UN Forum on Minority Issues – IARF Oral Submissions

Human Rights Council – Sixth session of the Forum on Minority Issues

“Beyond freedom of religion or belief: Guaranteeing the rights of religious minorities”

26 and 27 November 2013
@Room XX of the Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland

IARF’s six-person delegation included our two Zurich-based colleagues and two delegates from our partner organization based in Brussels (Human Rights Without Frontiers International), and spoke in four agenda items:

a). legal framework of protection of religious minorities;
b). protection of existence and prevention of violence against religious minorities;
c). promotion and protection of identity of religious minorities;
d). the promotion of constructive interfaith dialogue, consultation and exchange.

Oral Interventions:

1. 26th 
   On the legal framework for the protection of religious minorities
   Speaker: M. Jean-Claude Cantieni, president of Libref, IARF’s member group in Switzerland, using the example of Libref, and the Swiss legal framework as a good practice, although with specific recommendations as the Swiss legal framework is far from perfect.
   IARF Oral Statement Forum on Minority Issues (PDF, 1 page, French-language)

2. 27th
   On protection and prevention of violence against religious minorities and protection of identity of religious minorities.
   Speaker: Arben Sulejmani, representative of IARF member group the Bektashi Order of Macedonia, on the situation of the Bektashi religious minority.
   IARF Oral Statement on Macedonia (PDF 1 page)

3. Good Practice session: Constructive Interfaith Dialogue and Exchange 
   South Asia (Agenda Item 4)
   

________________

From the OHCHR’s pre-meeting Draft recommendations on guaranteeing the rights of religious minorities:

H. Prevention of violence and protection of the security of religious minorities

49. States have the responsibility to protect human rights and security for all and to create conditions of peace and stability. They must act appropriately and rapidly to protect the rights and security of persons belonging to religious minorities under threat and prosecute anyone who commits, supports or incites violence against them.

50. Preventive measures should be taken against acts of violence directed against persons or religious sites belonging to religious minorities. In situations of extreme risk, appropriate preventive measures should be rapidly deployed by law enforcement bodies and adapted as the situation evolves. States should take all necessary measures to ensure protection for and prevent attacks and violence against advocates for religious minorities’ rights and those who fulfil leadership or community roles and may be at greater risk of violence.

51. States should ensure that all cases of intimidation, harassment, persecution and other serious human rights violations against religious minorities are thoroughly and immediately investigated and perpetrators punished. Appropriate measures, including legal assistance, should be made available to religious minority groups as required in order to document cases of violence or intimidation and effectively prosecute those who commit attacks on them and communal violence.

52. In conflict situations, special attention must be paid to the situation and security of persons belonging to vulnerable religious minorities. Efforts should be made to fully reintegrate with dignity religious communities that have been displaced during conflict to their places of origin, allow access to all places of worship and other religious sites, and ensure protection of religious minorities present on the territory. Religious minorities from all religions within a State should be actively involved, including at the earliest stages and throughout peacebuilding initiatives and reconciliation processes.

I. Interfaith dialogue, consultation and exchange

53. In multi-faith societies, efforts to build a climate of trust, understanding, acceptance and interfaith cooperation and exchange should be established. Such measures benefit the whole of society and are essential elements of good governance.

54. States should consider creating or facilitating national and regional institutions aimed at fostering interfaith dialogue and projects promoting a culture of understanding and a spirit of acceptance. The establishment of formal and informal national and local institutions and platforms for dialogue where representatives of religious groups meet regularly to discuss issues of common concerns should be encouraged.

55. The potential of religious and political leaders in helping to build tolerant, inclusive societies and initiate and support such efforts and activities should be harnessed. Such influential community and national figures should be at the forefront of dialogue and inter-community cohesion efforts, as well as in publicly condemning any advocacy of religious hatred, discrimination, hostility or violence.

56. Initiatives relating to interreligious and interfaith dialogues should be as inclusive as possible and should be encouraged at the grass-roots level. The participation of women and young people belonging to religious minorities should be particularly encouraged and ensured through active outreach. The use of different channels of communication, such as the media, arts and local institutions, to foster interfaith dialogue and exchange should also be promoted.

UN Special Rapporteur’s 2013 Interim Report

The Special Rapporteur’s 2013 Interim Report  on Freedom of Religion and Belief was delivered on 7 August 2013 at the 68^th Session of the General Assembly. 

Theme: Intersection of freedom of religion or belief and equality between men and women.

