ISSN 2965-8780
31 July 2024 | Nº. 7 | Editorial Staff: Henrique Napoleão Alves, Sarah Ebram Alvarenga, João Fernando Martins Posso, Felipe Martins Anawate * |
* Attributions: research and data gathering: SEA, JFMP; research supervision, writing, final edition: HNA; Portuguese edition: FMA, HNA.
Editorial
Welcome to the seventh edition of the Facts and Norms Newsletter for 2024. This month, we bring you comprehensive coverage of significant judgments and developments from international and regional courts, along with updates on pressing international issues.
The International Court of Justice has been at the forefront of addressing critical international disputes. The Court delivered a landmark Advisory Opinion declaring Israel's prolonged presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful. Additionally, the ICJ received requests for intervention from Poland and Spain in ongoing cases concerning allegations of genocide in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, respectively. The Court also allowed seven countries to intervene in the Gambia v. Myanmar genocide case, providing broader international perspectives on the Genocide Convention.
We further delve into news from the United Nations, highlighting the UN High Commissioner's concerns about post-election tensions in Venezuela, UNESCO’s efforts to protect a historic Palestinian monastery, the alarming food insecurity in Sudan, and the courageous voices of displaced Gazan youth advocating for their basic rights.
Turning our attention to the Americas, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concluded its 168th Regular Session. The session included deliberations on the rights of the Mapuche people in Chile, the protection of U'wa lands in Colombia, and significant cases involving transitional justice and human rights violations before and after a dictatorship, forced disappearances, sexual violence, and the impact of development on indigenous communities.
Within the African Human Rights System, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights lauded São Tomé and Príncipe for ratifying the Protocol on Older Persons' Rights. The Commission also expressed grave concern over the recent discovery of deceased migrants in the Algerian desert, and celebrated the Gambian National Assembly’s rejection of a bill aiming to decriminalize female genital mutilation.
The European Court of Human Rights issued numerous new rulings on a wide range of human rights issues, such as access to justice and universal jurisdiction, family reunification and margin of appreciation, electoral bans, languages of pre-school education, impunity of a homophobic attack, the right to reasoned judgments, a detainee’s death after drug intoxication, the interruption of a transgender detainee’s hormone therapy, the removal of foster children from a transgender man, injuries following a terrorist attack, fatal domestic violence, and more.
As always, our academic and professional opportunities section provides a comprehensive overview of the latest invitations and openings within the fields of international law, human rights, and beyond. These third-party opportunities are provided for informational purposes only. We encourage our readers to independently verify their details.
This edition concludes with recent news from the Facts and Norms Institute, particularly the Institute’s new study about human rights, access to information and climate change.
We invite you to explore this edition, engage with the diverse perspectives presented, and join us in our commitment to advancing knowledge, promoting justice, and upholding the principles of international law and human dignity.
Professor Henrique Napoleão Alves, Chief Editor
Subscribe FOR FREE and receive upcoming issues of the Newsletter directly to your preferred email address: https://www.factsandnorms.com/the-facts-and-norms-newsletter
Universal News
● POLAND ASKS THE ICJ FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE IN THE UKRAINE V. RUSSIA GENOCIDE CASE (29 July 2024)
Poland filed an application for permission to intervene in the case concerning Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation).
Poland asserts its legal interest as a party to the Genocide Convention in ensuring its proper application. Poland emphasizes that it cannot transfer arms or support a state committing genocide and highlights how accusations of genocide against Ukraine impact Poland's legal position due to its support for Ukraine since 2014.
Citing Article 63 of the Court’s Statute, Poland notes that states party to a convention under question have the right to intervene in proceedings, making the judgment binding on them. Poland’s new declaration of intervention aims to expand its initial intervention from September 2022.
The full texts of Poland’s application for permission to intervene and declaration of intervention are available on the Court’s website.
● ICJ RULES ISRAEL'S PRESENCE IN OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY UNLAWFUL (19 July 2024)
The ICJ adopted a new Advisory Opinion declaring Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, illegal. The decision, in response to a request from the UN General Assembly, concluded that Israel's settlement policies, annexation efforts, and discriminatory legislation violate international law and impede the Palestinian people's right to self-determination.
The ICJ found that Israel has an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence as rapidly as possible, including ceasing all settlement activity and evacuating settlers. The Court also called for reparations for damages caused to Palestinians and urged all states and international organizations not to recognize the legality of the situation or provide assistance maintaining it.
The decision carries significant weight in international law and places renewed pressure on Israel to end its occupation. The full text of the Advisory Opinion is available on the Court’s website.
● ICJ ALLOWS SEVEN COUNTRIES TO INTERVENE IN GAMBIA VS. MYANMAR GENOCIDE CASE (3 July 2024)
The ICJ ruled that seven countries can intervene in the ongoing case concerning allegations of genocide against Myanmar. The case, brought by The Gambia against Myanmar in 2019, centers on the Myanmar military's brutal crackdown on the Rohingya Muslim minority.
The Maldives, along with a joint intervention by Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, were all granted permission to submit written arguments focusing on the interpretation of the Genocide Convention. The ICJ will later determine if these countries can participate in the oral hearings.
● SPAIN ASKS THE ICJ FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE IN GAZA CASE (3 June 2024)
Spain filed a declaration of intervention under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute in the case concerning the application of the Genocide Convention in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).
Article 63 allows States party to a convention to intervene in proceedings when the convention's construction is in question, making the Court's judgment binding on them. Spain, as a party to the Genocide Convention, seeks to intervene to provide its views on relevant provisions. South Africa and Israel have been invited to submit written observations on Spain’s intervention. The full text of Mexico’s declaration of intervention is available on the Court’s website.
● UN RIGHTS CHIEF CONCERNED ABOUT POST-ELECTION TENSION IN VENEZUELA (30 July 2024)
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk expressed deep concern over escalating tensions and violence in Venezuela following the recent presidential election, where incumbent President Nicolas Maduro was declared the winner. Protests erupted across 17 of Venezuela's 24 states, leading to hundreds of arrests, including children. Mr. Türk highlighted reports of excessive force by law enforcement and violence from government-supporting armed groups, known as colectivos, resulting in several injuries and at least one confirmed death. Emphasizing the critical juncture Venezuela faces, Mr. Türk urged authorities to respect citizens' rights to peaceful assembly and free expression, and called for transparent resolution of electoral disputes and accountability for rights violations.
