Latest news with #InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights
Scoop
4 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
PH 2025 Elections Did Not Meet Int'l Standards For Free, Fair Elections –Observer Mission Report
The 2025 Philippine midterm elections 'did not meet international standards for free and fair elections,' according to the final report of the International Observer Mission (IOM) released today, citing 'grave and widespread violations' of human rights across the country. The mission's findings point to a confluence of factors that severely undermined the integrity of the electoral process: voter disenfranchisement, widespread vote-buying, systemic human rights violations, the entrenched power of domestic political dynasties, and the foreign military influence in local political affairs. 'The rights of Filipinos to vote freely and without coercion were compromised,' says IOM Commissioner Lee Rhiannon. 'The climate of fear, normalized vote-buying and militarization that surrounded the elections reflects a failure to uphold international democratic standards.' The IOM's conclusion is based on weeks of intensive documentation by international field teams deployed across Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao during the election campaign and on election day, May 12. Observers conducted on-the-ground interviews with voters, poll watchers, campaigners, local officials, and civil society leaders, while remote teams tracked digital disinformation, overseas absentee voting, and media coverage. The comprehensive report is the result of an independent international initiative that adopts a rights-based approach to monitoring the elections. This was organized by the International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP) and launched in 2022. For the 2025 mission, more than 50 international human rights advocates took part, with field Observers deployed to priority areas with histories of election-related violence. The Mission partnered with local watchdogs such as Kontra Daya and Vote Report PH, while remote teams monitored digital disinformation, overseas absentee voting (OAV), and voting irregularities abroad. 'Our findings point to a widespread pattern of repression and vote-buying alongside threats of foreign interference,' said IOM Commissioner Andrea Mann. 'The red-tagging of progressive candidates, vote-buying, disenfranchisement, and militarization are not isolated problems. These reflect a deeply compromised system.' 'Given the scale and severity of these violations, we conclude that the 2025 Philippine elections failed to meet international standards for free, fair, and democratic elections,' Mann stated. Voter Disenfranchisement, Vote-Buying 'These elections violated key articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Philippines is a state party,' said ICHRP Global Council Chairperson Peter Murphy. The IOM Final Report documented 545 cases of electoral violations, including vote-buying, disenfranchisement, harassment, and even election-related killings and disappearances. 'These abuses fundamentally undermined the rights of Filipinos to participate in free and fair elections,' he added. The Mission highlighted the rampant voter disenfranchisement. Malfunctioning automated counting machines (ACMs), ballots misread as overvotes, and pre-marked or misprinted ballots disenfranchised thousands. COMELEC failed to explain why the machines ran on a non-certified software version, casting doubt on the integrity of the results. According to the report, the disenfranchisement extended overseas, where online registration glitches and delayed pre-enrolment requirements led to a historically low 18.12% voter turnout among OFWs, far below even the usual participation rates. Workers and the urban poor were similarly excluded, as May 13 was not declared a paid holiday, forcing many to choose between voting and earning income. Murphy also raised alarm over the scale of vote-buying, calling it 'scandalous interference with the election.' The IOM alone, recorded 111 vote-buying incidents, with COMELEC receiving 158 formal complaints but issuing only minimal sanctions. Some party-lists, such as Ako Bicol, reportedly offered up to 16,000 PHP (~289 USD) per vote. 'Mass poverty and entrenched inequality have enabled political dynasties and business-funded candidates to distort electoral outcomes,' Murphy stated. He mentioned the recommendations from the IOM report on electoral reforms, including the adoption of a hybrid manual-automated voting system, addressing the inaccessible OFW registration process, and the declaration of election day as a paid public holiday. Red-Tagging, militarization undermine free elections 'The 2025 midterm election failed to uphold the most basic democratic principle: the people's uncoerced right to choose their leaders,' said IOM Commissioner Rhiannon. 