HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS PANEL DISCUSSION ON THE PROTECTION OF JOURNALISTS IN ARMED CONFLICT

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS PANEL DISCUSSION ON THE PROTECTION OF JOURNALISTS IN ARMED CONFLICT

Concludes Interactive Dialogue with Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression, Summary Executions and Trafficking in Persons

The Human Rights Council this morning held a panel discussion on the protection of journalists in armed conflict. It also concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on freedom of opinion and expression, on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and on trafficking in persons.

Introducing the panel discussion on the protection of journalists in armed conflict, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Kyung-Wha Kang said that today’s panel took place against the backdrop of alarming reports of killings, harassment, intimidation or kidnapping of journalists, men and women, in situations of armed conflict. According to reports, deliberate attempts to target journalists in areas of ongoing conflict were increasing. International law set out clear provisions for the protection of journalists in armed conflict. However, despite these unequivocal norms, there continued to be a high number of abuses and crimes targeting journalists, which were committed with impunity and emboldened other would-be perpetrators to follow suit.

Panellist Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said that the issue of the protection of journalists in armed conflict was of ongoing concern to his mandate. The role of journalists as monitors of human rights violations and war crimes frequently led them to become targets of intentional attacks by parties to the conflict. States had a threefold obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the right to freedom of expression. Preventing impunity functioned as the most important deterrent against the repetition of attacks on journalists and effective investigation of attacks and prosecution of persons responsible was in itself a means of protecting journalists.

Panellist Robin Geiss, Legal Adviser in the Legal Division of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said that the ICRC remained deeply concerned by the high number of acts of violence and deliberate attacks against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel. Experiences from recent armed conflicts, international as well as non-international, showed that media professionals were increasingly prone to become the victims of direct attacks in violation of international humanitarian law. It was often said that the first causality of war was truth. Journalists and other media professionals also ran a high risk of being subjected to arbitrary detention and internment for alleged security reasons.

Panellist Mogens Schmidt, Deputy Assistant of the Director-General for Communication and Information and Director of the Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace, at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said that with each conflict, the price paid by local journalists and foreign correspondents was getting heavier. The safety of journalists was an issue that affected all and every aggression against a journalist was an attack on the most fundamental freedoms. Mr. Schmidt also dispelled a commonly held misconception that during times of war, human rights law was suspended and humanitarian law came into play. That was incorrect and human rights were as applicable in wartime as they were in peace.

Osama Saraya, Editor in Chief of Al Ahram Newspaper, said that the war in Iraq was one of the modern wars which had shed the most light on the issue of the protection of journalists in areas of armed conflict. More than 280 journalists had been killed in the war since it started, and for many years Iraq had been at the top of the list of countries which was most dangerous for journalists. It was important to point out that none of those guilty of killing these journalists had been brought to justice. Death was not the only result of the phenomenon of attacking journalists. Some of the victims still lived with the trauma and could not function in the workplace due to physical and mental scars and injuries.

Panellist Omar Faruk Osman, President of the Federation of African Journalists, said that he was here to explain, in grim terms, the day-to-day reality of the safety and security situation of African journalists. Their predicament today was further complicated by the fact that in many conflict and non-conflict countries they had to face up to not only repressive national Governments, but also armed gangs and militias. The Horn of Africa was a place where to choose to become society's messenger often equated with choosing martyrdom. Journalists in Africa had today become the most unprotected and persecuted defenders of human rights. The Human Rights Council should send a clear message that it would not remain idle while journalists continued to be the subject of violent death and unjustified attacks.

Panellist Hedayat Abdel Nabi, President of Press Emblem Campaign, said that Press Emblem Campaign believed that the time had come for action in the form of developing guidelines through a working group that would lead to a global compact for the promotion of journalists. Some ideas of the Press Emblem Campaign included a call to guarantee unhindered, unfettered and uninterrupted Internet services at anytime and under all conditions and circumstances. The Press Emblem Campaign also reminded the Council that when its movement began in Geneva, it rallied around the idea of a recognized press emblem, which it continued to support. A protective emblem would symbolize that journalists were protected by law and carried with it the rights of compensation, the bringing of perpetrators of crime to justice and so forth.

In the course of the discussion, speakers said that the nature of warfare had changed, and there were new challenges, with a multitude of new actors, showing the need to re-evaluate norms and standards, and for the international community to think about what could be done to afford journalists greater protection. It was hoped that holding this discussion would send out an important message to journalists working in conflict zones, as well as providing means and mechanisms for protecting journalists further. International human rights law and international humanitarian law were the main tools for the protection of journalists in armed conflicts, in particular the Geneva Conventions and the additional Protocols. Moreover, the Human Rights Council should help countries emerging from conflict to create conditions respecting the freedom of speech and expression.

Speaking in the discussion were the representatives of Egypt, Norway, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Spain on behalf of the European Union, Canada, France, Greece, Qatar, Syria, Colombia on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, United Kingdom, Sudan on behalf of the Arab Group, China, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Azerbaijan, United States, Italy and Algeria.

Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, Reporters without Borders International, Article 19-International Centre Against Censorship and PEN International.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children.

