Geneva Updates
Our strategic presence in Geneva sets us apart as the sole NGO exclusively committed to economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights. This permits us to play a pivotal role in promoting and protecting these rights globally.
Using CEDAW to Secure Women’s Land and Property Rights: A Practical Guide
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is pleased to release it’s latest publication aimed at strengthening the capacity of human rights advocates to advance rights globally.
The purpose of Using CEDAW to Secure Women’s Land and Property Rights: A Practical Guide is to provide advocacy information, advice and tools to those wishing to use the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and its Optional Protocol to secure the land and property rights of women. Our Guide is directed at NGOs and advocates working on these specific issues. Many very good general guides on engaging with CEDAW are available online.[1] We do not intend to repeat the material that can be found in those Guides, but to provide a more targeted resource that provides substantive and practical guidance particular to the land and property rights of women.
The Global Initiative would like to express it sincere thanks to Alicia Estrada, Karen Santana, Lauren Carasik, and Anka Mason at International Human Rights Clinic at Western New England University School of Law for their valuable contributions to this Guide.
The Guide can be downloaded HERE.
UN CEDAW Committee Issues Landmark Decision on Women’s Inheritance Rights in Tanzania
UN CEDAW Committee Issues Landmark Decision on Women’s Inheritance Rights in Tanzania At its sixtieth session, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women [‘CEDAW Committee’] decided a landmark case upholding women’s equal inheritance rights in Tanzania. The case involved two widows who were prevented from inheriting their late husbands’ property and were subsequently left homeless. The two women, E. S. and S. C. (represented by the Women’s Legal Aid Centre and the International Women’s Human Rights Clinic of Georgetown University Law Center) argued that millions of other women in Tanzania like them also experience similar violations, whether as widows, daughters, mothers or other female relatives of the deceased.
In their decision, the CEDAW Committee highlighted that States parties have an obligation to adopt laws of intestate succession that comply with the principles of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women [‘Convention’], and that ensure equal treatment of surviving females and males. It specifically recalled its General Recommendation No. 29 on the ‘economic consequences of marriage, family relations and their dissolution,’ which expressly mentions that State parties are required to ensure that disinheritance of the surviving spouse is prohibited. It also recalled its General Recommendation No. 21 on ‘equality in marriage and family relations,’ which notes that States parties are required to give women equal rights to administer property. It highlighted that “the right of women to own, manage, enjoy and dispose of property is central to their financial independence and may be critical to their ability to earn a livelihood and to provide adequate housing and nutrition for themselves and for their children, especially in the event of the death of their spouse.”
In the present case, the CEDAW Committee observed that E. S. and S. C. “were left economically vulnerable, with no property, no home to live in with their children and no form of financial support,” and expressed the view that “such state of vulnerability and insecurity has restricted the authors’ economic autonomy and has prevented them from enjoying equal economic opportunities.” It ruled that Tanzania’s legal framework which treats widows and widowers differently in terms of ownership, acquisition, management, administration, enjoyment and disposition of property, “is discriminatory and thereby amounts to a violation of article 2 (f) in conjunction with articles 5, 15 and 16 of the Convention.” It held that Tanzania should grant E. S. and S. C. appropriate reparation and adequate compensation commensurate with the seriousness of the infringement of their rights, and that Tanzania should ensure that all discriminatory customary laws limiting women’s equal inheritance rights are repealed or amended and brought into full compliance with the Convention.
A copy of the decision (Communication No. 48/2013) is available HERE.
ESC Rights Update from Geneva: 28th session of the UN Human Rights Council, Spring 2015
April 2015
The 28th session of the Human Rights Council saw States considering a broad range of economic, social and cultural rights and associated issues.
Traditionally the March session of the Human Rights Council is considered the busiest session of the year because of the High-Level Segment and the attendance of State dignitaries - this March session was no different. Economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights received significant attention with reports and resolutions in relation to the housing, food, environment and cultural rights mandates. In addition there was a full day discussion on human rights and climate change, the annual ESCR omnibus resolution focusing on social protection floors and a new initiative on the right to work.
For a detailed report on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the 28th session of the Human Rights Council see HERE.
Canada's extra-territorial human rights obligations to be scrutinized under both human rights Covenants
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The Human Rights Committee, which monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is set to scrutinize Canada regarding its extra-territorial human rights obligations under the Covenant. Canada will appear before the Committee in July 2015 for its periodic review.
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights successfully intervened with a Parallel Report laying out the extra-territorial obligations under the ICCPR and requesting that the Committee include scrutiny on those obligations within the periodic review of Canada.