'The abuses by various arms of state power documented here reveal the extent of the failed Filipino electoral process. These abuses not only constitute electoral violations, they also constitute violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.' Central to these violations, she pointed out, was the systematic use of red-tagging, which she described as "the most frequently reported violation." There were 112 documented cases solely by the Mission, while a staggering 1,445 cases were reported to the IOM local election watchdog Vote Report PH. "It is used to smear reputations, deter campaigning, and prevent people from voting," Rhiannon explained. The Commissioner recounted disturbing cases of red-tagging and intimidation: from tarpaulins branding progressive candidates 'NPA' and 'terrorist' in Southern Tagalog to the display of fake coffins marked with blood and names of activist groups across the country. 'In Western Visayas, soldiers interrogated children as young as five. In Abra, the military handed out 'surrender papers' in exchange for financial aid or a chance to 'clear' one's name,' she added. Rhiannon emphasized that these abuses were not isolated but part of a 'well-funded campaign involving the police, military, and the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC).' 'The unchecked labeling of progressive groups as insurgents has fostered a climate of fear, suppressed political participation, and severely undermined democratic space,' Rhiannon said. Violation of national sovereignty highlighted IOM Commissioner Colleen Moore pointed out the timing and scope of the U.S.-led Balikatan military exercises, which overlapped with the Philippine 2025 midterm elections, as a major distortion of democratic space. 'The concurrent staging of large-scale war games with over 15,000 foreign and local troops during an electoral campaign is not just poor judgment. It is an outright violation of national sovereignty of Filipinos,' Moore said. She emphasized that the exercises were 'framed by government officials and administration-aligned candidates as defensive maneuvers against an imminent threat, but in reality, it contributed to manufacturing a climate of fear designed to steer public opinion toward pro-U.S., pro-Marcos candidates.' According to the IOM report, this convergence of militarization and electoral politics "compromised the conditions necessary for a free and fair vote." The IOM Commissioner noted that candidates advocating an independent foreign policy were vilified as 'Beijing's puppets,' while dissent was drowned out by the state narrative equating opposition to the exercises with disloyalty. "The international community must recognize that ongoing military cooperation, such as Balikatan, directly contributes to political repression and distorts civic discourse," Moore stated. She referenced recommendations from the report calling for an end to foreign military activities and security aid to the Philippines during electoral periods and beyond. Observer mission recommendations The report issued a comprehensive set of recommendations aimed at addressing deep-rooted structural issues in the country's electoral and governance systems. The report emphasizes that many of these recommendations echo those made in its 2022 findings. This is evidence, it states, of 'the persistence of systemic issues that continue to shape electoral processes in the Philippines.' Among its primary calls are the adoption of a hybrid election system that allows for both manual and automated vote verification, the urgent passage of the long-delayed Anti-Dynasty Bill, and measures to ensure nonpartisanship and transparency of the COMELEC. The IOM also highlighted the need for legal reforms that would empower voters to report violations such as vote-buying without fear of retaliation. The IOM extended its appeal to the international community, calling for sustained scrutiny of the Philippine electoral process and human rights situation. It specifically calls for the abolition of the NTF-ELCAC, describing it as a 'central apparatus of red-tagging, intimidation, and political repression.' The IOM urges the Philippine government to criminalize red-tagging, outlaw the use of private armies, repeal the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, and rejoin the International Criminal Court (ICC) as essential steps toward restoring democratic space and accountability. These measures, the report states, are vital to protecting civil society, enabling peaceful political participation, and rebuilding public confidence in the country's democratic institutions. As Commissioner Moore emphasized, 'Free and fair elections cannot occur in an environment where voters are manipulated by fear, opposition voices are silenced, and foreign powers shape public discourse.' The Commissioners underscored that their report amplifies the voices of Filipinos already bravely speaking out, and reflects a shared call to uphold every people's right to choose their leaders free from fear, coercion, or foreign interference.