In concluding remarks, Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said that freedom of expression had a key role to play in combating impunity. In terms of his upcoming visits, the Special Rapporteur reiterated that there were still pending requests for Venezuela, Tunisia, Iran, Sri Lanka and a few others. With regard to defamation of religion, Mr. La Rue said that he was profoundly concerned about issue of discrimination based on religion. Discrimination or racism could not be combated by restricting freedom of expression or through censorship. States should not have the power to decide what content was deemed acceptable.

Joy Ngozi Ezeilo, Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, said that the discussion in the Council and the comments and information provided by the delegations reinforced her conviction that trafficking in persons was a multifaceted crime, and was among the fastest-growing in the world. Agreement already existed on a number of issues, such as the need for a collective action to combat trafficking in persons and to take a human rights-based and victim-centred approach. There was disagreement over when, where and how this collective action would take place. Redress and the right to effective remedy would be the subject of her next report, which would also focus on identification, protection and assistance to victims.

Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, apologised sincerely to the Council for the lateness of several of his reports, which was not intended, and he regretted the delays. He was deeply appreciative that so many States made positive comments, in particular Sweden, which had been committed to the mandate for many years. The most important compliments were from States he had visited, such as Colombia, Central African Republic, and Brazil, all of whom considered the reports to be fair and constructive. These stood in marked contrast to the reply of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which condemned the detailed and carefully written report as not being objective, among other criticisms. It was very worrying when a State was in total denial of grave problems that were apparent to other observers.

The three Special Rapporteurs’ introduction of their reports took place on 3 June and are reflected in press release HR/10/62.

Speaking this morning in the interactive dialogue were Sweden, Mexico, Iran and Angola.

Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: Forum Asia for Human Rights and Development, Reporters Without Borders, Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women, Article 19-Internatinoal Centre Against Censorship and Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Freedom House, Conectas Direitos Humanos, ILGB Europe and Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Colombian Commission of Jurists and Amnesty International.

This afternoon at 3 p.m., the Council will hold an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health, the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences.

Interactive Dialogue on Freedom of Expression, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, and Trafficking in Persons

HANS DAHLGREN (Sweden) said as the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression had noted in his reports, acting in the spirit of freedom also meant acknowledging the role of civil society, in particular journalists, women, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights defenders, who often faced particular challenges. The Council could not stand idly by while individuals were sentenced to death, tortured, or subjected to arbitrary detention because they had exercised their most basic rights, and the Special Rapporteur should say which actions he would recommend that the Council perform to further strengthen its important role in upholding these human rights norms. The Internet held an enormous potential as a tool for realising the right to freedom of expression and information, and the Special Rapporteur should explain how the link between freedom of expression and development, and the role that the Internet could play in this regard.

ARTURO HERNANDEZ BASAVE (Mexico) said the Government of Mexico fully supported the mandates of all the Special Rapporteurs and thanked them for their reports. Indeed, freedom of expression was the cornerstone of any democratic country. As such, Mexico protected the non-restriction of ideas and opinions and would adopt measures to ensure the full enjoyment of this right. The Mexican Government was working to guarantee the protection of journalist unions as journalists represented the means through which citizens could have access to vital information. Social violence, as the result of organized crime, had threatened freedom of expression in Mexico. Mexico had held meetings with non-governmental organizations that focused on the freedom of expression to work on developing and adopting Governmental mechanisms. With this objective in mind, a special office would be set up to deal with and supervise any investigations on attacks against journalists. Finally, Mexico concluded by saying that protection needed to be extended to the victims of human trafficking.

MOHAMMAD REZA GHAEBI (Iran) said Iran thanked the three Special Rapporteurs for their reports and presentations. Iran reiterated that freedom of expression was not an absolute right and that it bore certain limitations. Iran strongly believed that the concept of defamation of religions belonged to the human rights discourse, and since it might constitute incitement to violence and hatred, it should be forbidden in practice and law. Access to the Internet should be done in a way that limited access to harmful information such as child pornography. Turning to the report presented by the Special Rapporteur on summary executions, Iran said that it had already responded to a number of communications it had received, which was evidence of its willingness to cooperate with the mandate holder. Iran regretted that the Special Rapporteur in one of his addendum reached a conclusion that was far from the truth. Executions carried out recently in Iran were related to terrorist activities and should not be classified as election-related killings.

ARCANJO MARIA DO NASCIMENTO (Angola) said the right to freedom of opinion and expression, like all rights, imposed legal obligations upon Governments to respect, protect, and give effect to that right. The Government of Angola stood for these principles, as the right to freedom of opinion and expression was one of the pillars of the new society being built in Angola since normalcy was restored. The Government was fully committed to continue to ensure that all citizens, both individually and collectively, freely enjoyed and exercised all constitutionally-protected rights, and had made major steps in this regard. The international community must prevent that the sanctity of the right to freedom of opinion and expression be used as a means to violate other legally-protected rights or to attain objectives that had nothing to do with human rights or humanitarian law. Incitement to hatred and violence was often portrayed by some as an exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression to its full extent - and there had been tragic events in some countries as a result of manipulation and abuse of this right. Cooperation with the United Nations human rights machinery implied that political propaganda vented by political opposition forces and negative stereotypes must not be part of the dialogue with sovereign and independent States. The Government stood committed to the protection and promotion of the human rights of its people, and would not be distracted by responding to politically-motivated accusations orchestrated by terrorist groups.