Convention on Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women

• Article 5 – States Parties shall take all appropriate measures:
• To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women;

 [17] “Many [human rights] violations stem from stereotypical gender roles which are frequently also defended in the name of religion or belief…Gender stereotypes and stereotypical pictures of believers often exist in tandem, a problem disproportionately affecting women from religious minorities”

[33] “…the potential for synergies between freedom of religion or belief and promoting women’s right to equality remains systematically underexplored.”

 [28] “empowering groups who traditionally experience discrimination, including women and girls, freedom of religion or belief can serve as a normative reference point for questioning patriarchal tendencies as they exist in different religious traditions. This can lead to more gender-sensitive readings of religious texts and far-reaching discoveries in this field… This accounts for the possibility of direct synergies between freedom of religion or belief on the one hand and policies for promoting the equal rights of women on the other.”

Harmful Practices

[30] “…the Special Rapporteur notes with concern that such harmful practices as female genital mutilation, forced marriage, honour killings, enforced ritual prostitution or denying girls their rights to education are defended in the name of religious traditions. Such defence is frequently controversial within the various religious communities themselves, and many followers of the respective communities (possibly their overwhelming majority) may be heavily opposed to such practices and also voice their opposition publicly. If those still performing harmful practices try to invoke religious freedom for their actions, this must become a case for restricting the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief. The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate what his predecessor pointed out in her final report to the General Assembly: “The Special Rapporteur strongly believes that the mandate needs to continue highlighting discriminatory practices that women have had to suffer over centuries and continue to do so, sometimes in the name of religion or within their religious community. It can no longer be taboo to demand that women’s rights take priority over intolerant beliefs used to justify gender discrimination.” (see A/65/207, para. 69).”

Forced Conversion and Forced Marriage

[34] “…antagonistic views of the two human rights norms would further diminish the prospects of persons whose human rights problems fall in the intersection of freedom of religion or belief and equality between men and women. Indeed, human rights violations in the intersection of the two norms are a reality for many women. One obvious example is forced conversion in combination with forced marriage. In a number of countries, women or girls from religious minorities unfortunately run the risk of being abducted, with the purpose of forcing them to convert to the mainstream religion, often in connection with an unwanted marriage.”

To read full report, A/68/290 – see here.

• United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, addressing the UN General Assembly, 13 Oct 2013,
  See media release here, titled: Harmful practices inflicted on women or girls can never be justified in the name of freedom of religion or belief

• High-level Launching in Geneva of the Rabat Plan of Action, 21 February 2013: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/TheRabatPlanofAction.aspx
  • The Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (see A/HRC/22/17/Add.4)

• The Rabat Plan of Action was jointly adopted by experts, including the:
  • Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression,
  • Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, and the,
  • Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.

• UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief’s Country Visits in 2013:
  • Sierra Leone, 30 June to 5 July 2013 [LINK]
  • Jordan 2 – 12 September 2013
  • SRs requests to Governments for future country visits, include:
    • Bangladesh,
    • Indonesia,
    • Kazakhstan,
    • Uzbekistan; and,
    • Vietnam.

• UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief’s Annual Interactive Dialogue with the General Assembly 67^th Session, 25 October 2012, New York, on the Right to Conversion, see full statement

• Allegation Letters and Urgent Appeals: The SR sends allegation letters and urgent appeals to States seeking clarification on credible allegations of incidents and governmental action possibly incompatible with the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion (see declaration established under General Assembly resolution 36/55.

• Since this mandate was established, there have been more than 1,290 allegation letters and urgent appeals send to a total of 130 States.

• Status of Communications received between 1 June 2012 and 28 Feb 2013, and replies received from Governments before 30 April 2013. See reports A/HRC/22/67 [LINK]  and A/HRC/23/51

Compilation/Summary of Communications to States on FORB:

• USA 34/2012
• 20/12/2012 United States of America JUA
• Mandates: Arbitrary detention; Freedom of expression; Freedom of religion;
• Summary of the allegation transmitted: Alleged possible trial of a conscientious objector. According to the information received, Ms. Kimberly Rivera left the army without authorization while on leave from deployment to Iraq in early 2007. Ms. Rivera went to Canada after she made a decision that she could no longer participate in the war in Iraq or any other conflict for moral reasons. When she was in Canada, Ms. Rivera spoke out publicly about her objection to the conflict in Iraq. It has been reported that Ms. Rivera has been detained by the US military authorities since 20 September 2012 and may be tried before a court martial. If convicted, Ms. Rivera could face up to five years of imprisonment.
• State Response, 08/04/2013