● WORLD NEWS IN BRIEF: HISTORIC PALESTINE MONASTERY IN DANGER, GHANA UPHOLDS ANTI-GAY LAW, RUSSIA URGED TO RELEASE ACTIVIST (26 July 2024)
UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee has placed the Monastery of Saint Hilarion/Tell Umm Amer in Palestine on its World Heritage in Danger List due to threats from the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The monastery, dating back to the fourth century, is one of the oldest monastic sites in the Middle East. This designation aims to ensure enhanced international protection and assistance for the site.
The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights condemned Ghana’s Supreme Court decision to uphold a law criminalizing consensual same-sex relations. The ruling allows for up to three years in prison for violators and comes amid increasing violence against LGBTQ+ individuals in Ghana.
UN human rights experts have demanded the immediate release of Alexey Sokolov, activist detained in Russia for posting the Facebook logo. Sokolov was arrested on 5 July for allegedly displaying “extremist symbols” after Russia banned Meta, Facebook's parent company, in March.
● WORLD NEWS IN BRIEF: U.S. URGED TO PROTECT PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY, ATTACKS AGAINST AHMADIS IN PAKISTAN, SUSTAINABILITY PUSH AT PARIS OLYMPICS (25 July 2024)
UN independent human rights experts have expressed serious concern over a crackdown on pro-Palestinian student protests at U.S. universities, calling for the protection of free speech and peaceful assembly. Reports indicate that protests against the Israeli military operation in Gaza have led to violence, arrests, and severe consequences for students, including potential deportation and loss of housing.
UN human rights experts have voiced alarm over increasing violence against Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, including extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, and attacks on places of worship. Recent incidents include the killing of community members and numerous assaults on Ahmadi religious sites. The experts called on Pakistani authorities to ensure effective protection for the Ahmadiyya community and address discriminatory laws that endanger religious minorities.
Ahead of the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called for the event to promote sustainable development and positive change. In his message to the Summit on Sport for Sustainable Development, Guterres urged athletes and officials to lead by example by incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals into their activities. The WHO has partnered with the IOC to launch the "Let’s Move" campaign, promoting physical activity and health.
● WAR-TORN SUDAN ON THE BRINK OF FAMINE (23 July 2024)
The UN has issued a dire warning about the rapidly deteriorating food security situation in war-torn Sudan. Nearly 26 million people – equivalent to the entire population of Australia – are currently experiencing hunger, with 750,000 on the verge of famine.
The UN attributes the crisis to a combination of factors, including conflict-driven displacement, soaring food prices, and disrupted supply chains. Heavy rains and flooding have further exacerbated the situation, rendering crucial transportation routes impassable. The UN has called for urgent international action to avert a catastrophic famine, emphasizing the need for both increased financial support and unimpeded humanitarian access to deliver life-saving aid. A separate UN fact-finding mission has also highlighted widespread human rights violations against civilians caught in the conflict, including targeted attacks, sexual violence, and forced displacement.
● DISPLACED GAZAN YOUTH SPEAK OUT FOR BASIC RIGHTS (21 July 2024)
In a makeshift classroom tent within a Gaza displacement camp, young female students shared their experiences and aspirations with the head of the UN Human Rights Office in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Amidst the ongoing conflict and displacement, the students engaged in a lively discussion about their understanding of human rights and the challenges they face daily.
The students expressed a deep desire for peace, security, and the freedom to return to their homes. They spoke poignantly about the impact of the conflict on their lives, highlighting their right to education, safety, and a decent standard of living.
Tala Al-Khatib, a 13-year-old displaced from Jabalia camp, directly addressed those responsible for the violence: "They killed thousands of children and orphaned thousands more. They killed men and made women widows. Where is our right to live in peace and security? Where is freedom for us, the children who live in fear of the occupation? We want our full rights."
Lama Abu al-Saeed shared her longing for home: "Before the war, I lived in the Nuseirat camp. Now, I am in Istiqlal camp... This is not my life. This is not the life of Gaza… Now, I hope this war will stop so I can go back to my home.”
Subscribe FOR FREE and receive upcoming issues of the Newsletter directly to your preferred email address: https://www.factsandnorms.com/the-facts-and-norms-newsletter
Regional News
● IACtHR TO HOLD EXTRAORDINARY SESSION FOCUSING ON INDIGENOUS RIGHTS CASE AGAINST ECUADOR (24 July 2024)
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) has announced an upcoming Extraordinary Session, scheduled for July 29th to 31st, 2024. During this virtual session, the Court will convene to deliberate on the judgment for a single contentious case, Indigenous Peoples Tagaeri and Taromenane v. Ecuador.
This case concerns the alleged responsibility of the Ecuadorian state for violations of the rights of the Tagaeri and Taromenane indigenous peoples. The allegations include inadequate protection of their territories, natural resources, and way of life, particularly in the face of development projects. The case also centers on three instances of violent deaths of members of these indigenous groups occurring in 2003, 2006, and 2014. Additionally, the Court will address the alleged lack of sufficient protective measures for two young girls from a voluntary isolation community following a serious incident in 2013. Beyond this, the Court will use this session to supervise compliance with existing sentences, review provisional measures, and address administrative matters.
● IACtHR CONCLUDES 168TH REGULAR SESSION WITH JUDGMENTS AND HEARINGS (10 July 2024)
The IACtHR concluded its 168th Regular Session on July 5th, having spent two weeks addressing a range of pressing human rights issues through judgments, public hearings, and the supervision of previous rulings.
Central to the session were deliberations on judgments for four contentious cases. In Huilcaman Paillama et al. v. Chile, the Court examined alleged state responsibility for violations against 140 Mapuche people during protests in 1992. Indigenous Peoples U'wa and Their Members v. Colombia centered on claims of inadequate protection of U'wa ancestral lands and the impact of development on their rights. The Court also heard Leite de Souza et al. v. Brazil, addressing forced disappearances, sexual violence by security forces, and inadequate investigations into these crimes. Finally, Ubaté and Bogotá v. Colombia involved the 1995 disappearance of two individuals during a police operation and subsequent impunity.
