AFTERNOON - The Protection Gap of Journalists in Exile is the Result of the Failure of States to Respect their International Obligations, Special Rapporteur Tells Human Rights Council

Council Concludes Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers

The Human Rights Council this afternoon began an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.  It also concluded the interactive dialogue with the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises.

Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, introducing her thematic report on journalists in exile, said the upward trend of journalists in exile and attacks on them tracked the rise of authoritarianism and suppression of media freedom in various parts of the world. Unfortunately, exile did not always provide safety to journalists, and was often marked with multiple challenges. Journalists in exile deserved more support.  Many journalists were in grave danger because of the alarming rise in transnational repression from their home governments, including assassinations, assaults, enforced disappearances, and retaliation against family members.  Digital transnational repression had also surged in recent years.

In her report, Ms. Khan outlined several recommendations. The protection gap that the journalists in exile faced was the result of the failure of States to respect their international obligations.  The Council should give more focused attention to this issue.  States needed to expand the visa schemes and encourage funders and civil society to provide more sustained support to journalists in exile. 

Ms. Kahn spoke about her visits to Honduras and to Serbia and Kosovo [All references to Kosovo shall be understood to be in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999)]. Honduras and Serbia took the floor as countries concerned. 

In the discussion, some speakers, among other things, thanked the Special Rapporteur for her latest report which outlined the variety of physical, digital and legal threats that journalists, other media workers, and human rights defenders faced when operating in exile.  A free, independent and diverse media was essential to democracy, accountability, good governance, and the protection of human rights. Speakers expressed deep concern at the findings of the report that journalists were increasingly targets of transnational repression, including violence and intimidation, pervasive surveillance, and cyberattacks.  One speaker said the Special Rapporteur had failed to carry out an objective analysis in her report, as the document passed over the collective West and their campaign to cleanse the media. 

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded the interactive dialogue with the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, which started in the previous meeting.  A summary can be viewed here.

In closing remarks, Robert Mccorquodale, Chair of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, said he appreciated the comments from delegations.  States could collaborate with each other, with investors and with rights holders, in terms of standard settings to clarify guidelines on environmental and social governance and sustainability to ensure they were in line with the Guiding Principles.  It was pleasing that States felt that businesses had a responsibility to respect human rights and that investors needed to put the risk to people and the planet at the centre of their decision-making.  Mr. Mccorquodale encouraged States to develop regulation in this area. 

In the discussion, some speakers, among other things, said investors should undertake meaningful consultations with persons affected by business activities. Challenges remained in linking economic, social and governance principles to human rights standards. Businesses needed to respect the environment in all activities.  The private sector needed to be involved in measures to combat climate change. States needed to call on corporations to provide reparations for activities that harmed the environment. It was important that investors conducted investigations into the impacts of investing in business activities in conflict-affected areas. 

Speaking in the interactive dialogue with the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises were the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Ghana, Venezuela, South Africa, State of Palestine, Thailand, Malawi, Cambodia, Azerbaijan, India, Namibia, Albania, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Armenia and Honduras.

Also speaking were International Human Rights Internship Programme, Human Rights Now, International Probono Legal Services Association Limited, Peace Brigades International, Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Conselho Indigenista Missionário CIMI, Columbian Commission of Jurists, Friends World Committee for Consultation, Right Livelihood Award Foundation, and Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS). 

Speaking in the dialogue on freedom of expression were Latvia on behalf of a group of countries, Lithuania on behalf of a group of countries, Netherlands on behalf of a group of countries, Estonia on behalf of a group of countries, European Union, United States on behalf of a group of countries, Russian Federation on behalf of a group of countries, Czechia, Türkiye, Zambia, Ireland, United States, Australia, Iran, Armenia, Israel, Egypt, Luxembourg, Costa Rica, Maldives, France, Belgium, Algeria, Greece, Bangladesh, Iraq, Lesotho, Russian Federation, Malta, Malaysia, Georgia, China, Tunisia, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Bulgaria, Togo, Cameroon, Cuba, Austria, Yemen, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Romania, Venezuela, South Africa, State of Palestine, Sudan, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, Malawi, Cambodia, Azerbaijan, Botswana, Republic of Korea, Mozambique, Slovakia, India and Ethiopia

Speaking in right of reply at the end of the meeting were Azerbaijan, Iran, Armenia, Japan, Israel and China.