Scoop
4 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
India: Government Arbitrarily Detained & Forcibly Transferred Rohingya Human Rights Defender In Defiance Of U.N. Ruling
Bangkok, 27 May 2025 The Government of India arbitrarily detained Rohingya human rights defender Mohammad Arfat for more than four years without due process, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention ruled, Fortify Rights said today. The recent ruling, which responds to a complaint filed by Fortify Rights in May 2024, calls on Indian authorities to provide Mohammad Arfat with reparations, prevent future violations, and cooperate with the U.N. Refugee Agency to ensure his protection and potential resettlement. More than 40 days after the Working Group issued its decision, Indian authorities defied the U.N. ruling, forcibly transferring Mohammad Arfat to another country, where he now remains in hiding due to ongoing threats to his security. 'India's prolonged and arbitrary detention of Mohammad Arfat was both unlawful and unconscionable. He should never have been detained, let alone forcibly transferred out of India following the ruling,' said John Quinley, Director of Fortify Rights. 'The U.N. Working Group's opinion reaffirms what we have known all along—India violated international law by detaining a recognized refugee for years, and then put him even further in harm's way.' In the published opinion, adopted during its 101st session, the U.N. Working Group determined that India's detention of Mohammad Arfat since 2018 was arbitrary, lacked any legal basis, and deprived him of due process. The opinion finds that his detention was based solely on his status as a Rohingya refugee and that India violated key provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—to which India is a state party and legally bound to uphold— including Articles 9 and 14, which protect against arbitrary detention and ensure the right to a fair trial. Upon his release from arbitrary detention, Mohammad Arfat told Fortify Rights: I was beaten by Indian police when I was first detained. … My health [after years] in Indian detention was not good, and I could not see a doctor. I became very sick over the years. … Now [after my release and transfer] I feel mentally and physically unwell. The U.N. Working Group is a body of independent human rights experts established by the U.N. Human Rights Council to investigate and provide opinions on cases of deprivation of liberty that are allegedly arbitrary or inconsistent with international standards. Fortify Rights filed the 20-page complaint to the Working Group on May 30, 2024, along with an annex of more than 90 pages supporting Mohammad Arfat's case and his right to liberty. The U.N. Working Group's opinion in response to Fortify Rights' submission expressed grave concern for Mohammad Arfat and recommended that Indian authorities: [E]nd the arbitrary detention of Mr. Arfat by immediately and unconditionally releasing him and to liaise with UNHCR to grant him protection and a remedy, befitting his status as an asylum-seeker, which could include resettlement in a third country. The U.N. Working Group also recommended that the Indian government provide 'compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law,' for the harm caused to Mohammad Arfat, and that those responsible for the violation of his rights be held accountable, urging the Government 'to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Arfat and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.' Instead, India forcibly transferred Mohammad Arfat to another country shortly after the ruling. In addition to Mohammad Arfat's case, beginning on May 6, 2025, Fortify Rights documented how Indian authorities carried out mass arrests of Rohingya refugees in New Delhi. The next day, the authorities forced at least 40 of them back to Myanmar, where the military junta has been carrying out a genocidal campaign and where the Arakan Army — an ethnic resistance army fighting the Myanmar military junta in an ongoing revolution — has also carried out atrocities against the Rohingya people. In this instance, the India Navy dumped the refugees into the sea near the Myanmar border, placing their lives at grave risk in violation of international law. During the same crackdown, India also forcibly deported other Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh, which hosts more than one million Rohingya refugees in crowded and tightly controlled camps. On May 15, 2025, Tom Andrews, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, called India's forcing Rohingya into the sea 'unconscionable' and 'outrageous' and, in response, he launched an inquiry. Andrews said in a statement that forced returns to Myanmar are a 'serious violation of the principle of non-refoulment, a fundamental tenet of international law that prohibits states from returning individuals to a territory where they face threats to their lives or freedom.' Furthermore, on March 3, three U.N. experts, including Special Rapporteur Andrews, raised concerns about India's 'widespread, arbitrary and indefinite detention of refugees from Myanmar' in a letter to the Indian government: Conditions in places of detention are reportedly dire. Detainees from Myanmar, the majority of whom are Rohingya, are reportedly held in severely overcrowded cells, and do not receive adequate nutrition, clean water, or medical care. Facilities are reportedly unsanitary. Detainees lack clean clothes, bedding, and access to sunlight. Many detainees are reportedly suffering from illness, infections and other medical problems and are unable to access adequate medical care. India must immediately end its arbitrary and indefinite detention of refugees and provide reparations to all harmed by the government's reckless and violent crackdown on their rights, said Fortify Rights. India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol and lacks a domestic asylum law; however, it remains obligated to respect the international customary law principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the forced return of refugees to situations where they are likely to face persecution and other serious human rights abuses. India's forcible return of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar—where they face grave risks of persecution, violence, or death—also violates several international treaties to which India is a state party, including the ICCPR (Articles 6, 7, and 9), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 6 and 22), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Article 5). Forcibly returning Rohingya refugees to Myanmar also violates the Genocide Convention, to which India is a state party, said Fortify Rights. By returning victims of genocide to a country where that genocide is ongoing, India may be failing in its obligation to prevent genocide under international law. Moreover, by knowingly contributing to the continuing genocide through the forced return of survivors, India risks legal complicity in the very crimes the Convention is meant to prevent. 'India has legal obligations to protect Rohingya refugees under treaties it willfully entered into,' said John Quinley. 'India should immediately and unconditionally free all refugees in detention and provide compensation for any harms inflicted.'