Public hearings, open for international observation, were conducted in two other significant cases. Carrión et al. v. Nicaragua examined the Nicaraguan state’s alleged failure to properly investigate the death of Dina Alexandra Carrión and to ensure her son’s relationship with his maternal family. In Collen Leite et al. v. Brazil, the Court heard arguments concerning the arbitrary detention, torture, and extrajudicial killing of Eduardo Collen Leite during Brazil's military regime, as well as the arbitrary detention and torture of activist Denise Peres Crispim, Eduardo’s wife, among other human rights violations. Beyond these public hearings, the Court also engaged in a private session to supervise compliance with its judgment in the case of Petro v. Colombia.
The Court also issued a series of resolutions on provisional measures. This included requiring Peru to refrain from enacting legislation that would prescribe crimes against humanity, granting expanded provisional measures to protect individuals in Nicaragua, and requesting that Haiti take steps to guarantee the safety and well-being of Lovely Lamour. The IACtHR also issued resolutions overseeing compliance with judgments in cases against Argentina, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Paraguay, underscoring its dedication to ensuring states fulfill their obligations.
● IACtHR LAUNCHES "THEMIS IA", AN AI-POWERED LEGAL RESEARCH PORTAL (1 July 2024)
The IACtHR, with support from the German Corporation for International Cooperation (GIZ), has unveiled "Themis IA," an upgrade to its legal research platform. The portal harnesses the power of artificial intelligence to enhance access to information, enabling users to efficiently search, analyze, and navigate the Court’s jurisprudence on the American Convention on Human Rights.
● INTER-AMERICAN COURT REJECTS REQUEST TO INTERPRET JUDGMENT IN MEZA VS. ECUADOR CASE (19 June 2024)
The IACtHR rejected a request to interpret its judgment in the case of Meza Vs. Ecuador. The case concerned violations related to the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection due to unreasonable delays in domestic proceedings.
The Court issued its initial judgment in the case in June 2023, finding Ecuador responsible for the violations. The representative of Mr. Juan José Meza, the victim in the case, subsequently filed a request for interpretation of specific aspects of the judgment, particularly concerning the Court’s finding that its judgment itself constituted a form of reparation and its decision not to order additional measures of satisfaction.
In its decision, the IACtHR clarified that its judgments inherently provide reparation by establishing the facts and law underpinning a State's international responsibility. The Court emphasized that this reparatory effect does not automatically translate to specific financial entitlements and is separate from other potential reparations. The Court found that the request for interpretation sought to essentially reopen the case and modify the initial judgment, which fell outside the scope of permissible interpretation.
● SÃO TOMÉ AND PRÍNCIPE RATIFIES PROTOCOL ON OLDER PERSONS' RIGHTS (19 July 2024)
The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) applauds São Tomé and Príncipe for depositing its instruments of ratification for the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Older Persons in Africa. This significant step, which took place on February 15, 2024, brings the total number of ratifications to 14. The ACHPR urges all States Parties to the Charter to expedite their ratification processes to bring this vital protocol into effect, as only one more ratification is needed. The Commission emphasizes the importance of protecting the rights of older persons, aligning with the collective goal of building an inclusive Africa that values all members of society.
● ACHPR EXPRESSES ALARM OVER MIGRANT DEATHS IN ALGERIAN DESERT (18 July 2024)
The ACHPR is saddened by the recent discovery of twelve deceased Syrian migrants, including children, in the Algerian desert near the Libyan border. This tragedy follows similar discoveries of migrant bodies in the Sahara, highlighting the extreme dangers faced by those traversing perilous migration routes. The ACHPR extends its condolences to the families of the victims and expresses its deep concern over the increasing number of migrant deaths in the region. The Commission calls upon all States Parties to fulfill their obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and other international instruments to ensure the safety and protection of all migrants, regardless of their origin or migration status. The ACHPR emphasizes the need for collaborative efforts to address the complex challenges of migration and to protect the fundamental rights of vulnerable individuals undertaking dangerous journeys.
● GAMBIA'S NATIONAL ASSEMBLY REJECTS BILL TO DECRIMINALIZE FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION (16 July 2024)
The ACHPR and the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC) celebrate the Gambian National Assembly’s rejection of a proposed amendment to the Women's (Amendment) Act 2015 that sought to decriminalize Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). This decision follows significant advocacy efforts by the ACHPR, ACERWC, UN Women, and local Gambian organizations, who highlighted the severe health risks and human rights violations associated with FGM. While applauding this victory, the organizations emphasize the need for continued vigilance and efforts to ensure the full implementation of the existing law to protect women and girls from this harmful practice.
● ACHPR CONCERNED OVER AMENDED NATIONAL SECURITY ACT IN SOUTH SUDAN (8 July 2024)
has expressed profound concern regarding the recently amended National Security Service Act in South Sudan, which expands the powers of the National Security Services, including the authority to arrest individuals without a warrant. The Commission called on the South Sudanese government to review the bill to ensure it aligns with human rights obligations and to involve public and civil society consultations to foster transparency.
● ACHPR CALLS FOR RESTRAINT AMID KENYA'S MASS PROTESTS (26 June 2024)
The ACHPR has expressed deep concern over human rights violations during mass protests against a tax bill in Kenya. Reports of abductions, excessive force by police, and live ammunition use have resulted in fatalities and severe injuries among protesters. The Commission urged the Kenyan government to cease these actions, ensure the release of those arbitrarily detained, and conduct independent investigations to hold perpetrators accountable, emphasizing the need for dialogue to address the protests' underlying causes.
● ECHR UPHOLDS FRENCH LAW CRIMINALIZING PURCHASE OF SEX (25 July 2024)
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (Fifth Section) ruled that France’s law criminalizing the purchase of sexual services does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. The ruling came in the case of M.A. et al. v. France, brought by 261 sex workers who argued that the law infringed upon their right to privacy, personal autonomy, and sexual freedom.