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-sixth regular session can be found here.

The Council will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 27 June, to conclude the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of freedom of opinion and expression, to be followed by an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially in women and children.

Interactive Dialogue with the Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises

The interactive dialogue with the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises started in the previous meeting and a summary can be found here.

Discussion

Continuing the discussion, some speakers, among other things, said investors should undertake meaningful consultations with persons affected by business activities.  They needed to assess environmental and social risks before committing to investments. Investors could play an important role in countering modern slavery and eradicating child labour from supply chains. Due diligence in business contributed to economic stability and the promotion of human rights.

Challenges remained in linking economic, social and governance principles to human rights standards.  Direct foreign investment posed significant risks to vulnerable groups. Measures needed to be implemented to ensure that vulnerable groups benefitted from such investment. Responses needed to be developed through international cooperation.

Some speakers presented national efforts to develop regulations ensuring that public and private investments had no negative human rights impacts; to implement national action plans on business and human rights and the prevention of informal employment; to hold fora and events promoting due diligence in investment activities; to implement the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; to tackle corruption; and to establish dispute settlement mechanisms regarding business activities.

Business activities in developing countries were violating the rights of indigenous peoples, some speakers said.  States needed to ensure that the activities of transnational corporations did not violate those rights.  Transnational corporations needed to obtain prior and informed consent before conducting development projects that affected indigenous peoples.

Businesses needed to respect the environment in all activities.  The private sector needed to be involved in measures to combat climate change. States needed to call on corporations to provide reparations for activities that harmed the environment. Companies often claimed that carbon offsets reduced emissions, which was misleading, one speaker said.  States needed to require environmental due diligence from all businesses and call on businesses to implement more effective measures to protect the environment.

Some speakers noted the negative impact of extractive activities by transnational corporations in a number of countries and regions.  Local communities’ right to land, health and a clean environment were harmed by such activities.  Speakers called for the cessation of such activities, adding that the persecution of activists protesting such activities must stop.  Affected communities must be offered reparations, and regulations must be developed to prevent repetition.

A number of speakers called for a legally binding treaty on business and human rights, which they said was long overdue.  Such an instrument was needed to provide recourse for persons whose rights had been violated by businesses to seek redress. Negotiation on such a treaty needed to be advanced in a constructive manner. 

Speakers asked about measures that could maintain investment while implementing human rights protections; ways of reflecting human rights expectations in contracts between businesses and communities; measures of lowering the costs of remittances; challenges in implementing the recommendations in the report of the Working Group in the arms sector; and measures for protecting activists who protested extractive activities.

Concluding Remarks

ROBERT MCCORQUODALE, Chair of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, in closing remarks, said he appreciated the comments from delegations.  States could collaborate with each other, with investors and with rights holders, in terms of standard settings to clarify guidelines on environmental and social governance and sustainability, in order to ensure they were in line with the Guiding Principles.  Multistakeholder platforms were vital, and investors could also be part of this. States could strengthen and develop regulation legislation in line with the Guiding Principles, regulate data providers, and establish tools and guidance to raise public awareness. 

In terms of remedies, States should regulate these for transparency and accountability.  Investor responsibility should be encouraged.  There could be many incentives to investors, including during capital raising.  Investors needed to ensure they were doing heightened human rights due diligence when it came to conflict situations.  It was pleasing that States felt that businesses had a responsibility to respect human rights and that investors needed to put the risk to people and the planet at the centre of their decision-making.  Mr. Mccorquodale encouraged States to develop regulations in this area. 

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression

Reports

The Council has before it the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Irene Khan, on journalists in exile (A/HRC/56/53) and on her visit to Honduras (A/HRC/56/53/ADD.1), and her visit to Serbia and Kosovo (A/HRC/56/53/ADD.2).