• BGD 2/2013
• 18/01/2013 Bangladesh
• Mandates: Freedom of expression; Freedom of religion; Human rights defenders;
• Summary of the allegation transmitted: Alleged attack on, and stabbing of, a prominent blogger in Dhaka. According to the information received, on 14 January 2013, Mr. Asif Mohiuddin was attacked by three unidentified men as he was leaving his office in Uttara district. He was stabbed several times in the neck and back and was in critical condition at the time of sending the communication. Mr. Mohiuddin is a prominent blogger, whose Bengali language blog ―Almighty only in name, but impotent in reality‖ is reportedly one of the most visited websites in Bangladesh. In his blog, Mr. Mohiuddin, who is an atheist, frequently criticized religion, and also provided commentaries on free speech and other human rights issues.
• State Response, 29/01/2013

• IRN 4/2013
• 28/01/2013 Iran (Islamic JUA Republic of)
• Mandates: Arbitrary detention; Freedom of religion; Independence of judges and lawyers; Iran; Torture;
• Summary of the allegation transmitted: Alleged detention and attacks against a Christian on allegations of committing ―actions against the national security of Iran‖. According to th information received, on 26 September 2012, Mr. Saeed Abedinigalangashi, an Iranian-US citizen, was arrested in the Islamic Republic of Iran before catching a flight back to the United States of America, where he resides. He has been held in Evin prison, Iran, ever since. His lawyer was denied access to the detainee and his file, and no information was provided about the charges brought against him. On 14 January 2012, his lawyer was reportedly informed that Mr. Abedinigalangashi‘s trial would start on 21 January 2013, and allowed access to his file. Mr. Abedinigalangashi has allegedly been held in solitary confinement for four weeks and subjected to beating while in prison. Mr Abedinigalangashi was previously summoned to court in 2005 on account of his religious activity and was detained in 2009. He was released after agreeing to cease his involvement with the ̳house churches‖.
• State Response: No reply.

• KOR 1/2012
• 17/04/2012 Republic of JAL Korea
• Mandates: Freedom of religion; Independence of judges and lawyers; Torture;
• Summary of the allegation transmitted: Alleged deportation and secret detention in Uzbekistan. According to the information received, Mr. X fled to the Republic of Korea in 2008 to escape religious persecution in Uzbekistan. Reportedly, on 7 February 2012, he was arrested on the basis of alleged illegal entry and stay in the country and was taken to Seoul Immigration Office where he remained detained for four days before he was transferred to the Hwasung Foreigner Detention Center. Allegedly, Mr. X was not allowed to file an asylum seeker application until after UNHCR intervened. On 21 March 2012, Mr. X was notified of the rejection of his application for refugee status and was deported to Uzbekistan. Mr. X was reportedly not given a chance to appeal to the Minister of Justice which he was entitled to within 14 days. His mother later learned from the local police that her son had been taken to the National Security Service by the so-called secret police. His fate and whereabouts remained unknown.
• State Response, 21/06/2012
• State Response, 29/08/2012 
• BHR 12/2012
• 29/11/2012 Bahrain
• Mandates: Freedom of expression; Freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Freedom of religion; Human rights defenders;
• Summary of the allegation transmitted: Alleged interrogation and deportation of human rights defender and withdrawal of citizenship of 31 political activists. According to the information received, on 15
November 2012, Dr. Nada Dhaif, along with her husband and two children, were
denied access to Kuwait and were subsequently deported. Upon their arrival at Alniuissib Port, Dr. Dhaif was allegedly separated from her family and interrogated on her role in alleged anti-Government protests. She was reportedly also questioned on her and her husband‘s religion, and was denied legal representation during the interrogation. Dr. Dhaif, Chairperson of Bahrain Rehabilitation and Anti-Violence Organization, was subsequently informed that her name was on a list of Bahraini citizens who were denied entry to Kuwait, reportedly provided by the Government of Bahrain in July 2012. Furthermore, on 7 November 2012, the Ministry of the Interior published a list of names of 31 individuals, whose Bahraini citizenship was allegedly revoked by the Ministry on the grounds that the listed persons were allegedly ―damaging the security of the State‖. Of the published names, the majority are reportedly Shiite political activists, two of which are human rights defenders: Mr. Abbas Omran and Mr. Taymour Karimi. 19 of the 31 listed individuals do not reportedly hold another nationality and are therefore now stateless.
• State response, 08/01/2013

17th UPR Session – Country Review of Nigeria

Country Review of Nigeria

Nigerian Government Statements (Opening, Closing, Country Report) [upload pdf]

Media Statement:  http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/Highlights22October2013pm.aspx

First Cycle: Date of consideration: 9 February 2009 – 2.30 p.m. – 5.30 p.m.