POOJA PATEL, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, noted with concern that a number of Asian States had the tendency to broadly interpret article 19 paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in a manner that most conveniently allowed them to crack down on the freedom of expression. As highlighted by the Special Rapporteur, any restrictions imposed on the exercise of a right should be proportionate to the aim and be no more restrictive than was required for the achievement of the desired purpose. Finally, the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development said that it was distressing that the Governments of Pakistan and Bangladesh had chosen to sweepingly block popular social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter.

GEORGE GORDON-LENNOX, of Reporters Without Borders International, congratulated the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression for his extensive analysis on the only permissible and strictly limited exceptions to freedom of expression, and on his reiteration of the position on the question of defamation of religions. Too many journalists, editors and cartoonists had been jailed or threatened in the name of this erroneous interpretation of international standards which protected individuals, not concepts. Reporters Without Borders was shocked that the Special Rapporteur had received no reply from Eritrea regarding the death of journalists in prison, and remained deeply concerned about the continuing restrictions of freedom of expressions in China. Reporters Without Borders asked if the Special Rapporteur intended to give increased attention to killings of journalists in Africa, notably in Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Reporters Without Borders welcomed the announced visit to Israel and remained very concerned about the unlawful detention by Israel of journalists and writers among the civilians and humanitarians involved in Monday’s tragic incident.

CAROLINE HAMES, of Global Alliance against Traffic in Women, said the Global Alliance against Traffic in Women welcomed the Special Rapporteur on trafficking's recommendation that mechanisms should assist in the creation of partnerships between Governments on the one hand and international organizations and civil society organizations on the other. For many civil society organizations, such partnership was central to their daily work. Multi-sectoral approaches were the only means of offering comprehensive protection, prevention, and prosecution assistance to trafficked persons. Coordination mechanisms should be grounded in international law and should adopt an evidence-based approach; there should be acknowledgement of the political implications of cooperation mechanisms if a human rights approach to anti-trafficking was to be promoted; States should be cautious to avoid overlap in order to ensure the optimal use of scarce resources; and civil society organizations must be fully integrated into all cooperation mechanisms.

SEJAL PARMAR, of Article 19 - The International Centre against Censorship, in a joint statement with Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, said that the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies fully supported the assertion by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression that international human rights law protected individuals and groups and not abstract ideas or institutions, and did not accord with the concept of “defamation of religions”. The Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies stated that it was only when coordinated and focused action was taken to promote freedom of expression and equality simultaneously that either could be effectively realized. Finally, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies urged all States to support the Special Rapporteur by accepting his requests for country visits and positively supporting him in carrying out his mandate.

PAULA SCHRIEFER, of Freedom House, said Freedom House placed high value on freedom of expression and assessed it annually in its global surveys. Levels of freedom of expression and freedom of the press had been steadily declining over the past eight years in all regions of words. Only one in six people in the world today lived in a country which enjoyed full freedom of expression and freedom of press. Freedom House drew the attention of the Council to the region of Sub-Saharan Africa which experienced the largest decline in freedom of expression and freedom of press, as found in this year’s survey. Other findings of the survey were disturbing as well, because freedom of expression had also declined in countries that had served as examples to others and because decline in freedom of expression and press underpinned many other human rights. It was important to point out that Sub-Saharan Africa was not the only region in the world that suffered from the violation of the right to freedom of expression and the press, and that it was followed by Latin America and the Middle East.

MARIANA DUARTE, of Conectas Direitos Humanos, said there were concerns about persistent human rights violations in Brazil, despite the implementation of important reforms to combat widespread killings by on-duty police, off-duty police participating in death squads and militias, killings in prisons, and pervasive impunity. The violent death rate inside the detention system was shocking, and so far there had been no investigation and no-one was being held responsible. Impunity was widespread in Brazil, and Espirito Santo was a sound example, with a long history of death squads and militias. The Special Rapporteur on summary executions was congratulated for his efforts and continuous dialogue with civil society, and he should make a visit to Espirito Santo. The Brazilian authorities should fully implement his recommendations.

SUNITA KUJUR, of European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Federation (ILGA-EUROPE), in a joint statement with Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network, in a joint statement, said that the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people were frequently denied. Pride events in some countries had been banned or subject to attacks by extremist hate groups. In some States, non-governmental organizations working on these issues were denied registration, their offices raided and materials seized. Moreover, conferences to address sexual orientation and gender identity issues had been disrupted by extremists while police stood by. In this regard, what measures could States take to address these concerns and better promote tolerance and respect for all marginalized groups.