The List of Issues recently adopted by the Committee, which defines the scope of review, requires Canada to "inform the Committee of any measures taken or envisaged to monitor the human rights conduct of Canadian oil, mining, and gas companies operating abroad" and to "also inform what the available legal venues are in the State party for victims of human rights abuses arising from overseas operations of Canadian extractive firms." As the GI-ESCR Parallel Report makes clear, the jurisprudence of the Committee provides a clear articulation of the extra-territorial application of ICCPR obligations, including the legal obligation to regulated Canadian corporations to ensure that they do not violate human rights abroad, and the legal obligation to provide access to justice in the event of such violations.
The Global Initiative has since submitted a Parallel Report for the periodic review which will call on the Committee to hold Canada accountable for extra-territorial obligations in the context of Canadian corporations involved in building Israeli settlements in Palestine and extractive industries in Central America.
The Global Initiative’s Parallel Report regarding the List of Issues can be found HERE.
The List of Issues can be found HERE.
The Joint Global Initiative and Western New England School of Law Human Rights Clinic Parallel Report can be found HERE.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), is set to scrutinize Canada regarding its extra-territorial human rights obligations under that Covenant. Canada will appear before the Committee in February 2016 for its periodic review.
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights successfully intervened with a Parallel Report to ensure that the List of Issues included Canada's extra-territorial obligations.
In the List of Issues adopted by the Committee, it asked Canada to "provide information on measures taken, including legislative, regulatory, policies and guidance to ensure that private companies respect economic, social and cultural rights throughout their operations, including when operating abroad" as well as to "also inform on remedies available for victims and describe grievance mechanisms in place and elaborate on their mandates."
According to Bret Thiele, Co-Executive Director of the GI-ESCR, "These examinations of Canada under both key human rights Covenants provide advocates the opportunity to address the issue of extra-territorial obligations and corporate accountability and provides the Committees the opportunity to further reaffirm that the ICCPR and ICESCR contain extra-territorial human rights obligations to which States parties must adhere."
Thiele added that "It is hoped that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in particular builds on its ETO pronouncements with stronger statements on the extra-territorial obligation to fulfill human rights, including through both bilateral and multilateral development cooperation and trade agreements."
The Global Initiative’s Parallel Report regarding the List of Issues can be found HERE.
The List of Issues can be found HERE.
Advocates from 91 Countries Call on Governments to Stop Education Profiteers
News from Tony Baker, from Results, about our partners at the Global Campaign for Education, which just finished its General Assembly. This blog was originally posted here.
Contrary to the right to education, the Education for All goals, and years of civil society campaigning — including that of RESULTS volunteers — to abolish school fees, the practice and acceptance of charging fees for primary school has crept back into the global education landscape. This trend has largely been driven by corporate providers, with some governments and donors now diverting funds towards fee-charging private schools rather than to quality improvements of free, public education systems.
In this context, the Global Campaign for Education (GCE) and its members, including RESULTS, are calling on governments to effectively and responsibly take up their roles as the primary duty-bearers in education. This week at the GCE World Assembly, a global event that saw the gathering of 190 education advocates from 91 countries gather in Johannesburg, the GCE movement passed a motion demanding governments to protect education from for-profit private companies, cease the channeling of public funds to private entities, and regulate private sector involvement in education.
The motion comes after mounting evidence that private schools, including those advertising themselves as low-fee and targeting the poor, are not reaching children of low-income families, not reaching out-of-school children, and, in many cases, not providing quality education — thereby not contributing to the global progress needed to achieve universal, quality education for all. Such evidence has been gathered and revealed by numerous efforts like the Privatisation in Education Research Initiative, various UN Committee review processes, actions taken at the World Human Rights Forum, and the most recent report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education.
The GCE World Assembly was also joined by Nobel Laureate Kailash Satyarthi and UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education Dr. Kishore Singh.
In response to the expansion of fee-charging private schools, the GCE movement calls on governments to not rely on private providers to fulfill education obligations of the State:
GCE World Assembly Motion:
The Role of the State Regarding the Role of Private Actors and Providers
GCE further resolves and calls on States to take the following measures:
-
States must recognize that education is a universal human right and a public good, and that States have the primary duty to ensure the right to education.
-
States must uphold their responsibility of ensuring free quality education from early childhood education to at least completion of secondary level, including basic adult education, and work towards providing free education beyond secondary, recognizing the obligation contained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights for the “progressive introduction” of free education at all levels.
-
All states must have a long‐term vision for providing and financing education and lifelong learning for all and meeting the post‐2015 education goals, with the State being in a leadership position in delivering this. Responsibility for the provision and financing of education should not be transferred to other actors.
