large_James Marchant.jpeg

medium_James Marchant.jpeg

small_James Marchant.jpeg

thumbnail_James Marchant.jpeg

James Marchant.jpeg

As human rights defenders and advocates, UN institutions and human rights mechanisms are fundamental to a lot of our work. These institutions are meant to uphold the human rights standards underpinning the global order, and serve as an instrument to hold rights abusers to account on the world stage. But when it comes to listening to the experiences of global civil society, they sometimes fall a little short.

For starters, these processes are often pretty impenetrable — as an advocate, it’s often really difficult to know where you can influence them, and who you need to engage with. But this doesn’t need to be the case.

The Universal Periodic Review — a global human rights peer review process ([read more about it here](https://uproar.fyi/blog/article/welcome-to-uproar)) — is particularly useful because it gives human rights advocates the chance to share their experiences and contribute evidence to the international community, and help states to make decisions about their human rights priorities for the review.

Today, we’ll show you how to make a **UPR stakeholder submission to the OHCHR** (that’s the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights).

This is a really important step for organisations to take to get their issues on the map, and to make sure that diplomats are equipped with all the latest human rights information to help them decide which issues to tackle at the UPR.

Let’s run through the process quickly.

**So where does this sit in the overall UPR process?**

![0_WK5nRz18Bfq4IiuL.png](https://res.cloudinary.com/riccardoerra/image/upload/v1643993211/0_WK_5n_Rz18_Bfq4_Iiu_L_403b3640b1.png)

##### *An overview of the primary ways civil society organisations can engage with the UPR across a full cycle.*

Making a submission to the OHCHR happens right at the start of ‘crunch time’ — the intense period where civil society organisations lobby diplomats to make specific recommendations to states being reviewed.

It comes at a time towards the end of the UPR cycle where you should have plenty of evidence and information about the state under review’s (or SuR) human rights record over the past few years — evidence that can help inform diplomats about which human rights challenges need to be addressed most urgently.

#### **Who reads the report, and why is it important?**

The way the UPR works, every country is able to review the human rights record of every other country in the world every five(ish) years. That’s a lot to keep track of, and many foreign ministries — especially in smaller states — can’t be expected to stay on top of every single human rights-related development globally. They need help.

Ahead of the review, three reports are published to inform diplomats about the human rights situation in the SuR. they are:

**1. National Report**


This 20-page report is written and published by the state under review. As you might expect, the National Report often paints a rather rosy picture of a SuR’s human rights achievements over the preceding five years.

This isn’t to say it’s not of legitimate value — states often have a lot of good data on a broad range of human rights issues. But national reports are prone to omission, exaggeration and outright deceit from certain quarters, as states attempt to present a sanitised version of their human rights record to the international community.

As a result, diplomats generally place more weight on the other two reports available to them — the UN Report and the Other Stakeholders Report.

**2. UN Report**

The second report is the UN Report, compiled by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the basis of information produced by UN organisations and institutions, including treaty bodies, special procedures, and other relevant UN documents.

As a result, this report offers largely substantive information about the human rights situation in the SuR. But UN institutions can’t capture all the insights from the ground, and for diplomats to reach an informed decision about human rights priorities, extensive information is required from civil society stakeholders working on the frontline of human rights struggles.

That’s where the third report comes in.

**3. Summary of Other Stakeholders Report**

It’s awkwardly named, but this report offers a key opportunity for activists and advocates to exert influence over the UPR process. Around 6–8 months before the review itself, civil society organisations are invited to submit their own assessments of the SuR’s human rights record to the OHCHR.

These reports aren’t shared directly with diplomats — rather, the OHCHR compiles all of the civil society reports together into a single summary report offering an overview of the SuR’s human rights record. If your human rights reports are well-documented, properly referenced, and well constructed, then you can expect a handful of your key priorities to make it into the final OHCHR report.