ANA MARIA RODRIGUEZ, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, said the Colombian Commission of Jurists was grateful for the report on Colombia introduced by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in which he stated that military and security forces had committed many illegal killings, and that the rate of impunity for those crimes was as high as 98 per cent. The Special Rapporteur was also concerned about the alarming level of impunity of the paramilitary groups, and for the increase in homicides committed by new illegal armed groups. The most important obstacle to prosecution was continuing jurisdictional conflicts in Colombia between civil and military tribunals. This Council should act decisively to stop killings in Colombia committed both by paramilitary groups and the military.

PATRIZIA SCANELLA, of Amnesty International, said impunity had been a recurring theme throughout the reports of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, and Amnesty International shared his concern with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, urging the Government to establish vetting or screening mechanisms to exclude suspected perpetrators of human rights violations from the security forces, pending judicial investigation, and to implement the zero tolerance policy announced in 2009. With regard to Brazil, the Special Rapporteur had identified the high rate of impunity as a major problem in that country, but the Supreme Court had decided to maintain the current interpretation of the Amnesty Law, which had resulted in impunity in cases of torture and killings committed by the State during the military regime. Amnesty International recognized the significant contribution that the Special Rapporteur had made to the protection of human rights in his role to prevent violations, expose them where they had occurred, and provide greater clarity about international law as it related to the mandate.

Concluding Remarks

FRANK LA RUE, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, in concluding remarks said that freedom of expression was linked to all sectors of society. In this regard, the role of human rights defenders was to raise awareness about human rights and there was obviously a need for collaboration between his mandate and that on human rights defenders. Freedom of expression had a key role to play in combating impunity. By giving voice to the victims and raising awareness, issues like domestic violence, trafficking, child pornography and so on could be tackled more effectively.

Mr. La Rue said that he did not expect to be able to address every violation of freedom of expression but, in terms of his upcoming visits, he reiterated that there were still pending requests for Venezuela, Tunisia, Iran, Sri Lanka and a few others. Iran had limits on how many visits they could accept in one year but the Special Rapporteur hoped that this issue would be resolved and also that the budget of his mandate would be increased in order to allow him to visit as many countries as possible. The Special Rapporteur expressed his appreciation to Algeria for offering an invitation to come and visit their country and to provide technical advice on related legislation. With regard to defamation of religion, Mr. La Rue said he was profoundly concerned about the issue of discrimination based on religion. That said, discrimination or racism could not be combated by restricting freedom of expression or through censorship. As such, States should not depend on legal infrastructures as they could be used for other political purposes and States should not have the power to decide what content was deemed acceptable. Defamation of religion was a serious issue that needed to be tackled by creating a space for greater understanding and dialogue. Finally, with respect to violence against journalists, the Special Rapporteur reaffirmed that security of journalists was incredibly important and he encouraged States to implement national mechanisms to protect media workers.

JOY NGOZI EZEILO, Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, Especially in Women and Children, in concluding remarks, said that the discussion in the Council and the comments and information provided by the delegation reinforced her conviction that trafficking in persons was a multifaceted crime, and was among the fastest-growing in the world. Agreement already existed on a number of issues, such as the need for collective action to combat trafficking in persons and to take a human rights-based and victim-centred approach. There was disagreement over when, where and how this collective action would take place. With regard to the elaboration of standards on the basis of existing international instruments, Ms. Ezeilo said that when they were talking about trafficking they were looking at the violation of many other human rights, including fundamental human rights. The elaboration of standards, based on the existing international treaties and instruments, would reinforce at a regional level the promotion and protection of human rights.

When combating trafficking in persons, States needed to ensure prevention, prosecution, punishment, and partnership. The special panel that had taken place at the Council earlier was a reminder of the task ahead as many countries still had to adopt a human rights-based and victim centred approach. Redress and the right to effective remedy would be the subject of her next report, which would also focus on identification, protection and assistance to victims. In October, the Special Rapporteur would look deeply into the prevention of trafficking and identify good practices in addressing the supply and demand. Finally, on the global plan of action, the Special Rapporteur said that the important thing to achieve would be a comprehensive and holistic approach to combating human trafficking and formulation of necessary linkages to Millennium Development Goals.

Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, said he apologised sincerely to the Council for the lateness of several of his reports, which was not intended, and he regretted the delays. He was deeply appreciative that so many States made positive comments, in particular Sweden, which had been committed to the mandate for many years. The most important compliments were from States he had visited, such as Colombia, Central African Republic, and Brazil, all of whom considered the reports to be fair and constructive. These stood in marked contrast to the reply of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which condemned the detailed and carefully written report as not being objective, among other criticisms. It was very worrying when a State was in total denial of grave problems that were apparent to virtually all other observers. If the Council's regular lamentations about the killings of human rights defenders were to be meaningful, it needed to think and act more creatively in this regard.

Singapore had challenged the observation that the death penalty was contrary to international law, but the Singapore Supreme Court could not cite a single judgement in international courts in support of its own position, as all held this penalty to be cruel and inhuman. Mr. Alston hoped Singapore would align itself with this view. With regard to Sri Lanka, the delegation had completely rejected all reports, calling them unsubstantiated and uncorroborated heresy; should the Council accept this, it should be renamed the State Protection Council. The United States Government pointedly chose not to respond to the report on targeting killings - the contrast between the detailed responses in the media attributed to senior officials and the non-response to the Council was surprising. The Special Rapporteur hoped that this would change in the future.