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Russian FSB kidnaps Ukrainian in occupied Crimea
Ukrainian citizen Serhii Hrishchenkov has disappeared in the temporarily occupied city of Sevastopol (Crimea). He was detained and taken away in an unknown direction by people who identified themselves as Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) officers. Source: Dmytro Lubinets, Ukrainian Parliamentary Human Rights Commissioner Details: Lubinets said that he was contacted by Hrishchenkov's daughter. The detention took place on the night of 6-7 May, and there is still no information about Hrishchenkov's fate or whereabouts. Quote: "These are not isolated cases on the territory of the temporarily occupied peninsula, where people are basically being kidnapped by unknown individuals posing as employees of the Russian Federal Security Service." Serhii Hrishchenkov. Photo: Lubinets Details: Lubinets stressed that such actions are a gross violation of international law, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights: Articles 9.2, 9.4 and 14.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. These documents guarantee detainees and their families the right to receive information about the grounds for detention, their legal status and place of detention. Dmytro Lubinets has already appealed to Tatyana Moskalkova, Human Rights Commissioner of the Russian Federation, demanding that she provide objective information about Hrishchenko's status and whereabouts. Quote: "This case involving a Ukrainian citizen once again demonstrates the inability of the occupation administration to ensure the implementation of international civil and political rights for residents of the temporarily occupied territories of Crimea. Cynicism and human rights violations have become commonplace for thousands of Ukrainian citizens!" Background: On 18 May, the Mejlis (parliament) of the Crimean Tatar People stated that Russia's current policy in occupied Crimea is a direct continuation of Soviet genocidal practices. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Scoop
7 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Kyrgyzstan: National Leader's Reputation Must Not Override Right To Freedom Of Expression, UN Committee Finds
GENEVA (26 May 2025) - A national leader's reputation must not outweigh the right to freedom of expression, the UN Human Rights Committee has ruled, finding that Kyrgyzstan violated the fundamental freedoms of a lawyer and a journalist who were prosecuted for criticising the then-president and barred from leaving the country. In a recently adopted Decision, the Committee concluded that Kyrgyzstan has violated the rights of Cholpon Djakupova, a lawyer and civil society advocate, and Narynbek Idinov, a journalist. The two were sued by the General Prosecutor for discrediting then-President Atambaev's honour and reputation. The case stemmed from Ms Djakupova's critical remarks about the then-President during a roundtable discussion on freedom of assembly and speech, and from Mr Idinov publishing the speech along with his commentary on a news portal. 'A head of State is not above public scrutiny,' said Committee member Imeru Yigezu, adding that, 'Using the courts to silence criticism undermines the very foundations of democracy.' Before any judgment on the case was issued, a local court imposed an injunction barring the two from leaving the country and ordering the seizure of their personal assets, including Ms Djakupova's house and bank account. These restrictions remained in place throughout the trial, even though they both had not missed a single court hearing. The Committee raised particular concern about the restrictions imposed before a court ruling, describing these actions as a dangerous form of pressure against critical voices. 'The use of travel bans and asset seizures before adjudication raises serious concerns about judicial overreach and creates a chilling effect,' said Yigezu Both Ms Djakulpova and Mr Idinov were found liable for discrediting the then-president's honour and reputation and were ordered to pay 3 million soms each, an amount that, in Mr Idinov's case, equated to his income over 31 years. After exhausting local legal remedies, they brought their case to the Human Rights Committee, claiming their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of movement under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) had been violated. The Committee found that the imposed measures were disproportionate and of punitive nature. 'Ms Djakupova's speech and Mr Idinov's reporting clearly concerned matters of public interest. In such cases, open debate must be protected, and the fact that speech may offend a public figure does not, on its own, justify penalties and a blanket travel ban,' added Yigezu. 'Restrictions on freedom of expression under the ICCPR must be provided by law, pursue a legitimate aim such as protecting national security and public order, and be necessary and proportionate. The measures taken failed to meet all the necessary criteria,' he explained. The Committee stressed that criticism of high-ranking officials, including heads of state, is a core element of democratic oversight and must not be stifled through judicial intimidation. The Committee found that Kyrgyzstan had violated the complainants' rights to freedom of expression and freedom of movement. It called on Kyrgyzstan to provide effective remedies, including full compensation for the two complainants and reimbursement of legal costs. It also urged the State party to revise its legislation to ensure that such violations do not recur.
The Herald Scotland
26-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Why is the Kirk so keen to close down community outreach?