Second Cycle: Date of consideration: 22 October 2013 – 9:00 a.m. – 12:30p.m.

Draft Working Group Report: First Cycle [upload pdf], Second Cycle [upload pdf]

Statements on Freedom of Religion or Belief by the Delegation of Nigeria:

16.          The Delegation stated that the issue of sexual orientation did not enjoy consensus within the United Nations human rights system and all attempts to integrate sexual orientation into existing universally recognized human rights have so far failed. The overwhelming majority of Nigerians objected to same sex relationship based on their deep religious, cultural and moral orientations, against which no government could successfully legislate.   There was no policy or practice of witch-hunting people based on their sexual orientation.

70.          The Delegation stated that religious freedom was guaranteed in the Constitution; The Delegations stated that Instances of extra-judicial killings brought to the attention of the Government have been well addressed.

Recommendations’ on Freedom of Religion or Belief in Nigeria by States:

17th UPR Session – Country Review of Malaysia

Country Review of Malaysia

Malaysian Government Statements (Opening, Closing, Country Report) [upload pdf]

Media Statement:  http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/Highlights24October2013pm.aspx

First Cycle: Date of consideration: 11 February 2009 – 2.30 p.m. – 5.30 p.m.

Second Cycle: Date of consideration: 24 October 2013 – 2:30 p.m.  – 6:00 p.m.

Draft Working Group Report: First Cycle [upload pdf], Second Cycle [upload pdf]

Statements on Freedom of Religion or Belief by the Delegation of Malaysia: 

66. The delegation further discussed the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion in Malaysia which is subjected to the constitutional restrictions pertaining to the propagation of other religion or belief on Muslims and the preservation of public order and national security. Malaysia explained on the recent Court of Appeal decision dated 14 October 2013 on the case concerning the Herald – the Catholic Weekly. In gist, the Court decided clearly that the Minister’s decision to ban the use of the word “ALLAH” in the Malay version of Herald is constitutional and legal. The Court ruled that the Minister’s decision was based on legitimate grounds of public safety and public order as such action raised religious sensitivities in Malaysia. The Minister’s decision as a preventive measure to ensure public safety and public order in Malaysia is legal and also in compliance with the laws to control and restrict the propagation of religious doctrine or belief among Muslims.

73.          Malaysia emphasised that Islam and Islamic administration of justice under the Syariah has a long history in Malaysia. The status of Islam as the religion of the Federation and the freedom to practice religions other than Islam is also enshrined in the Constitution.

130.        The delegation responded to questions and comments raised in the preceding interactive dialogue by reiterating that Orang Asli rights to land, beliefs, culture and non-discrimination are clearly provided for by the Federal Constitution and the Aboriginal People’s Act 1954.

Recommendations on Freedom of Religion or Belief by other States:

17th UPR Session – Country Review of China

Country Review of China

Chinese Government Statements (Opening, Closing, Country Report) [upload pdf]

Media Statement:   http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/Highlights22October2013am.aspx

First Cycle: Date of consideration: Mon 9 February 2009 – 9.00 a.m. – 12.00 a.m

Second Cycle: Date of consideration: Tues 22 October 2013 – 9:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Draft Working Group Report: First Cycle [upload pdf], Second Cycle [upload pdf]

Statements on Freedom of Religion or Belief by the Delegation of China:

17.          China has taken concrete actions in protecting people’s freedom of speech and freedom of religious belief in accordance with law. People can express views freely through microblogs, postings and other means. There are 5,500 religious organizations, 100 religious universities and 140,000 sites for religious activities.

19.          Minority ethnic groups enjoy extensive human rights. Their freedom of religious belief and the right to use and develop their spoken and written languages are respected and guaranteed.

90.          China protects the lawful rights and interests of religious groups and religious sites. Citizens enjoy full range of religious freedom. Those who engage in unlawful or criminal activities under the disguise of “religions” are punishable by law.

91.          Remarkable achievements have been made in human rights endeavours in Tibet, where traditional culture and religious freedom are protected. The affordable housing projects in Tibetan-residing areas have been carried out on a voluntary basis, to the satisfaction of vast majority of farmers and herdsmen.