-
States must ensure that education, from early childhood education to secondary education and beyond, is provided for the benefit of learners and society at large, not for the profit of private companies, individuals, and other actors.
-
States should not use government funds to subsidize for‐profit education, whether through grants, vouchers, or other means.
-
States must ensure that private actors providing education services are accountable. Any role for private actors in the education sector must be clearly defined in the national education sector plan or strategy, and the responsibilities and requirements for private providers must be fully set out in legal, regulatory frameworks.
-
States have the obligation to regulate and monitor private sector provision. All schools, including private schools, must adhere to minimum education norms and standards for school infrastructure, teacher qualifications and decent working conditions, curriculum and teaching and learning materials and other norms related to quality, equity, and non-discrimination, including child safety and the human rights of children and young people.
-
The State must ensure that it has the full staffing and resource capacity to adequately monitor and regulate private providers.
-
Regulation of private providers should encompass regulation to ensure that private provision does not create or entrench existing social and economic inequalities.
The GCE World Assembly was preceded by a Public Forum on the Right to Education and followed by a two-day Civil Society Education Fund Global Learning Event.
Human Rights Committee to consider case of forced eviction in The Philippines
The Human Rights Committee officially registered the case of Garsain et al. v. The Philippines. The case challenges the Government of the Philippines for the brutal forced eviction of the residents of Corazon de Jesus, a community in San Juan City, Metro Manila. On January 11, 2012, one hundred twenty one (121) residents of Corazon de Jesus, San Juan City, Metro Manila Philippines suffered a brutal forced eviction and saw their homes demolished. Joint forces of Philippine National Police, Special Weapons and Tactics and demolition team bombarded the residents with water canons, used a bulldozer to enter the community, and fired guns and threw teargas toward the residents and community. Policemen were armed with M14, M16 and 45 caliber firearms.
Since access to justice was denied in The Philippines, the complaint is asking the Human Rights Committee to hold the Government accountable to its human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Complaint was brought by the residents with the assistance of Defend Job Philippines, a human rights organization based in the Philippines; the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, an international human rights NGO; and the International Human Rights Clinic at the New England University School of Law in the U.S.
According to Melona Repunte Daclan of Defend Job Philippines, “The Corazon de Jesus community has resorted to international human rights law to seek accountability for these egregious human rights violations because the courts in the Philippines have refused to enforce the human rights laws that are to protect the citizens of the Philippines.”
Bret Thiele, Co-Executive Director of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, added that “international scrutiny is necessary to bring to an end the impunity with which forced evictions are carried out in the Philippines, and we hope this case not only provides accountability and remedies to those bringing the claim, but puts an end to forced evictions in the Philippines altogether.”
Aside from the Corazon de Jesus residents, Glenda Leonor, mother of Arnel Leonor, a young man killed during a demolition in Silverio Compound is also a complainant to the submission along with Mary Homo, wife of Antonio Homo who was killed in the midst of the struggle of their community in Navotas against forced eviction and home demolitions. Roy Velez and Amelita Bravante, trade union leaders and advocates of urban poor rights and currently facing fabricated criminal charges are also complainants.
Daclan stressed that demolition and forced eviction is a policy of the Philippine Government represented by the current administration of Benigno Aquino III to give way to mega development projects and other business projects. Indeed, Defend Job Philippines and Demolition Watch have documented more than 73,000 families who were forcibly evicted and had their homes demolished as of February 2014.
The Human Rights Committee is an impartial, independent human rights mechanism sitting in Geneva, Switzerland and is mandated with ensuring compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Philippines became a party to the Covenant in 1986 and three years later voluntarily accepted the Individual Complaint mechanism whereby victims of human rights violations can seek to hold States accountable to their human rights obligations and seek remedies when those obligations are violated.
“We are hopeful that through this international human rights mechanism, the Philippine Government shall be held accountable, demolition of communities be stopped and that the rights of the people be truly protected and promoted.” Daclan ended.
The complainants’ submission can be seen HERE.
UN Special Rapporteur: "Governments must not delegate responsibility of basic education to private sector"
The UN Special Rapporteur one the right to education made today a crucial statement on privatisation in education. He expressed his "deep concerns" that "some governments are actively encouraging the growth of private education in basic education", following the Sub-Saharan Africa Regional Ministerial Conference on Education Post-2015 held in Kigali, Rwanda, this week, where some Governments suggested that States should withdraw completely from primary education to make sure its profitable.
The full press release is below. To see the work of the GI-ESCR on privatisation and human rights, check http://globalinitiative-escr.org/advocacy/privatization-in-education-research-initiative/
Governments must not delegate responsibility of basic education to private sector, UN expert says
GENEVA (12 February 2015) - “Free, quality basic education is a fundamental human right for all, and governments must not delegate this responsibility to the private sector,” today said the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to education, Kishore Singh.