Panel on the Protection of Journalists in Armed Conflict

Opening Statements

Alex Van Meeuwen, Chairperson of the Council, introducing the panel, said it aimed to draw the attention of the international community to the dangers faced by journalists in armed conflicts, and should be an opportuntity to take an inventory of the international frameworks and agreements applicable to journalists and the news media in situations of armed conflict and their implementation. It should also contribute to the development of an appropriate response by the Human Rights Council.

KYUNG-WHA KANG, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that today’s panel took place against the backdrop of alarming reports of killings, harassment, intimidation or kidnapping of journalists, men and women, in situations of armed conflict. According to reports, deliberate attempts to target journalists in areas of ongoing conflict were increasing. War reporting was inherently dangerous and could arguably be considered one of the most dangerous professions in the world. The media played a vital role in keeping the world informed amidst “the fog of war”, and ensuring that responses were based on the facts and truths unfolding on the ground. International law set out clear provisions for the protection of journalists in armed conflict. According to international humanitarian law, journalists in armed conflict should be considered as civilians and should therefore be afforded the protection to which civilians were entitled.

However, despite these unequivocal norms, there continued to be a high number of abuses and crimes targeting journalists, which were committed with impunity, emboldening other would-be perpetrators to follow suit. As a testimony to the importance of the issue, several United Nations bodies and other entities had addressed the protection of journalists in armed conflict. Several civil society organizations had also taken initiatives to address this important issue. Efforts to strengthen the protection of journalists in armed conflict would not be effective if States did not fully take into consideration the views and needs of journalists and media professionals themselves. Their accounts of personal experiences were crucial to understanding the daunting challenges they faced in conflict zones and newsrooms. The Deputy High Commissioner concluded by thanking the various panellists and stated that their views and approaches to the issue would strengthen the resolve of the Human Rights Council in drawing the attention of the international community to the dangers faced by journalists in armed conflict.

Statements by Panellists

FRANCK LA RUE, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, said that the issue of the protection of journalists in armed conflict was of ongoing concern to his mandate. The role of journalists as monitors of human rights violations and war crimes conducted in situations of armed conflicts frequently led them to become targets of intentional attacks by parties to the conflict. There were various provisions in international humanitarian law and international human rights law that prohibited attacks against journalists, and the States had a threefold obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the right to freedom of expression. Those obligations continued to apply during times of armed conflict and were applicable in situations of internal disturbances and tensions. Despite those provisions attacks against journalists continued, and the Special Rapporteur was alarmed that the perpetrators of attacks against journalists enjoyed total impunity in 94 per cent of cases.

This problem could not be solved until there was willingness on the part of States to effectively address the protection of journalists at the national level. The Human Rights Council had called upon States to ensure that victims of violations of the right to freedom of expression had an effective remedy, to investigate threats and acts of violence, and to bring to justice those responsible in order to combat impunity. Preventing impunity functioned as the most important deterrent against the repetition of such attacks and effective investigation of attacks and prosecution of persons responsible was in itself a means of protecting journalists. It was imperative to explore ways to improve compliance with international legal standards on protection of journalists, and this included that the rules were known, respected and enforced. Finally, the Special Rapporteur encouraged the Council to continue its deliberation on this pressing issue in its future sessions and said that the Council might wish to undertake an in-depth study in this issue.

ROBIN GEISS, Legal Advisor in the Legal Division of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said the ICRC remained deeply concerned by the high number of acts of violence and deliberate attacks against journalists, media professionals, and associated personnel. Experiences from recent armed conflicts, international as well as non-international, showed that media professionals were increasingly prone to become the victims of direct attacks in violation of international humanitarian law. It was often said that the first causality of war was truth. By far the greatest danger derived from deliberate acts of violence against media professionals, and the obstruction of journalistic tasks in times of armed conflict was alarmingly frequent. At first sight, it appeared that international humanitarian law did not provide much protection for journalists; however, in the context of some humanitarian rules, the protection was quite comprehensive. As civilians, international humanitarian law protected journalists against direct attacks, and violations of this rule constituted a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and their First Additional Protocol, and, what was more, intentionally directing an attack against a civilian also amounted to a war crime under the Rome Statute, both in international and in non-international armed conflicts.

Journalists and other media professionals also ran a high risk of being subjected to arbitrary detention and internment for alleged security reasons. Media professionals who fell into the hands of a party to an armed conflict were not without protection, and this aspect was often overlooked, as they benefited from all the protections granted by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Media professionals detained or interned in a non-international armed conflict must be treated humanely, and the same fundamental guarantees applied to them as in the case of international armed conflicts. The humanitarian issues involved in direct attacks against media professionals as well as in their disappearance or captivity in wartime or their detention in other situations of violence were matters of direct concern to the ICRC, and it constantly endeavoured to make the rules that protected journalists and civilians in general more widely known and better respected. The most serious deficiency was the lack of vigorous implementation of existing rules, and the systematic investigation, prosecution and sanction of violations, rather than a lack of rules. It should therefore be a foremost objective to work for improved compliance with these rules.