The Court acknowledged the lack of European and international consensus on the best approach to regulating prostitution and the deep divisions surrounding the criminalization of clients. It recognized the wide margin of appreciation afforded to states in this area. It concluded that the French law, which forms part of a comprehensive legal framework aimed at combating prostitution and human trafficking, struck a fair balance between competing interests.
The Court emphasized the thorough examination conducted by the French Parliament, which considered all aspects of the complex issue and the sensitive moral and ethical questions it raises. The Court found that the law’s focus on suppressing activities that encourage prostitution, providing protection for sex workers, preventing entry into prostitution, and supporting those who wish to leave the profession, demonstrated a nuanced approach to tackling a complex social problem. The Court also acknowledged that the French authorities have a responsibility to continuously monitor the effects of the law and adapt it as necessary based on societal and international developments.
● ECHR RULING ON COUSO PERMUY v. SPAIN: ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION (25 July 2024)
The ECHR (Fifth Section) has ruled that Spain's restriction of its courts' universal jurisdiction in the case of Couso Permuy v. Spain did not violate the applicant's right of access to a court.
The case concerned the applicant's efforts to hold three US servicemen accountable for the death of his brother, a Spanish journalist killed in Iraq in 2003. While the Spanish courts initially exercised universal jurisdiction to investigate the killing, a 2014 legislative reform restricted this jurisdiction, leading to the discontinuation of the proceedings. The applicant argued that this violated his right to a court under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The ECHR acknowledged the applicant's right to seek civil compensation through criminal proceedings but found that the legislative reform, while restricting jurisdiction, pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring the effectiveness of criminal proceedings and preventing an overburdening of the courts.
The Court recognized that Spain had conducted a thorough investigation for over twelve years before the discontinuation, actively seeking cooperation from US and Iraqi authorities. The ECHR also noted that the proceedings were only provisionally discontinued and could be reopened if the accused were to enter Spanish territory. Ultimately, the ECHR found that the Spanish courts' interpretation of the new law, requiring the alleged perpetrators to be present in Spain, fell within the state's margin of appreciation and did not disproportionately limit the applicant's right to access a court.
● NO VIOLATION IN SWEDEN'S REFUSAL OF FAMILY REUNIFICATION IN D.H. AND OTHERS V. SWEDEN (25 July 2024)
The ECHR (First Section) ruled that Sweden did not violate the right to family life of a refugee and her two children when it refused their family reunification request.
In the case of D.H. and Others v. Sweden, the first applicant, an Eritrean refugee residing in Sweden, was denied reunification with her children and mother. Her application was denied because it did not fulfill the maintenance requirement stipulated by Swedish law. A.G. argued that this denial violated their right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, claiming that the law did not account for her disability, which limited her ability to meet the income requirement.
The Court applied the principles established in the recent case of Dabo v. Sweden, finding that while family reunification is a crucial aspect of family life, states have a wide margin of appreciation in setting conditions for immigration control. The ECHR determined that the applicants had ample opportunity to apply for reunification before the introduction of stricter legislation and lacked objectively justifiable reasons for their delay.
The Court noted that the applicant could submit a fresh request at any time and that Swedish law allowed for exemptions from the maintenance requirement in exceptional circumstances, including disability. Ultimately, the ECHR concluded that Swedish authorities had struck a fair balance between the applicant's right to family life and the state's interest in regulating immigration.
● NO VIOLATION IN SWEDEN'S REFUSAL OF FAMILY REUNIFICATION IN OKUBAMICHAEL DEBRU V. SWEDEN (25 July 2024)
The ECHR (First Section) ruled that Sweden did not violate the right to family life of a refugee when it denied his request for family reunification based on his inability to meet financial requirements. The case, Okubamichael Debru v. Sweden, involved an Ethiopian refugee living in Sweden who was initially refused reunification with his wife and two daughters residing in Uganda.
Citing the principles established in Dabo v. Sweden, the Court acknowledged the importance of family reunification but recognized states’ wide discretion in setting immigration controls. The ECHR found that the applicant had sufficient time to apply for reunification before stricter legislation came into effect and did not demonstrate objectively excusable reasons for his delay. The Court further highlighted that the applicant could submit a new request at any time and that Swedish law allowed exemptions from the maintenance requirements in cases of "exceptional reasons", such as retirement or disability, a provision ultimately applied in the applicant's case, leading to a successful reunification in 2022.
The ECHR determined that the Swedish authorities had appropriately balanced the applicant's right to family life with the state's interest in managing immigration, finding no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
● ECHR UPHOLDS LATVIA'S BAN ON FORMER COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBER FROM RUNNING IN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (25 July 2024)
The ECHR (Fifth Section) ruled today that Latvia did not violate the rights of a former Communist Party member when it barred her from running in parliamentary elections. The case, Ždanoka v. Latvia (No. 2), is a continuation of a previous case brought by the same applicant, Tatjana Ždanoka, in which the ECHR’s Grand Chamber ruled in 2006 that a similar ban did not violate her rights.
The ECHR recognized that while the 2006 judgment upheld the restriction, it also called for the Latvian Parliament to keep the law under review. However, the Court emphasized the significant geopolitical shifts since 2006, particularly Russia's aggression against Georgia and Ukraine, which justified Latvia's heightened concern for its national security and democratic order. The Court found that the Latvian Constitutional Court, in its 2018 interpretation of the law, appropriately narrowed its scope to target individuals whose past and present actions threatened Latvia's independence and democratic principles.
The ECHR considered the applicant's public support for Russia's annexation of Crimea and her promotion of Russia's "compatriot policy" as sufficient grounds for the Latvian authorities to conclude that she posed a continuing threat.
The Court also found that the domestic proceedings, which allowed the applicant to challenge the ban and access previously classified evidence, provided adequate safeguards against arbitrariness. While the applicant was barred from standing for national Parliament, she was able to run and was successfully elected to the European Parliament, demonstrating that the restriction did not completely eliminate her political participation.
