'Crime should not pay' in the area of international human rights

"The length of this document defends it well against the risk of it being read" is contributed to Winston Churchill. Still, I take the risk of writing a bit longer than normal to address an issue that has bothered me for years. Several years ago I tried a post under the title: "The enforcement gap: what human rights NGOs should concentrate on in the next few years". The slightly updated version below is unfortunately still valid:

In many ways human rights has been an enormous success story. In about half a century, it has gone from a relatively minor issue in diplomatic relations to a major and ongoing international concern, with elaborate treaties, mechanisms and codes. General and specialized human rights organizations have among them millions of active members. The weakness remains enforcement, even in cases where the binding legal character of the rules is not in doubt.

This non-enforcement is of such a blatant character that there is a serious risk that many of the gains described above will be lost. Only half-jokingly the best advice one can give a tyrannical regime is to simply ignore all international condemnations, refuse to answer any queries, do not let any UN Rapporteurs or NGOs in, and after a while – usually quite quickly – the furor, if any, will dampen and the media will shine their light elsewhere, most likely where there is some degree of cooperation and access. This does not encourage States to follow human rights norms!

An example from the category of treaty obligations where a country has formally pledged to honor its obligations (Communication no 1150/2033 Uteeva vs Uzbekistan): When the sister of a man condemned to death complained that the confession was obtained under torture, the Human Rights Committee requested Uzbekistan not to carry out the execution while the case was under consideration. Six months later the Uzbek Government informed the Committee that the death sentence had been carried out.

Several countries have steadily refused to cooperate with the UN Human Rights Council and do not let Rapporteurs in (e,g, Iran, Cuba). Even more refuse to let NGOs in.

In the area of business and human rights over 3.000 companies have signed up to the Global Compact (a voluntary code to uphold basic standards – no real teeth, but striking off the list is possible). Hundreds of companies were struck off the list, but who knows about them?

There is an increase in reprisals against human rights defenders who cooperate with the UN or its mechanisms but the reaction by the international community remains one of noting the misbehaviour. In my blog I have published a great number of examples (https://thoolen.wordpress.com/tag/reprisals/).

Rather than speculate about why most human rights bodies and persons seem to accept this state of affairs (fatigue, not interesting for the media, not attractive for donors, etc), we should devise urgently mechanism to remedy this situation, to make sure that “crime does not pay”.

Some ideas:

• Every year on 10 December, Human Rights Day, the human rights movement – through a coalition of major and representative NGOs – should make public a list of the top 10 ‘refusniks’ (countries that stand out in ‘non-cooperation’ not necessarily the worst violators)

• Non-enforcement of decisions by any of the UN treaty bodies will have to be strengthened (a simple report to the General Assembly is not enough). The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights could be asked to compile an annual list of non-enforced decisions and give it the widest possible dissemination, including to the meetings of the States Parties. Persistent non-compliance should be routinely followed by inter-state complaints.

• A business company struck of the list of the Global Compact MUST make this known in the same media and publications in which its joining was announced and with same emphasis (this should be made this part of the code). Non-compliance with this requirement should lead to an active campaign by the UN to explain why the company was struck off the list.

• As reprisals amount to an attack on the integrity of the UN bodies which rely on NGO reports and information to carry out their important work, we should investigate the possibility of suspending the membership of countries in the Human Rights Council in case of serious reprisals against human rights defenders who coöperate with the UN. [https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/zero-tolerance-for-states-that-take-reprisals-against-hrds-lets-up-the-ante/]. .

Reactions and other ideas are most welcome.