Any civil society organisation can submit a report — you just need to register on the [OHCHR platform](https://uprdoc.ohchr.org/Account/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f), fill out some basic information, and submit your report.

#### **What does a civil society report look like?**

That depends on a couple of things.

First off, is your organisation submitting information by itself? Or as part of a coalition of organisations? On a practical level, this affects the amount of space you have to make your arguments:

A **solo submission** has a word limit of **2815 words**.

A **joint submission** has a word limit of **5630 words**.

So if you’re trying to capture a lot of information about a state’s human rights record on a particular issue, it’s often best to do it as part of a joint submission. But the benefits don’t stop at just being able to say more — submitting a report as part of a coalition of organisations also helps signal to diplomats that the evidence submitted is reliable and credible, and lends it more legitimacy.

Besides length, there aren’t too many rigid guidelines about how your submission should look. Here are some things to bear in mind, though:

- **Coordination is key!** — In many countries, coalitions of human rights organisations will coordinate and distribute their work to deliver submissions on a number of key thematic areas.

Often a coalition will group together to make a submission on the general human rights situation in the SuR, and then sub-groups of organisations from the coalition will also submit separate in-depth reports on particular topics, such as digital rights, LGBTQ rights, the situation of refugees, or women’s rights.

This helps to provide diplomats with both breadth and depth of information, and also shows that civil society is united and in agreement over the leading human rights challenges in the SuR.

![0_UnPJol-0E40R9OpZ.gif](https://res.cloudinary.com/riccardoerra/image/upload/v1643993711/0_Un_P_Jol_0_E40_R9_Op_Z_9d5b805222.gif)

##### Coordinate your submissions! A little teamwork goes a long way.

- **Hold states to their promises!**— It’s usually helpful to start your submission by referring to the commitments made by the SuR at their previous review. You can find details of past recommendations to the SuR on the [UPR-Info Database](https://upr-info-database.uwazi.io/)

By providing an explanation of where the SuR kept its pledges — and where it flunked on them completely — you can help inform diplomats about where states should be commended, and where they should be held accountable for their failures.

![0_9kiqjXOpbnN8Mg2r.gif](https://res.cloudinary.com/riccardoerra/image/upload/v1643993869/0_9kiqj_X_Opbn_N8_Mg2r_16d2c78fea.gif)

##### One of the main purposes of the UPR is to create obligations for your target state. So make sure to hold them to their UPR pledges in the period after their review.

- **Speak the right language** — The UPR runs the full gamut of human rights-related issues, and so it’s important that you structure your ideas clearly and effectively, and use the correct human rights language so that diplomats know exactly which issues you’re talking about.

When you do this, it’s usually best to tie your comments clearly to rights established under UN conventions. For a lot of topics this is straightforward enough, but if you’re talking about an unconventional human rights subject like digital rights you need to be mindful to speak the right language.

For instance, if you want to talk about state-directed online censorship, organise your evidence under the heading ‘freedom of expression’ — a protected right under the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Or if you want to talk about the harassment of women online, make reference to gender-based violence — a human rights violation explicitly addressed by the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the 1994 UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women.

![1_l4jy8hwYiXHsqbkg6FCFmQ.gif](https://res.cloudinary.com/riccardoerra/image/upload/v1643994096/1_l4jy8hw_Yi_X_Hsqbkg6_FC_Fm_Q_78269139cb.gif)

##### Watch out! If you don’t frame problems in the proper human rights language, diplomats may not get the message.

Still finding it hard to know what you should be submitting? Here are some good examples of reports other organisations (and coalitions) have submitted to the OHCHR — you can’t go too wrong if you use these as models for your reporting:

- [Iran, 20th Session — Human Rights Watch](https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/documents/2014-10/ichri_upr20_irn_e_main.pdf)

- [Ethiopia, 33rd Session — Joint Submission (Civicus, AHRE, CPJ, DefendDefenders, Article 19, CERO, PEN International, Access Now)](https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019-04/js4_upr33_eth_e_main.pdf)

- [Germany, 30th Session — Access Now](https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/documents/2018-04/accessnow_upr30_deu_e_main.pdf)

It’ll take a little bit of your time to get things ready, but submitting reports to the OHCHR is a really important way to deliver evidence of human rights abuses to the international community, and inform states about the kinds of recommendations they should be prioritising during the UPR process.