● NO DISCRIMINATION IN LATVIA'S INCREASED USE OF LATVIAN IN PRE-SCHOOL EDUCATION (18 July 2024)
The ECHR (Fifth Section) has ruled that Latvia did not violate the rights of Russian-speaking children and their parents by increasing the use of the Latvian language in pre-school education. The case, Djeri and Others v. Latvia, involved complaints about legislative amendments adopted in 2018 which mandated increased use of Latvian and reduced use of Russian in pre-schools.
The applicants, representing several families, argued that these amendments violated their right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, both independently and in conjunction with the non-discrimination principle of Article 14. They claimed that the changes disproportionately limited their children's access to education in their native language and threatened their cultural identity.
The Court, however, found that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee the right to education in a specific language. It also recognized that while Latvia's Constitution affords stronger protection to minority language rights in education, this does not affect the Convention's scope.
Regarding potential discrimination against Russian-speakers compared to Latvian-speakers, the Court found that both groups were in a similar situation regarding access to pre-school education. However, it upheld the Latvian government's aims of protecting the Latvian language, ensuring educational unity, and preparing children for primary school, where Latvian is the primary language of instruction.
The Court emphasized that the 2018 amendments were introduced gradually, following extensive consultation with stakeholders, including minority groups. It also noted that the amendments did not eliminate the use of Russian entirely, as a bilingual approach was still employed in pre-schools.
Further, the Court rejected the argument that Russian-speaking children with special needs faced discrimination compared to those without. It found that Latvia's inclusive education system provided support mechanisms, both general and individualized, for children with special needs, ensuring their effective integration into the education system.
Ultimately, the ECHR concluded that Latvian authorities struck a fair balance between the applicants' right to education and the state's interest in promoting the Latvian language and a unified education system. It found no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, either independently or in conjunction with Article 14.
● LATVIA FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE HOMOPHOBIC ATTACK (18 July 2024)
The ECHR (Fifth Section) has ruled that Latvia violated the rights of a gay man by failing to effectively investigate and prosecute a homophobic attack against him. The case, Hanovs v. Latvia, concerned an incident in November 2020 where the applicant, Deniss Hanovs, was verbally and physically assaulted by a man who objected to his public display of affection with his partner.
The Court found that the attack, motivated by prejudice against the applicant's sexual orientation, constituted degrading treatment under Article 3 and violated his right to respect for private life under Article 8, read in conjunction with the non-discrimination principle of Article 14.
The perpetrator admitted to using homophobic slurs and threatening further violence, claiming he was offended by the couple's display of affection. While the applicant escaped serious physical injury, the Court highlighted the humiliating and intimidating nature of the attack, stressing that even threats of violence can breach Article 3.
The Court criticized the Latvian authorities' response, finding that their reliance on administrative-offence proceedings, resulting in a minor fine for the perpetrator, trivialized the homophobic attack and fostered a sense of impunity. It emphasized that hate-motivated crimes should be rigorously investigated and prosecuted using criminal law mechanisms.
The Court also criticized the Latvian prosecutors' narrow interpretation of hate crime legislation, which led them to dismiss the homophobic motivation as insufficient grounds for criminal prosecution. It underlined the state's obligation to protect LGBTI individuals from violence and discrimination, ensuring that their dignity and private lives are adequately safeguarded.
● ALBANIA'S CONSTITUTIONAL COURT VIOLATED RIGHT TO REASONED JUDGMENTS DUE TO LACK OF EXPLANATION (16 July 2024)
The ECHR (Third Section) ruled that Albania's Constitutional Court violated the right to a fair trial (Article 6 § 1) due to its failure to provide adequate reasoning when dismissing the constitutional complaints of Astrit Meli, an Albanian national, and Swinkels Family Brewers N.V., a Dutch company.
The cases, joined under Meli and Swinkels Family Brewers N.V. v. Albania, involved separate complaints against lower court rulings. Both applicants saw their appeals dismissed by the Constitutional Court because it failed to reach the five-judge majority required by the Albanian Constitution to find a constitutional violation.
The Court acknowledged that tied votes and qualified majority requirements are not inherently incompatible with the right to a fair trial. However, it found that in these cases, the Constitutional Court's decisions were limited to stating the voting results and individual judges' positions without any substantive reasoning for the dismissals.
This lack of explanation deprived the applicants of understanding the grounds for the decisions, violating their right to a reasoned judgment, a key safeguard against arbitrariness in judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized that individuals have the right to a clear and reasoned explanation, especially when challenging lower court rulings on constitutional grounds.
The Court rejected the Albanian government's argument that the Constitutional Court, by dismissing the appeals, implicitly endorsed the lower courts' reasoning. It stressed that such an assumption is problematic, especially in a system of centralized constitutional review such as Albania's.
The ECHR rejected complaints regarding the excessive length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court, finding that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies available for addressing such issues.
● NO VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO LIFE IN CASE OF DETAINEE'S DEATH FROM DRUG INTOXICATION (11 July 2024)
The ECHR (Fifth Section) ruled that France did not violate the right to life (Article 2) in the case of a detainee's death from drug intoxication. The case, Sahraoui and Others v. France, involved the death of S.T., a drug-dependent inmate, at Nevers prison in April 2009.
The applicants, S.T.'s wife and children, argued that prison authorities failed to adequately monitor his health and prevent his death, claiming a breach of France's positive obligation to protect the lives of detainees. They pointed to S.T.'s drug addiction, heavy medication, and the presence of non-prescribed drugs in his system as evidence of insufficient oversight.
The Court acknowledged the state's responsibility for the well-being of detainees, especially those in vulnerable situations like drug addiction, and the need to provide explanations for deaths in custody. However, it found no violation of Article 2, upholding the findings of the French administrative courts.
The judgment emphasized that S.T. received appropriate medical care during his detention, including a methadone substitution treatment and psychiatric monitoring. It also highlighted that the prescribed medications were administered in accordance with proper procedures.
The Court acknowledged the problem of drug trafficking within prisons but emphasized that the state's obligation in this area is one of means, not result. It considered the measures taken by the prison authorities, including the transfer of S.T.'s cellmate who complained about his drug dependence, to be adequate in the circumstances.