MORGENS SCHMIDT, Deputy Assistant of the Director-General for Communication and Information and Director of the Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said that with each conflict, the price paid by local journalists and foreign correspondents was getting heavier. The number of journalists killed when reporting from conflict and war zones had risen steadily since 2002 – from 25 to 86. In recent years, the large number was due to the many journalists killed in Iraq in 2007. Although the world was witnessing a decrease in these numbers, they were, however, more than out-balanced by a radical increase in the killing of media professionals who worked in non-conflict or war-zones. The safety of journalists was an issue that affected all. Every aggression against a journalist was an attack on the most fundamental freedoms.

Mr. Schmidt also dispelled a commonly held misconception that during times of war, human rights law was suspended and humanitarian law came into play. That was not correct. Human rights were as applicable in wartime as they were in peace. While humanitarian law was designed for conflict situations, it did not override or replace human rights rules. Deliberate attacks, reprisals, threats, and many other criminal actions were prohibited, according to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the two additional protocols of 1977. In this regard, international humanitarian law distinguished between two categories of journalists working in war zones: war correspondents accredited to the armed forces and “independent” journalists. Mr Schmidt went on to discuss the need for media safety and said that media staff should be imperatively prepared to confront the risks inherent in war zones, learn how to behave appropriately in the face of danger and how to deal with the effects of traumatic events. In this sense, it was essential that media staff received safety and first aid training and that they were appropriately equipped and insured and that a personal follow-up was provided to media staff that had been on a dangerous assignment.

OSAMA SARAYA, Editor in Chief, Al Ahram Newspaper, said the war in Iraq was one of the modern wars which had shed the most light on the issue of the protection of journalists in areas of armed conflict. More than 280 journalists had been killed in the war since it started, and for many years Iraq had been at the top of the list of countries which was most dangerous for journalists. It was important to point out that none of those guilty of killing these journalists had been brought to justice. Death was not the only result of the phenomenon of attacking of journalists. Some of the victims still lived with the trauma and could not function in the workplace due to physical and mental scars and injuries. Many of them also refused to return to conflict zones which affected the profession, particularly in the war context. Egyptian journalists had contributed a lot to reporting of conflicts, many of them had died, and many had suffered in Somalia, Palestine, Sinai – the constant conflicts that required constant monitoring. The legislation adopted by States over the years was not respected in the field by the armies and today’s militias who had links with organized crime groups. Conflicts today were intractable and some of them had been going on for decades. They often fed terrorism and terrorist groups that imposed their laws in the conflict zones. This would continue until a firm solution was found. Mr. Saraya said that news agencies intending to cover a conflict situation must factor in terrorism and organised crimes. Al Ahram Newspaper was a real institution of learning that had sent journalists in many parts of the world. Ten of his colleagues who had covered armed conflicts today suffered multiple injuries.

Journalists were also victims of wars and that fact was often underreported. Journalists were the intermediary for truth and killing a journalist expanded the scourge and further complicated the conflict itself. Technical assistance to developing countries was essential to enable local journalists to do their job, enjoy protection by the State and this should be the priority for international cooperation. Not all press companies were able to work in the field, as it entailed protection of journalists in the field, support and assistance to their families, particularly in case of death or injury. This panel was evidence of the growing awareness of the risks of the profession, particularly among developing countries, and Mr. Saraya said he was committed to continue to endeavour to seek new and innovative ways to provide protection to journalists.

OMAR FARUK OSMAN, President of the Federation of African Journalists, said he was here to explain, in grim terms, the day-to-day reality of the safety and security situation of African journalists. Their predicament today was further complicated by the fact that in many conflict and non-conflict countries they had to face up to not only repressive national Governments, but also to armed gangs and militias. It was an unfortunate reality that in both conflict and non-conflict situations, independent journalism was the target of various players for whom the plight of civilian populations, caught between warring groups and natural and man-made disasters, was an inconvenient truth which they wished to keep hidden from the rest of the world. Apart from denying journalists the opportunity to report events, they also saw them as dangerous opponents. The Horn of Africa was a place where to choose to become society's messenger often equated with choosing martyrdom. Furthermore, political instability, election violence, military coups, tyrannical administrations and civil wars in several African countries continued to endanger the lives of journalists.

Journalists in Africa had today become the most unprotected and persecuted defenders of human rights. They were hunted because of their commitment to standing up for and telling the truth. Any attempt by journalists to raise the visibility of victims of injustice, or expose crimes against humanity and human rights violations put their personal lives, rights, and liberty at risk. The suppression of press freedom and freedom of expression in many countries had forced the people of Africa into submissiveness in the face of ruthless rulers. The absence of the rule of law, abuse of judicial processes, political crises and instability that today occurred so frequently in Africa had struck heavy blows to the work of journalists and the media, resulting in the lack of protection, violent deaths, censorship and self-censorship. Killers of journalists were mostly free and still at large. At the continental level, there was no practical or legal mechanism to address the protection of journalists in conflict areas. Human rights could not be guaranteed in the absence of press freedom and freedom of expression, while freedom of expression could not exist when journalists were not protected and suffered death or violence for telling the truth. The Human Rights Council should send a clear message that it would not remain idle while journalists continued to be the subject of violent death and unjustified attacks.