We hope the hints and tips above help you along the way, but if you need more information about submitting reports to the OHCHR don’t hesitate to get in touch at hello@uproar.fyi!

large_heard rec.png

medium_heard rec.png

small_heard rec.png

thumbnail_heard rec.png

heard rec.png

Engaging with the Universal Periodic Review can be a bit of a headache for civil society organisations. Here’s a speedy guide to getting your human rights concerns on the record.

Making Yourself Heard at the UPR — Writing a Stakeholder Submission

Keep up to date with all UPR news including past, present and future UPR sessions, what countries and partners we are working with and guest blogs written by collaborators.

Blog

large_misc author-01.png

medium_misc author-01.png

small_misc author-01.png

thumbnail_misc author-01.png

misc author-01.png

**25 October 2021** — the Sudanese military, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan seized power through a coup, arresting members of the Transitional Government, declaring a state of emergency, which significantly disrupted internet and mobile communications. This prompted nationwide protests rejecting the military takeover and demanding transfer of power back to a civilian authority. The coup happened a week prior to Sudan’s third periodic review.

As a result, Sudan’s Ambassador to the United Nations requested for the [postponement of Sudan’s periodic review](https://media.un.org/en/asset/k1u/k1u9g4yoej) stating that the *‘recent unfortunate developments in the country had created an unstable situation’* affecting the participation of Sudanese officials in the review. The Bureau resolved to grant the Ambassador’s request for postponement, noting that Sudan’s last third cycle UPR session would be held at the 40th session in early 2022. Sudan’s review is currently [scheduled for 1 February 2022](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRSessions.aspx).

Ahead of Sudan’s 3rd Review, the African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies (ACJPS), Small Media and partners submitted a joint stakeholder report highlighting the state of freedom of expression including digital rights, freedom of information and right to privacy in Sudan. During the review period, Sudan had embarked on a 39-month transition and was well into its second year.

The period under review is marked with a mix of positive and negative steps in relation to the protection and promotion of freedom of expression in Sudan. The 2019 Constitutional Charter, provides for, among others, the right to freedom of expression, to receive and publish information and press freedom. A new addition to the Rights Charter is the provision on the right to internet access.

Despite these constitutional guarantees, not much has changed in terms of realization and protection of these rights. Recent events have shown that repressive practices that were a common feature under the Bashir regime, remain in place. Authorities have also continued to rely on repressive laws to crack down on peaceful protests, disrupt internet and mobile connectivity and harass journalists, human rights defenders and perceived critics.

#### **During the beginning of the transition period in Sudan, a systematic state harassment of the media, journalists and online spaces temporarily subsided.**

The infamous National Intelligence and Security Services, authority behind media censorship in Sudan, had their wide powers reduced to gathering intelligence, and was renamed the General Intelligence Services (GIS). Routine raids to media houses by NISS agents and confiscations of entire print runs stopped.

However, these gains are currently under threat. [A recent decree](https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/2021/12/26/sudanese-medics-say-178-protesters-hurt-in-latest-round-of-rallies/) by the coup leader, Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, has temporarily authorized GIS agents to conduct searches, detain suspects, among others, until the state of emergency is lifted. The decree also grants the GIS immunity from civil suits.