While acknowledging that the non-prescribed drugs found in S.T.'s system might have contributed to his death, the Court found no evidence of negligence or a lack of vigilance on the part of the prison authorities. It pointed out that S.T. had been incarcerated at Nevers for only six weeks, making it difficult to detect any drug trafficking, and that his daily contact with medical staff allowed for regular assessment of his health.
The Court concluded that S.T.'s death was primarily due to his pre-existing health conditions, aggravated by the combined effect of various drugs. It found no causal link between the alleged failings of the prison authorities and his death.
● POLAND BREACHED TRANSGENDER PRISONER'S RIGHTS BY DENYING HORMONE THERAPY (11 July 2024)
The ECHR (First Section) ruled that Poland violated a transgender prisoner's right to private life (Article 8) by refusing to allow her to continue hormone therapy in Siedlce Prison. The case, W.W. v. Poland, concerned a transgender woman who had been undergoing hormone replacement therapy associated with gender reassignment for nearly 18 months in other prisons.
The Court found that the prison authorities’ decision to interrupt the applicant's hormone therapy without a thorough medical assessment and while awaiting an endocrinologist’s opinion was disproportionate and failed to strike a fair balance between Poland’s claim that the interruption was to protect her health and her right to self-determination.
The judgment recognized that gender identity is a fundamental aspect of private life and that transgender individuals have the right to define their own sexual identity. It also acknowledged the applicant’s particular vulnerability as an imprisoned transgender person undergoing gender reassignment, emphasizing the need for enhanced protection from authorities.
The Court noted that the applicant had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and that hormone therapy had proven beneficial to her physical and mental health. Medical professionals considered the therapy necessary, with one expert characterizing its interruption as a serious health risk.
The Polish government argued that the prison authorities acted in the applicant’s best interest and that an endocrinologist’s opinion was necessary before continuing the hormone treatment. However, the Court found that placing the burden of proof on the applicant to demonstrate the therapy’s necessity through an additional consultation was disproportionate.
While the interruption lasted only two weeks, the Court stressed that it occurred because of the prison authorities’ actions and only ended due to an interim measure issued by the Court, requiring Poland to administer the prescribed hormones.
Judge Krzysztof Wojtyczek issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that the Court lacked the necessary medical expertise to assess the situation and that the prison authorities acted in good faith by following medical advice. He also expressed concerns about potential harm caused by the Court’s interim measure, which prescribed medication without a comprehensive medical evaluation.
● RUSSIA VIOLATED TRANSGENDER MAN'S FAMILY RIGHTS BY REMOVING FOSTER CHILDREN (9 July 2024)
The ECHR (Third Section) ruled that Russia violated a transgender man's right to respect for family life (Article 8) by terminating his custody of two foster children due to his gender transition. The case, Savinovskikh and Others v. Russia, concerned a person who was diagnosed with "transsexualism" and underwent a double mastectomy in 2017 while caring for two disabled children under a foster care agreement.
The Court found that the Russian authorities' decision to remove the children from the applicant's care was based on discriminatory assumptions and lacked a thorough assessment of the children's best interests. It emphasized that the right to respect for family life extends to foster families and that any interference with this right must be justified and proportionate.
The judgment criticized the Russian courts for relying heavily on the country's ban on same-sex marriage and the "traditions and mentality of Russian society" to justify the separation. It noted that the decision was not supported by any individual expert examination or scientific evidence demonstrating harm to the children due to the applicant's gender transition.
The Court also found fault with the authorities' dismissal of an expert report concluding that the applicant did not have any disorder posing a danger to the children. It expressed concern that the children were placed in a state institution for over a year and a half before being placed with a new foster family.
The ECHR rejected the Russian government's argument that the applicant violated the foster care agreement by failing to inform social services about his diagnosis and surgery. It emphasized that the authorities failed to demonstrate a genuine conflict of interest between the applicant and the children, merely relying on prejudice against transgender individuals.
Judge Georgios Serghides issued a partly dissenting opinion, arguing that the Court should have explicitly found a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8. He also criticized the decision to award damages only to the applicant and not to the children, arguing that this was discriminatory and failed to serve their best interests.
● TÜRKIYE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTESTER'S INJURIES IN ANKARA TERRORIST ATTACK (9 July 2024)
The ECHR (Second Section) ruled that Türkiye did not violate the right to life (Article 2) of a protester injured in the 2015 Ankara bombing. The case, Selçuk v. Türkiye, involved a man who sustained minor injuries during a suicide bombing at a peace rally.
The applicant, Coşkun Selçuk, argued that Turkish authorities failed to take adequate preventive measures to protect the rally participants, despite the existing terrorist threat. He also criticized the police's use of tear gas after the bombing, claiming it hindered medical assistance.
The Court, however, found no violation of Article 2, either in its substantive or procedural aspects. It acknowledged the state's positive obligation to safeguard life, particularly in the context of mass gatherings where a heightened duty of vigilance is required. However, it emphasized that this obligation is not absolute and that authorities must have a certain latitude in their operational decisions, especially in combating terrorism.
The judgment stressed that the Turkish authorities had no concrete information suggesting a specific and imminent threat to the Ankara rally. While acknowledging the general terrorist threat in Türkiye at the time, the Court found that the government's assessment of the situation regarding this specific event could not be challenged.
The Court highlighted the various security measures implemented by the police, including barricading the area and deploying security personnel. It found these measures to be reasonable and proportionate, concluding that the authorities did not underestimate the risk or fail to take appropriate preventive steps.
Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the police's use of tear gas after the explosions to disperse the crowd hindered medical assistance. It noted that the applicant received adequate medical care relatively quickly, despite the chaotic scene.
Regarding the procedural aspect of Article 2, the Court found that Türkiye provided effective legal avenues for victims to seek compensation. While acknowledging delays in the criminal proceedings against some of the accused, it found that these delays did not hinder the establishment of facts and responsibilities.
The Court also highlighted the Turkish legal system's "objective responsibility" principle, which facilitates compensation for victims of terrorism without requiring proof of fault by the authorities. It found this approach favorable to victims and deemed the compensation awarded to the applicant adequate and sufficient.
