Human Rights Council 24 : A Game of Inches

Being back in Geneva for the 24^th session of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) has given me a fresh perspective on the work of human rights bodies, the politics of the HRC, and the role civil society plays within these structures. When most people think of human rights, they imagine the broad, liberal ideals for mankind that only seem to be demanded by political dissidents and touted by the global North. The reality, as seen through the prism of various human rights mechanisms and their processes, paints a far different picture of political and

diplomatic maneuvering and the relatively universal demand and application of human rights. Today, the fight to protect, promote and enshrine human rights principles is indeed a globalized endeavor complete with the complexities and nuances that come with it. It is within this context that HRC member states implement human rights strategies for their countries and others.

This past week, the HRC began with the backdrop of human rights abuses old and new. The massive humanitarian crisis in Syria and Egypt’s troubling leap away from democracy via military coup took center stage in the early proceedings, briefly overshadowing both enduring abuses and relatively new issues, such as LGBT rights. Recurrent human rights abuses, like sexual and gender-based violence and the criminalization of freedom of expression and opinion, also received attention and spurred discussion. And aside from the hot-button issues that dominate the main chambers of the Council, states and NGOs hold their own side events that typically shed light on narrower issues, such as informal negotiations to extend the mandates of Special Rapporteurs (human rights experts appointed by Special Procedures) and the human rights situation in the Middle East and North Africa.

Our Human Right to Freedom of Expression and Privacy

The main chambers of the United Nations Human Rights Council

We’ve all been there: you’re immersed in another culture—either physically or conversationally—and you find yourself putting more thought into your words than usual. You don’t want to offend anyone, and you hope no one says anything that you yourself would find offensive. For the most part, this kind of cross-cultural communication can serve to build mutual understanding and trust, but oftentimes there’s that awkward feeling of self-censorship we impose because of who’s in our company. As awkward as that may feel, it’s a good kind of awkward, one that makes you more reflective about word choice, mannerisms and idiosyncrasies that might put off others who grew up with vastly different cultural practices and guided by diverse value systems. Feel free to break free from the social and cultural norms, or to utter a phrase you know your counterpart will revile, but don’t be surprised if you get more than a few dirty looks.

Wrongful Deaths: Saudi Arabia’s Execution Policies

Saudi Arabia executed seven young men this morning for the crime of robbery. That might seem a bit extreme, but in the Kingdom, there is no official Penal Code that outlines crimes and their associated punishment. Thus death sentences are handed down by judges based upon their subjective interpretation of Shari’a law. While the most infamous punishment for simple theft in the country is the removal of the offending limb, executions are incredibly common in Saudi Arabia, earning the condemnation of the international community. 345 people were beheaded publicly between 2007-2010 and a person was executed on charges of “sorcery” as recently as 2012. The human rights situation in the country is dismal all around: torture abounds in places of detention, unfair trials using forced confessions as the sole piece of evidence are widespread, and arbitrary detention is commonplace for any criticism of government policies. Yet the use of the death penalty as a final solution to get rid of people the government views as “unwanted” is perhaps the most disturbing.

Protests against the use of the death penalty in KSA, courtesy of EuroNews