Sudanese journalists and citizens as a result, continue to face arrest, prosecution, harassment, and intimidation for expression related activities. Several journalists have been detained, harassed, attacked and their equipment damaged by security forces as they covered anti-coup protests that have continued to take place since 25 October. In the wee hours of 25 October, [armed forces raided the Sudan News Agency](https://africanarguments.org/2021/12/back-to-the-former-lies-sudan-reverts-to-media-repression-post-coup/), the state broadcaster, and detained its employees. Later that day, the General Director of the News Agency was summarily dismissed by a decree issued by Gen. Al-Burhan. [Media advisors and journalists in different states](http://www.acjps.org/sudan-military-coup-bloodshed-and-arbitrary-arrest-of-civilians-by-joint-security-forces/) across the country were also detained as the coup events unfolded. Sudanese Armed Forces [suspended the broadcast of some radio stations](http://www.acjps.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Click-Here-.pdf) including BBC, Monte Carlo, 69 FM Radio.

**On 7 November 2021**, Hassan Hamid, a photographer for the Arabic independent newspaper was attacked by police officers in Burri neighborhood in Khartoum as he filmed police cracking down on protestors. The officers who attacked him broke his camera.

**On 14 November 2021**, security forces in Khartoum [raided the home of Aljazeera bureau chief El Musalmi El Kabbashi](https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-releases/article/sudan-authorities-arrest-al-jazeera-bureau-chief.html), arrested and detained him. Reasons for his detention were not given however it was suspected that his arrest could have been in connection with the coverage of the anti-coup protests. He was [released two days later](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/16/sudan-releases-al-jazeeras-bureau-chief). That same day, [another journalist](http://www.acjps.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Click-Here-.pdf), Shawgi Abdul Azim, was arrested by intelligence officers as he exited the Aljazeera offices in Khartoum after an interview. He was briefly detained at an unknown location and released after 4 hours.

**On 17 November 2021**, Ali Farassab, a journalist for Al-Tayyar independent newspaper [sustained a head injury from a gunshot](https://africanarguments.org/2021/12/back-to-the-former-lies-sudan-reverts-to-media-repression-post-coup/) that grazed him as security officers fired live ammunition to disperse protests in Khartoum Bahri. The police beat him and then [detained him](http://www.acjps.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Click-Here-.pdf) at Al-Mogran neighborhood police station in Khartoum. He was denied medical attention despite lawyers trying to intervene on his behalf. He was released days later without charge.

Social media and online communication platforms have been critical for the mobilization of nationwide protests across Sudan and corresponding mobilization in the diaspora.

#### **However, connectivity restrictions especially during politically charged situations, such as protests seem to have become the norm.**

**In June 2019**, an internet shutdown was put in place as the authorities violently dispersed a peaceful sit-in at the military headquarters. Internet was later restored on 9 July 2019 after 36 days of no access. After the restoration of the internet, social media was awash with images and videos from the 3 June 2019 massacre. At least 100 peaceful protestors were reportedly killed during this violent crackdown.

**On 25 October**, a disruption to internet, cellular and some fixed line connectivity was reported. Access to information and online mobilization around anti-coup protests was restricted. These disruptions have been imposed for a couple of hours to day-long disruptions. Mobile internet was reported to have been disrupted on 25 & 30 December 2021 as well as 2 January 2022.

> Speaking at the UN General Assembly in September 2019, former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok stated: **“Never again in the new Sudan will a journalist be repressed or jailed.”** Unfortunately, this promise was not followed through with and instead attacks on freedom of expression online and off continue to mark the political climate in Sudan.

As a result, The African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies and Small Media Foundation put forth the following recommendations, and call on UN member States to make to Sudan during its upcoming 3rd cycle Universal Periodic Review session:

- End internet shutdowns and ensure restrictions to the internet are in line with international human rights standards
- End intimidation and harassment of journalists and others exercising their right to freedom of expression; and
- Amend applicable provisions of problematic laws like the 1991 Criminal Act, 2009 Publications Act and the Law on Cybercrime in line with international human rights standards


Sudan will now be reviewed on 1 February, 2022 at 9:00AM CET. You can follow Uproar live-tweeting Sudan’s session [here](https://twitter.com/uproar_fyi).