Presentation of Reports

IRENE KHAN, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, thanked Member States for their engagement with her mandate.  She would introduce her thematic report on journalists in exile as well as reports on her visits to Honduras and Serbia/Kosovo [All references to Kosovo shall be understood to be in full compliance with United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999)]. 

The upward trend of journalists in exile and attacks on them tracked the rise of authoritarianism and suppression of media freedom in various parts of the world.  Unfortunately, exile did not always provide safety to journalists, and was often marked with multiple challenges.  Four key areas of concern from the report included: many journalists were in grave danger because of the alarming rise in transnational repression from their home governments, including assassinations, assaults, enforced disappearances, and retaliation against family members; digital transnational repression had surged in recent years, including online violence, smear campaigns, targeted digital surveillance, hacking and blocking of news sites; the level of risk to which women journalists in exile were exposed, especially those living without their families or who had no legal status in the country of refuge; and the precarious legal status of many journalists in their country of refuge. 

Journalists in exile deserved more support.  In her report, Ms. Khan outlined several recommendations.  She noted that the protection gap that the journalists in exile faced was the result of the failure of States to respect their international obligations.  The Council should give more focused attention to this issue.  She emphasised that journalists should not be treated as political pawns but as human beings. States needed to expand the visa schemes and encourage funders and civil society to provide more sustained support to journalists in exile.  Furthermore, companies should carry out due diligence to identify the risks of digital transnational repression and with input from users, enhance safety tools. Finally, many journalists in exile were likely to qualify as refugees but with specific needs.  Cooperation and collaboration among United Nations agencies should be strengthened to meet the distinct protection and assistance needs, and to support the receiving States where necessary.

Ms. Kahn said she visited Honduras in October last year. Honduras faced complex, long-standing human rights problems deeply rooted in poverty, inequality, corruption and organised crime, aggravated by high levels of violence, marginalisation of indigenous communities, and entrenched gender biases.  Unfortunately, criticism from civil society of the Government was seen by some government officials as disinformation.  Ms. Kahn outlined several recommendations for the Government of Honduras, including to build an open and trusting relationship with civil society and indigenous communities; to end impunity for killings and enforced disappearances of human rights defenders, journalists and social communicators; to undertake a major overhaul of the national protection system; and to carry out legal reforms to decriminalise libel and slander, among others. She had been pleased to see the openness and willingness of the Government to seek technical assistance from international and regional human rights bodies, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 

Ms. Kahn said she visited Serbia and Kosovo [All references to Kosovo shall be understood to be in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999)]

in April 2023.  She acknowledged the strong constitutional and legal framework on freedom of expression in Serbia and welcomed the Government’s plan to carry out further legal reforms in line with international and European standards. However, the inadequate implementation of laws and policies; the failure of the Government to tackle hate speech and smear campaigns; the targeting and endangerment of journalists, human rights defenders, activists and political opponents; and the inability of the Regulatory Authority of Electronic Media to clamp down on hate speech in the tabloid media, raised serious concerns about the state of freedom of expression in Serbia. The most important factor would be strong political commitment and leadership from the Government to uphold its own laws and policies. 

With regard to Kosovo, Ms. Kahn was encouraged by a legal framework largely in line with international standards and an overall environment conducive to the right to freedom of expression, although recent decisions raised concerns, including in terms of risks of political interference in the management of the public broadcaster.  In July 2023, following a criminal report to the police, the authorities decided to suspend the license of Klan Kosova, one of the largest media outlets in Kosovo, in what had been alleged as a political act to silence the outlet. There were also concerns about the law on the independent media commission, currently being reviewed by the Assembly of Kosovo.  Ms. Kahn called on the Assembly to safeguard the independence of the commission so that it could retain the trust of all of society. 

Statements by Countries Concerned

ANGÉLICA ÁLVAREZ, Minister for Human Rights of Honduras, speaking as a country concerned, said Honduras was committed to strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights.  It had extended an open invitation to all Special Procedures mandate holders to conduct country visits, and welcomed the report and recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur.  Honduras had emerged from a dark period marked by the 2009 coup d’état and organised crime.  The recommendations made in the report allowed the State to reflect on progress made and further actions needed to strengthen the protection of freedom of expression.