HEDAYAT ABDEL NABI, President of Press Emblem Campaign, said that today’s panel discussion coincided with the sixth anniversary of the creation of the Press Emblem Campaign. The issue of the protection of the journalists in armed conflicts spurred a group of journalists at the United Nations in Geneva to start the Press Emblem Campaign, which was a global movement for the protection of journalists in armed conflict and dangerous situations. The Press Emblem Campaign believed that the time had come for action in the form of developing guidelines through a working group that would lead to a global compact for the promotion of journalists. The Press Emblem Campaign had developed ideas that could serve as the basis for discussions on a draft convention to protect journalists and a launching pad for possible acceptable guidelines for all concerned parties and stakeholders. Among these ideas was a call to guarantee unhindered, unfettered and uninterrupted Internet services at anytime and under all conditions and circumstances.

The proposals made by the Press Emblem Campaign also promoted the concept of media corridors, as was applied to humanitarian workers, which would be established by the parties to a conflict, in such a manner that journalists and media installations were protected. This concept of media corridors was first established in a Human Rights Council resolution at the conclusion of a special session on the war in Lebanon in 2006. Another important issue was that of compensation. In the case of death, the victim’s family or legal representative should have the right to obtain reparations and a prompt, fair and adequate compensation. To this end, the Press Emblem Campaign encouraged States, along with journalist associations and journalist employers, to establish a compensation fund with substantial financial resources. In addition, there was an essential difference between civilians caught in cross-fire and journalists covering it. In conclusion, the Press Emblem Campaign reminded the Council that when its movement began in Geneva, it rallied around the idea of a recognized press emblem, which it continued to support. A protective emblem would symbolize that journalists were protected by law and carried with it the rights of compensation, the bringing of perpetrators of crime to justice and so forth. The emblem was not obligatory but worn out of a conscious choice.

Discussion

In the ensuing discussion, speakers raised, among other points, the need for all parties to respect the provisions of international humanitarian law, and allow media access. The nature of warfare had changed, and there were new challenges, with a multitude of new actors, showing the need to re-evaluate norms and standards, and for the international community to think on what could be done to afford journalists greater protection. In the past 12 years, more than 1,100 journalists and media staff had been killed in the course of duty - almost none of these cases had been investigated or prosecuted, even in cases of targeted killings, showing the situation of impunity. All States should protect journalists in times of conflict, and put an end to impunity. Documentation on violations was necessary to combat this atmosphere of impunity, and to increase the security given to journalists working in the most dangerous circumstances. Attacks on journalists had a serious impact on freedom of expression and the right to truth, as well as the quality and independence of information, which were essential components of a free media and a democratic society. All parties to an armed conflict should live up to their obligations under international law to protect journalists, and there was a need for States involved to adopt urgent measures to protect journalists who were carrying out their professional activities. It was hoped that holding this discussion would send out an important message to journalists working in conflict zones, as well as provide means and mechanisms for protecting journalists further.

Speaking were the representatives of Egypt, Norway, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Spain on behalf of the European Union, Canada, France, Greece, Qatar, Syria, and Colombia on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries.

Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines and Reporters without Borders International.

HEDAYAT ABDEL NABI, President of the Protect Emblem Campaign, answering the question on the current blue identification, said the problem was that even though it had been carried by journalists around the world, it still did not protect them from being attacked, indicating the need to protect the emblem by law. One of the problems in ensuring the respect for the emblem was the multiplicity of actors on the scene of armed conflict. There was a need for journalists and States to work on guidelines against attacks on journalists who carried the emblem. The Protect Emblem Campaign had established the Working Group and proposed the establishment of guidelines and all this at no additional cost to the Council. Once a journalist was killed, there were no possibilities of demonstrating concern for the families in terms of reparation for example. The Council should concern itself with the human rights of the victims and bring the perpetrators to justice and trial. All initiatives must go in step with practical measures, such as the establishment of the mentioned Working Group. Ms. Abdel Nabi said that the input of journalists associations into the report would be extremely welcomed.

OMAR FARUK OSMAN, President of the Federation of African Journalists, responding to certain issues raised by countries, said that there were enough lobbies to protect journalists. The real problem was that these instruments and laws were not respected or enforced. In his country, Somalia, armed forces and individuals were well aware of the laws protecting rights of journalists but they did not respect them. There was an urgent need for international actions that had a practical component to protecting journalists on the ground. The Human Rights Council should encourage Governments to enshrine the protection of journalists and media workers in their national laws and ask the United Nations Secretary-General to present a report on the application of resolution 1738.