Cynthia Ibale is a human rights lawyer currently advocating for improved human rights protection in Sudan.

large_Sudan.png

medium_Sudan.png

small_Sudan.png

thumbnail_Sudan.png

Sudan.png

Fixed Broadband Subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in 2020

End the practice of internet shutdowns and ensure that internet restrictions are consistent with fundamental norms of necessity and proportionality.

Sudan is located in northeast Africa and has a population of 46 million people. A 2021 military coup upended the country’s shaky transition to civilian rule, derailing democratic and human rights reforms. Since then the military authorities and security forces waged a crackdown on protesters, dissidents, human rights defenders and civil society. 

Digital rights protection faces a number of challenges. The Cybercrimes Act 2007 criminalizes, among others, defamation, breach of public order and morality, which attract a prison sentence, fine or both. Defamation is a crime under the Criminal Act of 1991. Additionally, Sudan has a record of internet shutdowns, usually imposed by military authorities during protests, and most recently to prevent cheating in exams. When it comes to privacy, there is no data protection law or authority to regulate the collection, storage and use of personal data, which leaves data control prone to abuse at the discretion of the state and private actors like telecoms. 

Sudan

We conduct advocacy during the pre-session through direct lobbying to UN member state representatives and support local advocacy events and workshops that amplify the UPR. During the reviews, we amplify the UPR process and the recommendations our partners have drafted through live- monitoring by our local partners and on social media. We then conduct advocacy during the post- UPR period with activities such as training for government officials and events that highlight the recommendations made during the UPR. 

The country clusters are a local working group in each Uproar target country made up of our partner organisations. The clusters are organised by local lead organisations, who then coordinate local civil society and human rights defenders with digital rights expertise to engage in national-level advocacy and campaigning.

A review cycle is a four-and-half-year period within which all UN Member states’ human rights records are reviewed.  Each 4.5-year period is called a UPR cycle. In this section, you can find all recommendations made organised by cycle.

Over a hundred local and international human rights organisations are part of the wider Uproar programme. You can find them listed here.

large_1_iTeGel5WGapkUaWjL4Zqjg.png

medium_1_iTeGel5WGapkUaWjL4Zqjg.png

small_1_iTeGel5WGapkUaWjL4Zqjg.png

thumbnail_1_iTeGel5WGapkUaWjL4Zqjg.png

1_iTeGel5WGapkUaWjL4Zqjg.png

Understanding the mix of positive and negative steps in relation to the protection and promotion of freedom of expression in Sudan, from this UPR session.

Sudan at UPR: An opportunity to support domestic calls for urgent reforms

large_Tomi.png

medium_Tomi.png

small_Tomi.png

thumbnail_Tomi.png

Tomi.png

Namibia has ratified [major human rights treaties](http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/namibia.html) in order to signal its readiness to carry out its obligations to protect human rights. These obligations have now evolved into dialogic interactions like the [Universal Periodic Review](https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/upr/pages/uprmain.aspx) (UPR) which assists UN member states to carry out peer-review assessments of their human rights records. Since 2006 when the Human Rights Council (the Council) created the UPR, most UN member states have gone through the mechanism at least three times including Namibia.

As a unique procedure, the UPR allows for the democratisation of information that helps to strengthen human rights development on the ground in UN member states. This information is supplied by both state and non-state actors who focus on various thematic areas of human rights. Some of these issues include socio-economic rights, civil and political rights, children’s rights, rights of women and vulnerable groups and others.

More recently, given the COVID-19 pandemic and the urgent reliance on digital technologies as the sole basis of interaction by many across the world, it has become clear that digital technologies are no longer luxuries. Asides this, the growing importance of online interactions has demonstrated the need to protect human rights online just as they are required to be protected offline. Therefore, digital rights as a thematic focus has become important in order to protect human rights today at various levels including at the UPR. Primarily, these rights are freedom of expression and opinion, freedom of information and censorship of content, right to equal access and opportunity and the right to data protection and privacy on the Internet.