Honduras had adopted legislation to implement the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ rulings related to cases involving violations of the rights of human rights defenders.  Legislation had been reformed to protect the activities of human rights defenders and a body had been established to receive and follow up on complaints from journalists and human rights defenders.  Laws had also been developed on the search for victims of enforced disappearance and on reparation for the victims of the historical national security doctrine.  In this regard, the State party had approved a programme on truth, justice and reparation and had opened a remembrance museum. 

Honduras was committed to implementing the report’s recommendations progressively, promoting multilateralism and protecting fundamental freedoms and human rights.

Serbia, speaking as a country concerned, said Serbia appreciated the visit of the Special Rapporteur, which confirmed that there was a high-quality and comprehensive legislative framework in the area of freedom of the media opinion and expression in Serbia.  At the same time, the report noted that Serbia needed to take further measures to promote the protection of freedom of expression, prevent hate speech, and protect the safety of journalists.  Kosovo and Metohija were an autonomous province of the Republic of Serbia.  With regard to the part of the report related to Kosovo and Metohija, special attention should be focused on the recommendations related to carrying out investigations into unsolved cases of murders of journalists and calling for the full responsibility of the perpetrators. 

Regarding hate speech, Serbia’s Criminal Code outlined the criminal offense of inciting national, racial and religious hatred and intolerance, the criminal offense of ruining the reputation for racial, religious, ethnic or other affiliation, and the criminal offense of racial and other discrimination.  The prohibition of hate speech was prescribed by the law on public information and media as a special form of discrimination.  The fact that the policy of "zero tolerance" on hate speech had not been achieved so far, should not be a reason for doubt in the unequivocal political commitment of the State authorities in Serbia.  Regarding the safety of journalists, Serbia was the only country in the region in which, since 2016, the Working Group for the Safety of Journalists had been active.  Serbia had shown a firm commitment to harnessing its policies and mechanisms to strengthen the fight against hate speech, ensure the implementation of laws, and increase the level of responsibility for all forms of violence and abuse.  This was demonstrated by adopting numerous laws and strategic documents which were positively evaluated in the report; however, their implementation was not adequately assessed.

Discussion

In the discussion, some speakers, among other things, thanked the Special Rapporteur for her latest report which outlined the variety of physical, digital and legal threats that journalists, other media workers, and human rights defenders faced when operating in exile.  Speakers reiterated their firm support for the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. 

A free, independent and diverse media was essential to democracy, accountability, good governance, and the protection of human rights. Journalists, including those in exile, were vital sources of accurate information on repressive regimes, often at great personal cost.  Journalists and media workers deserved to have a safe environment to implement their duties.  No laws should unduly restrict their work. 

Some speakers expressed deep concern at the report’s findings that journalists were increasingly targets of transnational repression, including violence and intimidation, pervasive surveillance, and cyberattacks.  It was also concerning that journalists who reported on human rights violations and women journalists were especially vulnerable.  Many journalists were forced to flee from persecution, as some countries increasingly attacked free and independent media.  One speaker condemned the use of stigmatising labels like ‘foreign agent’, which were used to discredit the work of journalists.

Several speakers said they were alarmed at attempts to silence journalists on foreign soil, which not only violated human rights but also raised questions as to how countries could guarantee the safety of journalists and human rights defenders in exile.  Reports of skyrocketing online attacks and harassment of women journalists were also concerning.  It was alarming to see that just over one out of every 10 cases of killings of all journalists worldwide were ever resolved. 

One speaker noted that there was an increasing number of those who were required to flee repression in their countries, while another highlighted the alarming trends on media repression in a number of countries. 

A speaker highlighted the consistent utilisation of entry visa denial or lengthy reviews of visa applications by Western countries hosting the United Nations.  The majority of those who did not get necessary entry documents were citizens of African States and of countries under unilateral coercive measures, the speaker said.  Another speaker said the Special Rapporteur should not allow Member States to manipulate her work and abuse the platform.  One speaker said the Special Rapporteur had failed to carry out an objective analysis in her report, as the document passed over the collective West and their campaign to cleanse the media. 