● POLITICIAN’S CONVICTION FOR DISCRIMINATION VIOLATED PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY (9 July 2024)
The ECHR (Fifth Section) ruled that the criminal conviction of a French regional president for discrimination violated the principle of legal certainty enshrined in Article 7 of the Convention. The case, Delga v. France, involved Carole Delga, president of the Occitanie region, who was convicted for refusing to sign a "contrat de ville" (city contract) with the municipality of Beaucaire, governed by a mayor from the far-right National Rally party.
The Court found that Delga's conviction, based on a novel judicial interpretation of French law, was not reasonably foreseeable and thus violated her right to know in advance what actions or omissions constituted a criminal offense.
The judgment focused on the legal framework surrounding "contrats de ville," agreements between various levels of government to address urban development issues. While the law encourages regional presidents to sign these contracts, it does not explicitly mandate their signature, leaving room for individual discretion.
The Court highlighted parliamentary debates where lawmakers explicitly rejected making regional signatures obligatory due to concerns about violating the principle of local autonomy for regional governments. It also noted that a significant number of city contracts were implemented without regional signatures, further suggesting a lack of legal obligation.
The French government argued that the law was clear and that Delga, as a high-ranking official, should have known her refusal to sign could lead to criminal charges. However, the Court emphasized that the relevant legal provision, criminalizing discrimination by public officials, was interpreted in an unprecedentedly broad manner in this case.
The Court found it particularly problematic that the criminal court contradicted the administrative court's ruling on the same matter. The administrative court had found that refusing to sign a city contract was not a legally actionable decision, implying a lack of a clearly established right for the municipality.
The ECHR concluded that Delga could not have reasonably foreseen that her refusal, motivated by policy considerations, would fall under the criminal offense of discrimination. It considered the judicial interpretation applied in this case to be unpredictable and inconsistent with the established legal framework, violating the guarantees of Article 7.
● GEORGIA FAILED TO EFFECTIVELY INVESTIGATE SUSPECTED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SUICIDE (4 July 2024)
The ECHR (Fifth Section) ruled that Georgia violated the procedural aspect of the right to life (Article 2) by failing to conduct an effective investigation into the suspected suicide of a woman in a domestic violence context. The case, Oghlishvili v. Georgia, concerned the death of E.N., who was found hanged in her family home in 2017.
The applicant, E.N.'s mother, argued that the investigation was ineffective, failing to adequately explore suspicions of physical abuse and potential involvement of her daughter's brother-in-law. She pointed to numerous injuries on her daughter's body, the brother-in-law's suicide attempt, and contradictory witness statements as evidence of potential foul play.
While the Court acknowledged that the investigation was initiated promptly and involved the applicant as a victim, it criticized the significant period of inactivity after February 2019, leading to the expiration of the statute of limitations for the suspected crime of incitement to suicide.
The judgment emphasized the state's obligation to conduct prompt and thorough investigations into potential domestic violence cases, highlighting the need for particular diligence in securing evidence and exploring all credible lines of inquiry. The Court found that Georgia failed to meet this standard, leaving key questions unanswered and ultimately rendering the investigation ineffective due to the lapse of time.
The ECHR rejected the Georgian government's argument that the investigation was adequate, emphasizing that the authorities' protracted inaction, exceeding five years, deprived the investigation of any potential utility. It also noted that the applicant was denied the opportunity to seek judicial review of the investigation's findings due to the authorities' failure to formally close the case.
The Court concluded that the lack of due diligence in addressing crucial questions and the unexplained inactivity, resulting in the expiration of the statute of limitations, demonstrated a lack of genuine effort to establish the truth surrounding E.N.'s death. It found this particularly concerning given the requirement for authorities to display special vigilance in investigating violence against women.
● AZERBAIJAN VIOLATED PUBLISHER'S RIGHTS WITH UNLAWFUL TAX AUDIT AND ACCOUNT FREEZE (4 July 2024)
The ECHR (First Section) ruled that Azerbaijan violated a publishing house owner's rights to respect for his home and correspondence (Article 8) and peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) due to unlawful actions by tax authorities. The case, Rustamkhanli v. Azerbaijan, involved an unannounced on-site tax audit and the freezing of the company's bank accounts.
The Court found that the search and seizure conducted at the publishing house's office in 2013 lacked adequate safeguards against arbitrary interference. While Azerbaijani law permits such audits without a court order, the Court emphasized the need for effective measures to prevent abuse and ensure proportionality.
The judgment criticized the tax authority's seizure of numerous documents and items without distinguishing their relevance to the tax audit, exceeding the permissible scope of seizure under domestic law. It also found fault with the domestic courts' failure to meaningfully assess the legality and scope of the seizure, simply deeming the tax audit lawful without further scrutiny.
Regarding the freezing of the company's bank accounts, the Court found that this measure, imposed for an indefinite period without judicial oversight or periodic review, violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. While acknowledging the state's right to control the use of property to secure tax payments, the Court stressed the need for proportionality and procedural fairness.
The judgment highlighted that the domestic courts failed to assess the proportionality of the account freeze, merely stating its lawfulness without considering its impact on the company's activities. It also criticized the lack of any mechanism for regular review to ensure the measure remained justified over time.
Academic & Professional Opportunities
● CALL FOR PAPERS: INAUGURAL WORKSHOP 2025, LOTUS-RELATED CONVERSATIONS, LOTUS PROJECT
Abstracts are invited for the Inaugural Workshop exploring the centenary of the Lotus Case in Marseille, Istanbul, and The Hague on January 9-10, 2025. Abstracts should reflect on the case's legacy and its principles in 300 words. Accepted participants will prepare short papers (1000-2000 words). Deadline for submissions is October 4, 2024.
● CALL FOR CHAPTER PROPOSALS: EMPIRICAL RESEARCH APPROACHES TO BUSINESS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Editors Ben Grama (Tilburg University), Marisa McVey (Queen’s University Belfast), Samentha Goethals (SKEMA Business School), and Federica Nieri (University of Pisa) invite researchers to submit chapter proposals on empirical research methods in business, human rights, and environmental studies. Abstracts (600 words) are due by September 30, 2024, with full chapters expected by February 28, 2025.
● CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS: CPTA NEWSLETTER NO. 2024
The Committee for the Prevention of Torture in Africa (CPTA) invites contributions for its 2024 newsletter on the theme: “Education and Training for the Prevention of Torture in Africa”. Submissions showcasing exemplary practices in education and training aimed at eradicating torture are welcome from researchers, advocates, academics, NHRIs, NGOs, and others. Maximum 3 pages. Deadline: September 15, 2024. Submit to: SakrM@africa-union.org
● UNITED NATIONS IMMERSION PROGRAMME 2024
Applications are open for the United Nations Immersion Programme, offering a 5-day field visit to Geneva in May, July, and August 2024. The programme includes expert lectures, workshops, and guided tours. Scholarships are available. Apply now through the official UNITAR website.
● WINTER SCHOOL ON ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
UNICRI and the Italian Society for International Organization (SIOI) are organizing the eighth edition of the Winter School on Environmental Crimes, taking place online from November 18-22, 2024. The course will provide participants with a comprehensive understanding of environmental crimes and current responses from the criminal justice system. Application deadline: November 3, 2024 (rolling basis).
● MASTER IN HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT, SCUOLA SUPERIORE SANT’ANNA
The Master in Human Rights and Conflict Management at Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Italy, offers a deep understanding of the linkages between human rights and conflict management theory and practice. The program runs from January 8, 2025, to May 31, 2026, and includes 450 hours of classroom lectures and a 480-hour internship starting from August/September 2025. Tuition is €6,500 for the first round of selection. Applications are due by July 4, 2024, for the first round, and by September 12, 2024, for the second round. Scholarships may be available for non-OECD country citizens. Apply through the official website.
● OHCHR INDIGENOUS FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM 2025
The OHCHR invites Indigenous persons to apply for its 2025 Indigenous Fellowship Program. The four-week program, available in English, Spanish, French, Russian, and Portuguese, provides training on the UN system and Indigenous rights. Applications are due by August 31, 2024.
● PhD-LECTURER POSITION, MAASTRICH UNIVERSITY
Maastricht University seeks candidates for a fully-funded PhD-Lecturer position to research the interplay between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Applicants should submit a research proposal, CV, academic transcripts, motivation letter, and master's thesis to Maastricht University by August 4, 2024.
● CALL POR APPLICATIONS: MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE IN AFRICA
The Committee for the prevention of Torture in Africa invites AU Member States, National Human Rights Institutions, NGOs, and other institutions to nominate candidates for three Expert Member positions. Qualified individuals are also encouraged to apply. Applicants must have expertise and experience in preventing and prohibiting torture and ill-treatment or providing redress for victims in Africa. Only nationals of a State Party to the African Charter can be appointed. Deadline: September 15, 2024.
● GENDER JUSTICE COORDINATOR – INDIA, ASIA FLOOR WAGE ALLIANCE (AFWA)
AFWA is seeking a Gender Justice Coordinator in India to lead its Gender Justice programme in the garment sector. This full-time position requires collaboration with women workers and leaders, civil society organizations, and various stakeholders. Interested candidates should send their CV and cover letter to contact@asia.floorwage.org
● HONDURAS PROGRAM COORDINATOR, WFP
The WFP Solidarity Collective is hiring a Honduras Program Coordinator to support grassroots organizations in Honduras. Applicants should submit a resume, cover letter, and writing sample to hiring@solidaritycollective.org
The Witness for Peace Solidarity Collective seeks a Honduras Program Coordinator. Fluency in Spanish is required.
● HUMAN RIGHTS INVESTIGATOR
The Fair Food Standards Council (FFSC) is hiring a Human Rights Investigator to conduct grower audits, intake and investigate complaints, and interview farmworkers and supervisors. The position requires fluency in Spanish and experience in human rights. Applications should be sent to careers@fairfoodstandards.org
● ASSOCIATE HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICER (MULTIPLE POSITIONS), OHCHR
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva, Switzerland, is seeking to fill multiple Associate Human Rights Officer positions. This role involves researching human rights matters, supporting mandate holders, drafting reports, and collaborating with stakeholders. Deadline: August 4, 2024.
● EQUAL RIGHTS COALITION SECRETARIAT OFFICER, ILGA World
ILGA World, hosting the Secretariat of the Equal Rights Coalition (ERC), is seeking an Officer to join their team. The role involves supporting good governance, facilitating interaction among stakeholders, and supporting ERC thematic working groups. Deadline: August 5, 2024.
Subscribe FOR FREE and receive upcoming issues of the Newsletter directly to your preferred email address: https://www.factsandnorms.com/the-facts-and-norms-newsletter
News from the Facts and Norms Institute
● FNI SUBMITS INPUT ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE TO UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR
The Facts and Norms Institute (FNI) has submitted a study on human rights, access to information and climate change to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Climate Change, Ms. Elisa Morgera. The Institute’s study focuses on two key areas:
Identifying and preventing negative impacts of climate change on human rights: the study highlights the need for comprehensive data collection and sharing, encompassing environmental data, socioeconomic indicators, health information, impact assessments, policy and governance data, capacity building and education initiatives, documentation of human rights violations, and information on international cooperation efforts.
Addressing undue barriers to accessing information: the study examines the challenges faced in Brazil, including a lack of scientific literacy, pervasive antiscientific rhetoric, and a tendency towards short-term electoral reasoning over long-term, science-based governance.
The study draws upon a variety of sources, including international legal instruments, case law, academic publications, media reports, and the Institute's own previous research on human rights and climate change. Professor Henrique Napoleão Alves, Director of the Facts and Norms Institute, emphasizes the submission's significance:
"Our new submission to the UN underscores the urgent need to prioritize public access to reliable, accurate, and culturally appropriate information on climate change. This is crucial for empowering individuals and communities to understand the crisis, advocate for meaningful action, and hold governments and corporations accountable."
Subscribe FOR FREE and receive upcoming issues of the Newsletter directly to your preferred email address: https://www.factsandnorms.com/the-facts-and-norms-newsletter
Comments