These rights are also beginning to generate the necessary attention including in Namibia. At the second cycle of the UPR in 2016, Namibia received 219 recommendations from 88 countries and accepted 191 of them. Only one of them referred to the right to freedom of expression and the press.

On 3 May 2021, at the third cycle of the UPR, Namibia received 268 recommendations from 105 countries. It received 3 recommendations that touch on access to information, right to freedom of expression, media freedom, ensuring journalists’ safety, cybercrimes regulation and data protection. It also received various commendations for its progress on a free and independent press. These recommendations and commendations are largely due to Namibia’s current standing with respect to its human rights records generally and digital rights specifically. Namibia is one of the four countries rated free in Africa by the Freedom House’s [Freedom in the World](https://freedomhouse.org/country/namibia) report. It has also maintained this rating for the past four years.

Some of the recommendations received by Namibia was from Canada and recommended that it:

>“ensures that the existing cybercrimes and data protection and privacy legislation is fully in compliance with international human rights standards.”

Latvia also recommended to Namibia that it “promotes and protects the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, as well as media freedom and safety of journalists.” Greece also recommended that Namibia “takes concrete steps to improve the safety of journalists, investigate incidents of attacks on journalists and implement the [United Nations’ Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity](https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/un-plan-on-safety-journalists_en.pdf).” In addition, the United States also recommends that Namibia “prioritises fighting corruption by enacting an Access to Information law…” Armenia and Barbados also commended Namibia’s efforts to ensure a free and independent press.

While Namibia re-committed itself to the protection of the right to freedom of expression online and offline in [its most recent report](https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G21/031/32/PDF/G2103132.pdf?OpenElement) submitted for review, a number of digital rights issues continue to persist in Namibia. For example, as highlighted in the Joint Stakeholders’ [report](https://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=436) to the 38th session on Namibia by Small Media, Collaboration on International ICT Policy in Eastern and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and Internet Society Namibia (ISOC Namibia), for Namibia to fully protect digital rights, it should consider the review and enactment of some laws and policies. Some of these laws include review of Article 21 of the Namibian Constitution that expressly refers to decency and morality, defamation and other potentially harmful and vague words as limitations to the right to freedom of expression.

Others include the need for the repeal of the Protection of Information Act №84 of 1982 in the light of the proposed Access to Information bill as the former is often used to gag the media. Additionally, Section 4 of the Namibia Central Intelligence Services Act 10, 1997, which “prohibits persons from accessing information on grounds of national security” should also be repealed. Part 6 of the Communications Act should also be amended through the repeal of Section 9. In addition, the Act should criminalize unauthorized interceptions and surveillance of citizens. It was also recommended that it operationalizes its Universal Service Fund while also enacting cybercrimes, data protection and privacy legislation.

In summary, Namibia has demonstrated its commitment to the protection of human rights especially as seen in its [adoption of nearly 90% of recommendations made to it](https://moj.gov.na/documents/576616/1307898/UNIVERSAL+PERIODIC+REVIEW+OF+THE+HUMAN+RIGHTS+SITUATION+IN+NAMIBIA.+30+April+2021+pdf.pdf/954bf257-e2ca-05b7-aa98-4c820ecf244f) by other UN member states from the previous UPR cycle. However, such commitment must be constantly renewed as the challenges posed to human rights protection continue to grow. Borrowing its own words from its recently submitted national report,

>“Namibia remains committed to strengthening its policy and legislative frameworks in order to improve the implementation of human rights for all by addressing challenges to full implementation. We will continue to engage key stakeholders, and take note of international best practices emanating from our international relations in order to achieve the 2030 Agenda and drive the universal goal towards respect for human rights.”

Namibia is encouraged to re-dedicate itself given these commitments and adopt these recommendations on digital rights protection in order to consolidate its hard work on human rights as one of the shining lights of media freedoms in Africa.

large_Namibia.png

medium_Namibia.png

small_Namibia.png

thumbnail_Namibia.png

Namibia.png

Fixed Broadband Subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in 2018

Namibia needs to consolidate its commendable work on protecting digital rights.