OSAMA SARAYA, Editor in Chief, Al Ahram Newspaper, said he had worked in journalist associations, and there was a need for an international report to document attacks on journalists, and this was the only way they and their work could be protected. When the crime was not revealed, then the perpetrators could not be stopped. This was the only protection for journalists and their families. There was a need for international cooperation, and the international community should afford journalists the same rights and assistance as given to civilians by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Assistance to journalists should include the setting-up of an international fund for journalists. This was not a single crime - it affected all, undermining as it did the right to truth. Journalists who spread the right to truth helped all, and it was the duty of all societies, rich and poor, to aid and protect them. The crimes against them should not be subject to a statute of limitations. Authorities should protect journalists, and this could not be done through law - the perpetrators must be held accountable and face their legal responsibility, and this required new legislation from the international community. Warring parties often disregarded humanitarian law, and violated it. Treating journalists as civilians did not always lead to their protection - there was a need for innovative methods. The right to truth was the right of all, and any one impeding this right must be held accountable. The status of journalists needed to be improved, as they were working on behalf of all, in dangerous areas, and were the pioneers facing the worst scourge of humanity - man making war on his brother.

ROBIN GEISS, Legal Adviser, Legal Division of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said that the change of conflict structure was mentioned during this panel. The ICRC was aware of that change and considered it as one of the modern challenges to its work. It was increasingly difficult to distinguish civilians from non-civilians in those asymmetric conflicts, and the principle of distinction was the basis of protection. The notion of taking part in hostilities had been ambiguous and the ICRC had issued guidelines to this effect that might be useful also to journalists. On the question of Egypt regarding the emblem, Mr. Geiss said the international humanitarian law prescribed that in case of doubt, one must presume that a person was a civilian and that the emblem added further to the protection guaranteed by the international humanitarian law. Whereas international humanitarian law was primarily aimed at the protection of journalists as persons, international human rights law was concerned with the journalistic task and freedom of expression, and this was an example of how those two laws were mutually complementary and not exclusive. Mr. Geiss said that many of the ICRC investigations into the violation of international humanitarian law with regards to the protection of journalists took place in the field, though country and regional offices.

In the continuing interactive discussion, speakers said the 2009 toll of 132 journalists killed in 35 countries was one of the worst in record. Because it included journalists killed both in conflicts and in peace, the Human Rights Council had a role to play. Threats against journalists and media personnel must be investigated, and those responsible brought to justice. States should live up to their international commitments and obligations and protect journalists and associated media personnel in all situations. It was the duty of all, particularly Governments, international organizations, and the Human Rights Council to contribute to offering legal and de facto protection to journalists, who were the eyes and ears of the inhabitants of the world. Too many journalists were victims of violence, abduction, killing, and other unacceptable and unjustifiable abuses. International human rights law and international humanitarian law were the main tools for the protection of journalists in armed conflicts, in particular the Geneva Conventions and the additional Protocols. The primary responsibility for protecting journalists lay with national Governments, who must halt impunity, investigate attacks against journalists, and punish the guilty. Conscious efforts should be made by all parties to a conflict to allow not only access to journalists but also to ensure their safety at all times, as any attempt to restrict them from covering a conflict was tantamount to stifling the press and denying the freedom of thought and expression. The Human Rights Council should seek to play a complementary and supportive role to the Security Council's work on this topic, and should work from the human rights perspective, and actively bolster the freedom of expression, also addressing arbitrary arrest of and reprisals against journalists. It should help countries emerging from conflict to create conditions respecting the freedom of speech and expression.

Speaking were the representatives of United Kingdom, Sudan on behalf of the Arab Group, China, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Azerbaijan, United States, Italy and Algeria.

Also speaking were the non-governmental organizations Article 19-International Centre Against Censorship and PEN International.

FRANCK LA RUE, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, congratulated Egypt, Bangladesh and Mexico for initiating the debate. Violence against journalists posed a considerable threat to their right to life and their right to investigate documents and spread the truth. Furthermore, violence against journalists was also an attack on the rights of all to remain informed. The Special Rapporteur also mentioned that there were zones of disturbances, such as organized street crime, that did not reach the level of armed conflict but remained highly disconcerting. Finally, the Special Rapporteur responded to the Chinese delegation about the use of force in order to protect journalists. In Mr. La Rue’s view, States should work towards setting up an emergency mechanism to protect journalists and possibly even set up institutions that could immediately respond to crisis situations in which journalists were at risk.

MORGENS SCHMIDT, Deputy Assistant of the Director-General for Communication and Information and Director of the Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace, at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, complemented Egypt, Bangladesh and Mexico for initiating this debate. Mr. Schmidt also found it very encouraging to see the many delegations taking the floor and suggesting ways on how to put an end to impunity, which was the biggest issue in ensuring safety of journalists. The United States and Italy rightly put their finger on proactive measures that must be taken in post-conflict countries, where the whole system needed to be put in place. Canada suggested that the Human Rights Council looked into the other side of the killing of journalists, namely those killed for reporting on organized crime, which was very important. Mr. Schmidt said that UNESCO stood ready to work together with Human Rights Council in documenting violations.

HISHAM BADR, Vice-President of the Council, in concluding remarks, said the panel was an exceptional opportunity to bring to light the perils encountered by journalists in armed conflicts. The recommendations formulated today should serve as guidance in the devising of concrete actions. Today's discussion would undoubtedly contribute to the development of an appropriate response by the Human Rights Council.