Some speakers said there was a clear need to improve global efforts to develop effective, innovative strategies and mechanisms to provide safety for journalists and media workers in exile.  States were called upon to ensure the protection of journalists under their jurisdiction.  Corporate actors, including social media platforms, should step up to the challenge and perform their due diligence.  One speaker said that host States should adopt a multistakeholder approach to counter extraterritorial operations against journalists in exile.  Initiatives such as the Safe Spaces project of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization needed to proliferate in order to create a supportive environment for journalism worldwide, the speaker said.

Several speakers addressed questions to the Special Rapporteur, including if it was possible to reinforce political will to investigate all human rights violations against journalists?  How could States, social platforms and other stakeholders work together to facilitate the reporting of online violence against journalists?  How could States work with social media platforms to respond to digital threats against journalists in exile? 

How could social media platforms be supported to undertake due diligence?  What specific measures were recommended to safeguard journalists from violence and persecution, such as those operating in conflict zones, and to hold State and non-state perpetrators accountable?  What could be done to reduce impunity and increase accountability of perpetrators of attacks against journalists in exile?  What were the most effective ways of cooperation between State and non-state actors to ensure digital protection of journalists? 

Intermediate Remarks

IRENE KHAN, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said raising awareness of transnational oppression was extremely important.  There was increased use of organised crime to deliver such oppression; this needed to be addressed.  There needed to be regularisation of journalists’ activities worldwide.  The capacities of authorities to respond to threats against journalists needed to be strengthened.  International investigations needed to be carried out into abuses against journalists and human rights defenders when national investigation mechanisms failed. An example of such an investigation was the well-known investigation into the death of Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi conducted by the former Special Rapporteur on summary executions.

Ms. Khan said that she would address the abuse of journalists in relation to the conflict in Gaza in a future report.  She said that she had raised issues concerning the banning of Russian and Israeli media outlets in certain countries.  She called on States that questioned the factuality of her report to allow her to visit their countries.  China’s national security law was one of the most draconian laws in terms of repressing freedom of expression.  Its application, especially in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, needed to cease.

There were opportunities for Member States to be involved in multi-stakeholder discussions related to freedom of expression, including in United Nations agencies.  Ms. Khan expressed thanks to States that had supported her mandate and efforts to promote the rights of journalists and human rights defenders, including female journalists.

Discussion

In the continuing discussion, some speakers, among other things, welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur which shed light on the growing crisis facing journalists in exile as they faced physical, digital and legal threats when seeking refuge abroad.  The report’s findings stated that the safety and security of journalists in exile remained precarious. 

Some speakers emphasised their commitment to building a conducive environment for journalists and media workers to perform their work safely and impartially.  Respect for freedom of expression was a pillar of democracy and peace.  The fact that many journalists were forced to flee their home countries due to political repression and persecution represented a fundamental failure by States to uphold the right to freedom of expression, which was a cornerstone of democratic societies.

Several speakers noted that the targeted digital surveillance of journalists in exile was alarming.  States were obliged to take legislative and regulatory measures compliant with human rights standards to enable journalists to work freely and unhindered.  Digital technologies had exacerbated the challenges faced by journalists. Disinformation and misinformation were eroding trust in the media and expanding division. 

Journalists reported on human rights violations and paid a heavy price personally and professionally.  Journalists in exile deserved better support.  Under international law, no one should be forced to flee their own countries.  Journalists were among the most important intermediaries in society; it should be a common goal to support media freedom and protect journalists, one speaker said. States should fulfil their obligations under international law and ensure the safety and security of journalists, whether at home or in exile.  Measures must also be taken to enable exiled journalists to continue their work without fear.

Several speakers outlined the steps taken within their own States to uphold media freedom, including that the right to freedom of opinion was entrenched in the law; a law providing refugee status which covered protection of journalists in exile; organising training and awareness raising activities for journalists; an independent media regulation body; and being party to key international legal frameworks, among others.

Additional questions asked to the Special Rapporteur included: what was her point of view regarding the protection of journalists in exile who divulged information which could impact the security and social cohesion of the State of origin?  How could States cooperate to protect journalists in exile from human rights violations? 

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

HRC24.024E