Namibia currently has a population estimate of 2.6 million. Its 2010 Constitution provides for various rights in its chapter three including the right to freedom of expression, privacy, association, assembly and other human rights. 

Namibia is regarded as one of the freest countries in terms of media freedoms in Africa. However, there is a need to consolidate these efforts by ensuring that the applicable provisions of  Article 21 of the Constitution on freedom of expression, Protection of Information Act no. 84 of 1982, Namibia Central Intelligence Services Act 10, 1997 and Part 6 of the Communications Act are brought in line with international human rights standards. There is also a need to operationalise the Universal Service Fund and the National Broadband Policy (2020) and enact cybercrime, data protection and privacy legislation in Namibia.

Namibia

large_1_u-YngrbZrEjyFoo3eRdr4Q (1).png

medium_1_u-YngrbZrEjyFoo3eRdr4Q (1).png

small_1_u-YngrbZrEjyFoo3eRdr4Q (1).png

thumbnail_1_u-YngrbZrEjyFoo3eRdr4Q (1).png

1_u-YngrbZrEjyFoo3eRdr4Q (1).png

Discussing the state of freedom of expression and digital rights in Namibia as it comes under review during the 38th session of the UPR.

Namibia and digital rights protection at the 38th UPR session: Consolidating hard work through the protection of human rights online

Mozambique has [ratified](https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?CountryID=118&Lang=EN) the major international human rights instruments including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). As part of the various mechanisms introduced to monitor the rights protected under international human rights treaties, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) by the United Nations Human Rights Council (the Council) in 2006.

The UPR is the [unique mechanism](https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/upr/pages/uprmain.aspx) used to assess the human rights records of all UN member states. Carried out every four to five years, a State under review (SuR) submits a report which is assessed together with other reports submitted by other stakeholders in the State including independent experts and civil society organisations. The assessment is carried out by the UPR working group consisting of 47 UN member states but can be joined by other UN member states for such assessment.

The goal of the UPR is primarily to ensure that UN member states fulfill their human rights obligations under various international human rights treaties and systems. In doing this, member states are assessed based on various thematic aspects of human rights including children’s rights, rights of persons living with disability, women’s rights and many others.

However, an important thematic aspect of human rights that is beginning to gain traction is digital rights. Simply put, these rights are those enjoyed through the use or non-use of digital technologies. For the purpose of assessment at the UPR, these rights have been categorised into four broad categories namely freedom of expression and opinion; freedom of information and censorship of content; right to equal access and opportunity; and right to data protection and privacy on the Internet.

Mozambique has gone through three reviews since 2011. In terms of Mozambique’s performance at the UPR, its [first review](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/MZIndex.aspx) on 28 March 2011 at the Council’s seventeenth session received no specific recommendation on digital rights out of the 169 recommendations made by 52 UN member states. It also did not receive any general recommendation with respect to any of the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and association and assembly.

At the Council’s 32nd session on 12 April 2016 where Mozambique’s report was reviewed for the [second time](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/MZIndex.aspx), it received 210 recommendations from 94 UN member states. Only nine of these recommendations referred to the right to freedom of expression, the press and access to information. Six of these recommendations were accepted by Mozambique.

At its [most recent review](http://webtv.un.org/watch/mozambique-review-38th-session-of-universal-periodic-review/6252363599001/) at the 38th session of the Council which was held on 4 May 2021, Mozambique received 266 recommendations. Out of these recommendations, 22 were on the right to freedom of expression, protection of journalists and human rights freedoms and media freedom. This marked the highest number of recommendations received by Mozambique at the UPR since its first review. Some of the recommendations received include those from Spain, Latvia, Netherlands, Ghana, France, Czech Republic, Uruguay, USA, Sweden, Slovenia, Norway, New Zealand, Malawi, Italy, Ireland, Germany, Canada, Iceland, Bulgaria, Iceland, Austria and Australia.

