent of the Member States included in the report continued to apply or enact new laws and regulations concerning civil society, counter terrorism and national security, which punished, deterred or hindered cooperation with the United Nations and its human rights mechanisms.  The report also documented the mass dissolution of civil society organizations under non-governmental organization regulatory frameworks, and the enactment and development of new restrictive laws, and their negative impacts.

The report also identified in 11 Member States a generalised climate of fear of reprisals for cooperation with the United Nations, an overall reluctancy to cooperate, or the impact of measures that resulted in self-censorship, anonymous reporting, and in some instances limited interaction with the United Nations.  As in previous years, several human rights defenders and civil society actors continued to serve lengthy prison sentences, face legal proceedings on terrorism, national security or other charges, and face additional obstacles to their cooperation with the United Nations, including travel bans. 

The annual report of the Secretary-General on reprisals only included allegations that the United Nations had been able to verify in accordance with the methodology of the United Nations Human Right Office.  That meant that the absence of reported allegations or their decrease in certain contexts was not necessarily a positive sign.  In such global context, it was becoming increasingly difficult to properly document, report and respond to incidents of reprisals.  United Nations entities confronted serious challenges when it came to verifying reprisals’ allegations or obtaining the informed consent to act and/ or report on the incidents due to the real risks and dangers faced by those concerned.  The report identified with concern the specificity and severity of acts of reprisals against women and girls, who represented half of the victims in the report.   For engaging with the United Nations, these women faced intimidation, harassment and threats, including against their children.  Women were also arbitrarily arrested, sentenced to long-term prison terms, or continued in detention, awaiting trial for years. 

Despite the serious situation, some good practices from Member States and United Nations entities gave hope.  Ms. Brands Kehris welcomed that some Governments addressed the allegations presented to them, including in the form of investigations into reported threats, and the assessment and provision of protection measures to those concerned.  Some States had expanded specific programmes for victims, including support to emergency assistance grants, safety and security training, and providing practical guidance and resources to their diplomats. 

From the United Nations side, since the designation of the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights as the senior official to lead the United Nations response to reprisals five years ago, the Office had supported all United Nations bodies in their efforts, including by developing practical guidance and tools.  Some United Nations entities had strengthened their response by putting systems in place to identify, document and address allegations; reviewed working methods; and adopted dedicated protocols or guidelines to prevent and address reprisals.  Ms. Brands Kehris said the United Nations was determined to live up to the collective duty and responsibility to prevent and address intimidation and reprisals against those who cooperated with the Organization. 

Discussion

In the discussion, many speakers strongly condemned all acts of intimidation or reprisal against individuals seeking to engage or engaging with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights.  Such actions had a chilling effect, deterring individuals and communities from engaging in dialogue and cooperation with the United Nations, and in turn, hampering the collective pursuit of peace, security and development.  In order to ensure accountability, it was important that specific cases of reprisals and intimidation received public attention.

Some speakers strongly condemned all unlawful acts by States and non-State actors targeted to discourage individuals from expressing their concerns and providing valuable information to the United Nations.  Such acts constituted grave attacks against the very essence and proper functioning of the United Nations system itself.  Speakers welcomed the good practices at national and international levels indicated in the report, including those shared by Member States and gathered throughout the United Nations system, and echoed the importance of ensuring civil society organizations access to the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights.

While regretting that the number of reported acts of intimidation and reprisal remained high during the reporting period, some speakers were also concerned about the new tendencies identified in the report, namely the increase in self-censorship, online and offline surveillance, and the abuse of counter terrorism and national security laws with the aim or effect of deterring or hindering cooperation with the United Nations, as well as the gender dimension and the specificity and severity of acts of reprisals against women.

The harassment, intimidation and arrest of human rights defenders, journalists, media workers, indigenous peoples, human rights lawyers, and other members of civil society and rights holders must stop, speakers said: civil society organizations should be able to work without fear.  By providing essential on-the-ground expertise and advocacy, they contributed to effective decision making and meaningful outcomes for individuals globally.  There was particular concern for the increase in reprisals against diaspora activists and human rights defenders, particularly those with families left in their country of origin.

One speaker said the report was full of false, prefabricated and unfounded allegations.  It was a vehicle to put countries of the South in a negative light.  This type of report did nothing to support cooperation, but was part of interventionist policies by certain countries that sought to portray these falsehoods as truth. 

Among questions raised were: what preventive measures could be most effective to ensure meaningful engagement of all civil society actors, including women human rights defenders and youth, with the United Nations; what could be the top best practice to recommend to prevent and address intimidation and reprisals; what role could United Nations human rights mechanisms, in collaboration with Member States, play in ensuring good practices to prevent and address intimidation and reprisals; how could dedicated focal points within United Nations organizations help to deal with issues of reprisals; what could the international community do to remedy the situation; and what measures had been taken to foster international cooperation on this particular issue of protection?

Link: https://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/meeting-summary/2023/09/le-conseil-des-droits-de-lhomme-dialogue-avec-la-presidente-de