Recommendations on Freedom of Religion or Belief by other States:

17th UPR Session – Country Review of Israel

Country Review of Israel

Israel Government Statements (Opening, Closing, Country Report) [upload pdf]

Media statement  http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/Highlights29October2013pm.aspx

First Cycle: Date of consideration: Thurs 4 December 2008 – 2.30 p.m. – 5.30 p.m.

Second Cycle: Date of consideration: Tues 29 January 2013, 2:30 pm – 6:00 pm; Postponed to Tues 29 October 2013 2:30pm – 6:00pm

Draft Working Group Report: First Cycle [upload pdf], Second Cycle [upload pdf]

 
Recommendations on Freedom of Religion or Belief by other States:

13th Universal Periodic Review

In 2012, on the basis of our human rights education work in India, we submitted to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, our first contribution to this new mechanism of the UN (established 2006) for the monitoring of states’ human rights records.

• IARF Joint UPR Submission 2012 – India   (PDF, 8 pages)
• Webcast of UPR Report of India 24 May 2012 (UN site; see 6:40 in video for religious freedom)
• Webcast of adoption of UPR Report of India 30 May 2012 (UN site)

XIX Session of the Human Rights Council

29 February to 23 March 2012

 IARF has two involvements in this 2012 session:

1     Written & Oral Statements 

Written Statements to the  Human Rights Council (HRC) exist as a means for NGOs to directly lobby the HRC’s member states. The Statements are intended to highlight specific thematic issues or country situations. They are also one of the best ways to show support for the work of specific Special Rapporteurs (in fact, the Special Rapporteurs’ reports rely much on information received from NGOs).

• Joint written Statement to Human Rights Council on religious minorities in India

• Joint Written Statement to Human Rights Council on religious minorities in Pakistan

The HRC also provides for a specific interactive dialogues (around 2-3 hours) involving NGOs giving also 2-minute Oral Statements highlighting key issues of their greatest concern, directly after a Special Rapporteur has presented her/his report. 
This year the Report was given on 6th March. IARF joined with Civicus in the following statements:

• Oral Intervention on violence against children, Philippines

• Oral Intervention on arbitrary detention, Philippines

In the September session, IARF also joined other NGOs in the following:

• Joint NGO Statement on Human Rights Education

2     NGO Panel Series on Human Rights Education in Practice     1-page flyer, PDF
        In parallel with the 19th Session of the Human Rights Council 
        Palais des Nations, 15th March 2012

Co-sponsored by the Platform for Human Rights Education & Training in the Human Rights Council with the following member States: Costa Rica, Italy, Morocco, Philippines, Senegal, Slovenia & Switzerland.

This panel series is one of the key activities of the NGO Working Group on Human Rights Education & Learning of which IARF is one of the key members.

Panel 2: “Human Rights Education in Formal Settings”   1-page flyer, PDF 
Organised by IARF in conjunction with the Kennedy Centre for International Studies 

This topic focuses on our experience in providing HRE training in universities & colleges primarily in India.

September 2012 session:

1

Consolidated Report of NGO panel series on Human Rights Education during the 19th Session of the Human Rights Council in March 2012, organized by IARF in collaboration with 5 other international NGOs based in Geneva. (PDF, 17 pages)

2

IARF also participated in the interactive dialogue following the report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 
Please see our Representative’s short write-up Indigenous Peoples and Access to Justice (PDF, 1 page).

RFYN meets UN official India visit

27 April 2013, Chennai

Following the wave of concern over women’s issues in India since the New Delhi rape atrocity of December 2012, the  Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in the United Nations arranged, under the ‘Special Procedures’ instrument for human rights issues, a country visit by the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, from April 22 to May 1, 2013.

The SR herself (Ms Rashida Manjoo) was unable to attend a scheduled meeting with civil society organisations in Chennai on 27th April 2013, but our RFYN representatives met with her proxy.

Please read their report here (PDF, 3 pages).

IARF and HRWF co-sponsor HRC UPR side event

UN Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
Side Event on freedom of religion in Russia 
29 April 2013
in conjunction with the review of the human rights records of Russia through the Working Group on the UPR of the Human Rights Council.

Jointly organised by IARF and Human Rights Without Frontiers International (HRWFI)

Topics & Speakers:

• The law on extremism – Alexandr Verkhovsky from Sova Center in Moscow
• A number of court cases in Russia – Sergey Ivanenko, a Russian lawyer
• European Court decisions against Russia in religious matters – Attorney Patricia Duval from Paris
• Religious intolerance fostered by the state and anti-sect movements in Russia – Willy Fautré from Brussels

HRWF Report: Russia Side Event, UPR 2013 (PDF 1 page)