The expert’s call comes after African education authorities discussed, among other issues, the possibility of reducing States’ spending on education by promoting the expansion of private education at the Sub-Saharan Africa Regional Ministerial Conference on Education Post-2015 held in Kigali, Rwanda, this week.
“I am deeply concerned that some governments are actively encouraging the growth of private education in basic education,” Mr. Singh said. “Education is not a privilege of the rich and well-to-do; it is an inalienable right of every child. Provision of basic education free of costs is a core obligation of States.”
“Privatisation in education negatively affects the right to education both as entitlement and as empowerment. Moreover, it depletes public investment in education as an essential public service and can lead to abusive practices,” the expert stressed, recalling his 2014 report* to the UN General Assembly.
“Now more than ever, governments should be expanding public educational opportunities for the marginalised groups, especially children from poor families,” the Special Rapporteur stressed.
Mr. Singh noted that, in the context of the UN Post-2015 Development Agenda, “education deserves to be a high priority, receiving a high degree of public investment in recognition of the fact that it benefits both the individual and society.”
“I call upon governments to stand against the idea of privatising basic education and to strengthen their public systems. Free basic education is the cornerstone of the right to education and must not be undermined through privatisation,” he said.
(*) Check the full report (A/69/402): http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/SREducation/Pages/AnnualReports.aspx
Kishore Singh (India), the Special Rapporteur on the right to education since August 2010, is a professor specialized in international law who has worked for many years with UNESCO for the promotion of the right to education, and advised a number of international, regional and national bodies on right to education issues. Throughout his career, Mr. Singh has supported the development of the right to education in its various dimensions and worked to promote better understanding of this right as an internationally recognized right. Learn more, log on to: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/SREducation/Pages/SREducationIndex.aspx
The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.
For inquiries and media requests, please contact Stee Asbjornsen (+41 22 917 9827 /
For media inquiries related to other UN independent experts: Xabier Celaya, UN Human Rights – Media Unit (+ 41 22 917 9383 /
UN Human Rights, follow us on social media:Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/unitednationshumanrights Twitter:http://twitter.com/UNrightswireGoogle+ gplus.to/unitednationshumanrights YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/UNOHCHR
Check the Universal Human Rights Index:http://uhri.ohchr.org/en
- See more at: http://www.ohchr.org/FR/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15561&LangID=E#sthash.ix8FE6Jo.dpuf
Challenging disconnection of water supply of low-income residents in Detroit
International human rights network intervenes in case challenging large-scale disconnection of water supply to tens of thousands of low-income residents in Detroit New York. February 9, 2015. The International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net), a global network of over 220 groups and 50 individual advocates from around the world working to secure economic and social justice through human rights, has requested leave from the U.S. District Court to be recognized as amicus curiae[1] in the case of Lyda et al. v. City of Detroit[2] in support of residents challenging the City of Detroit’s decision to cut off water supply to thousands of households unable to pay their bills.
As detailed in the plaintiffs’ complaint, by the end of August 2014 the City of Detroit had disconnected approximately 30,000 households of low-income persons and persons living in poverty from the municipal water supply and sewerage service, leaving them without access to drinking water and water for toilets and basic sanitation.
ESCR-Net, through its amicus brief, seeks to bolster the plaintiffs’ legal challenge by highlighting that the disconnections for inability to pay violate a range of legal obligations applicable to the U.S. under key international human rights treaties.
At the same time, ESCR-Net contends that Detroit’s City Charter, which includes a Declaration of Rights recognizing rights to water, sanitation and decent housing, must be respected. Pursuant to long-established principles of both U.S. law and international law, relevant domestic law must be interpreted consistently with treaty obligations.
Chris Grove, Executive Director of ESCR-Net, said, “Access to justice is required for violations of human rights, and we welcome the opportunity to assist the U.S. District Court with material relevant to consideration of the issues at stake. These issues impact the health, security and human dignity of thousands of Detroit residents and implicate our vision of a just society.”
“A number of human rights are arguably violated by these disconnections, including rights to water, sanitation, adequate housing, health, life, freedom from cruel and inhuman treatment, and non-discrimination. The international human rights obligations of the U.S. also apply to the City of Detroit, and these obligations require that denial of access to water be reversed immediately,” he added.
The City of Detroit’s water disconnection policy has shocked the international community and has prompted, among other reactions, the visit of two United Nations Special Procedures human rights experts to assess the situation in October 2014.[3] Despite the onset of winter, local groups report that the City has continued water shut-offs at the homes of low-income families, the elderly, and the infirm.