Ms Goring highlights the massive decline in Church of Scotland membership, currently sitting at 68,000 and – make no mistake – due to the current policy of church closures this number will continue to decline. Churches are often much more than places of worship, much more than the House of God. They are often the hub of the community, a lifeline for the lonely, a place of support for those visiting food banks and much more. So why on earth is the Church of Scotland intent of closing the door, shutting down community outreach and now closing down yet another source of outreach, the magazine? Catriona C Clark, Falkirk. Flamingo Land fight goes on Among the many expert bodies which roundly rejected the Loch Lomond Flamingo Land application last year, the most relevant is the National Park's board, whose remit is to protect the land under its authority. Its unanimous rejection of Flamingo Land's plans should have brought this sorry business to an end. Flamingo Land appealed at the end of last year and rather than being heard in a public inquiry, we have a government reporter, who makes decisions on behalf of the Scottish administration, disregarding local democracy ('Ministers refuse to recall decision to overturn block on Loch Lomond plan', The Herald, May 21). Where do the views of the parks authority, Sepa, the transport authorities, the local council and the general public – currently 178,000 of them – come in? This isn't the first time this has happened. Remember Donald Trump's golf course or the nine fish farm refusals which were overturned? We have a broken system. It allows decisions to be made outwith public or parliamentary scrutiny and is an open door for unscrupulous gold-diggers. Writing to Planning Minister Ivan McKee doesn't address the local democracy deficit nor does it prevent another Flamingo Land. Read more letters There's another option. The Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 allows for a vote to take place on any controversial content – like this one. The Scottish Government should use it. But if it won't consult the people, Scotland Decides can do it for them. It has a platform for verifiable voting that accords with national and international standards. Concerned citizens just need to register on the Scotland Decides website, as well as sign public petition PE2135 to enact the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which would give the people direct political rights and the right to self-determination. The Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson, has failed to support the petition, which speaks volumes about the seriousness of this administration when it comes to protecting our rights. David Younger, Tighnabruaich, Argyll. Discrimination by exclusion Every government and statutory body, health boards, local authorities and any other organisation big enough to think they need it always ask individuals/service users to complete "the attached form on gender and ethnicity". I am in the majority of the population on both accounts but am excluded from adding to the real data breakdown of these surveys. Not one of these so-called surveys allows me to list myself as a white, biological, British male. Why is that? Would collecting that information upset the balance of statistics? Would counting white British of a specific biological gender affect or upset the minority who identify themselves as something other than white British of a certain biological gender? Why should I and others like me be offended without any say about the exclusion of our specifics from all these surveys? These forms discriminate against me and many others. James A Mackie, Garmouth, Moray. Temporary relief As one of the five million-plus viewers a month of channel 328's Talking Pictures, recommended during conversation at my golf club, may I commend Mark Smith on his article ("Ten years on: the TV channel that saved us", The Herald, May 24)? Current television acting does indeed contain so much mumbling that switching on the subtitles becomes a necessity. I am amused by the warnings preceding Rumpole of the Bailey that some viewers may find the language offensive. I suppose that in today's world, Rumpole's references to his long-suffering spouse Hilda as SWMBA (she who must be obeyed) might constitute grounds for divorce. I, too, love the simple, cheap, sugar-laden past quoted by Mr Smith ; the real world, however, beckons. Escapism is temporary. David Miller, Milngavie. Sort of annoying In recent weeks there has been considerable comment on the usage of "so", "well", "look" and "listen" by persons about to comment on an issue. The fault is not exclusive to sporting pundits. Following First Minister's Questions (May 22) a female political commentator used the phrase "sort of " on 12 occasions as she offered her observations on political points earlier discussed. At best "sort of", "kinda" and "y know" are slovenly but also detract from the value of the opinion being made. Am I no' right? Allan C Steele, Giffnock. An impression of how the Flamingo Land development could look (Image: Flamingo Land) Rhyme crime Bob Byiers' excellent letter (May 24) re teachers and their classes reminded me of one morning in distant memory: third or fourth year at morning school assembly, with one of our PE teachers, Mr Chris Begg, on duty in the hall and looking after the hordes of pupils – and grabbing one of the third-year boys who was starting to leave and shouting at him: "Where's your blazer, Fraser?", and the immediate retort from the pupil: "On the peg, Begg!". Brought the place down of course, and brought the belt down on the pupil's hands when he was carted off to the staff room for retribution. Happy memories. Walter Paul, Glasgow.