It is hoped that the application of international human rights law will help the plaintiffs achieve a just and effective remedy, including renewed access to water and an end to any further disconnections.
A copy of the amicus curiae brief is available here.
About ESCR-Net
ESCR-Net is the largest global network of human rights organizations, grassroots groups and advocates working to build a global movement to make human rights and social justice a reality for all. Please visit http://www.escr-net.org
This action is being led by ESCR-Net Strategic Litigation Working Group members Center for the Study of Law, Justice and Society (Dejusticia), the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR), the Social Rights Advocacy Centre (SRAC), and the Social Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI).
For information regarding this amicus intervention, contact:
-
Susie Talbot. Senior Legal Officer (ESCR-Net)
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. -
Bret Thiele, Co-Executive Director (GI-ESCR)
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . (Tel. +1-218-269-0214)
For information on the situation in Detroit or to speak with residents, contact:
-
Michigan Welfare Rights Organization http://mwro.org/
-
Marian Kramer (313-471-9241), Maureen Taylor (313-729-5558) or Sylvia Orduño (734-846-9465). Office Tel. +1-313-964-0618
[1] An amicus curiae (or ‘friend of the Court’) is a person or organization who, although not a party to a case, is granted leave to submit material to the Court relevant to the disposition of the case and not already brought to the Court’s attention by the parties.
[2] Lyda et al. v. City of Detroit, Case No. 2:15−cv−10038−BAF−RSW, before Hon. Bernard A. Friedman in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.
[3] See: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15188&LangID=E.
NGO Submission calling for Human Rights Protections in the 2015 Climate Agreement
final_submission_to_adp_on_human_rights_protections_7_feb_2015.pdf
We, the undersigned organisations, call for language in the 2015 climate agreement stating that the Parties to the UNFCCC shall, in all climate change-related actions, respect, protect, promote, and fulfil human rights for all.
Climate change is a global injustice to present and future generations, and one of the greatest human rights challenges of our time. We are highly concerned about the grave harm that climate change is already causing, and will continue to cause, to people and communities as well as to the environment on which we all depend. It has a disproportionate impact on the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, and we are increasingly exceeding adaptation limits, resulting in significant loss and damage, as documented by the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This report also highlights that current emission reduction actions are insufficient to limit global warming to the 1.5 degrees needed to avoid the most catastrophic of predicted impacts.
A safe climate is critical to the full enjoyment of human rights, including the rights to life, health, food, water, adequate housing, and self-determination. However, it is well recognized—by the UN Human Rights Council and others—that climate change and certain actions being taken to address climate change interfere with the enjoyment of human rights protected under international law. For this reason, in 2010, the Parties to the UNFCCC agreed that “Parties should, in all climate change-related actions, fully respect human rights.” We regard this recognition of existing obligations as critical for a range of aspects, including with regard to safeguards and accountability for all climate actions, full and effective participation, and support for poorer countries whose capacities to protect their citizens’ human rights are strained by climate change impacts. However, we are concerned that this language has not been further operationalised in the UNFCCC process.
With negotiations for the Paris agreement underway, NOW is the time to fully integrate rights protections in the climate regime.
We welcome the reference to human rights, indigenous peoples rights and gender in the current version of the draft negotiating text annexed to the “Lima call for climate action”, which stresses that “all actions to address climate change and all the processes established under this agreement should ensure a gender-responsive approach, take into account environmental integrity / the protection of the integrity of Mother Earth, and respect human rights, the right to development and the rights of indigenous peoples.”
Yet we urge all Parties to include human rights in the operational provisions of the 2015 agreement. In doing so, we endorse the recommendations of 28 independent experts of the Human Rights Council, set forth in their “Open Letter from Special Procedures mandate holders of the Human Rights Council to the State Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,” dated 17 October:
We urge the State Parties to the UNFCCC to recognise the adverse effects of climate change on the enjoyment of human rights, and to adopt urgent and ambitious mitigation and adaptation measures to prevent further harm. We call on the State Parties to include language in the 2015 climate agreement that provides that the Parties shall, in all climate change related actions, respect, protect, promote, and fulfil human rights for all. And we urge the State Parties at COP 20 in Lima to launch a work program to ensure that human rights are integrated into all aspects of climate actions.
These UN experts highlight the fact that climate change threatens to undermine the protection of human rights, and that the UNFCCC has a crucial role in effectively protecting human rights for all. We wholeheartedly agree.
Click here for the full document and a list of the organizations that have signed on to this letter calling for human rights to be integrated in the 2015 climate agreement.