For example, France recommended that Mozambique should ‘guarantee the freedom of expression, association and assembly and the protection of human rights defenders; guarantee the freedom of the press and take all measures so that all journalists may carry out their work independently and without fear of reprisals.’

Bulgaria also noted in one of its recommendations that Mozambique should ‘ensure that the right to freedom of expression and freedom of press is respected including on the Internet space and maintain a positive environment for the work of independent media and journalists.’ Canada equally called for the need for Mozambique to respect the right to freedom of expression by recommending that it should ‘ensure the protection of freedom of expression provided for under international human rights law are reflected in the texts of new laws governing media and broadcasting and that they are respected in practice.’

With respect to media law reforms, Norway recommended that Mozambique ‘ensures that the on-going revisions and reforms of media laws protect freedom of expression and media freedoms, promote media pluralism and are based on stakeholder consultations.’ Sweden also toed the same line in its recommendation by stating that Mozambique should ‘redraft laws on social communications and the law on broadcasting to guarantee the freedom of expression including by increasing the space for dissent and discussion and ensure an enabling space for everyone to enjoy these rights.’

With a two-pronged recommendation on the right to freedom of expression, the United States recommended that Mozambique should ‘allow independent press and civil society access to report on conflict regions and uphold Mozambique’s domestic and international obligations and commitments to respect the freedom of expression including those of the members of the press.’ In terms of access to justice and protection of the press, it recommended that Mozambique should ‘investigate and hold accountable those responsible for violent attacks against members of the press.’

These are some of the highlights of the recommendations received by Mozambique which also mirror some of the concerns of local stakeholders who work on the protection of digital rights both in and outside Mozambique. This can be seen in the [submission](https://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=438) made by three civil society organisations for review at the recent 38th session. The organisations, namely the [Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa](http://www.cipesa.org/) (CIPESA), [Small Media](http://www.smallmedia.org.uk/), [Fórum das Associações Moçambicanas das Pessoas com Deficiência](https://www.famod.org/) (FAMOD) and the [Associação de Cegos e Amblíopes de Moçambique](http://acamo.co.mz/acamo/) highlighted a number of challenges being faced by digital rights in Mozambique to include low [Internet penetration](https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-mozambique), [attacks on journalists](https://www.misa.org.mz/index.php/destaques/noticias/79-o-estado-deve-por-termo-a-perseguicoes-e-atentados-%20contra-jornalistas-em-mocambique) and [systemic threats](https://globalvoices.org/2016/05/16/the-government-of-mozambique-is-spying-on-its-citizens-according-to-%20verdade/) against the right to data protection and privacy.

In its recommendations on how to surmount these challenges, the submission made five recommendations including the need to increase capacity building on the right to information law, the repeal of provisions of the COVID-19 Decree which have been found to be non-compliant with international human rights standards; the need to improve access to justice mechanisms for media practitioners; improving Internet access especially for vulnerable groups by optimising the Universal Service Fund; and ensuring the enactment of a data protection law.

In summary, Mozambique should consider accepting the recommendations made to it by various UN member states and other stakeholders at the recently concluded review. This is because the protection of human rights online is no longer a luxury, especially when the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 on human development is critically considered. Therefore, in protecting these rights, Mozambique should ensure that its policies on digital rights protection are rights-respecting and multi-stakeholder in its approach in order to have an improved human rights record especially towards its next review at the UPR.

large_Mozambique.png

medium_Mozambique.png

small_Mozambique.png

thumbnail_Mozambique.png

Mozambique.png

Fixed Broadband Subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in 2017

Mozambican authorities must uphold international obligations on freedom of expression, and refrain from attacking journalists covering important and sensitive issues.

A Southeastern country by the Indian ocean. Its population is 30 million and the government is a one-party dominant presidential republic.

In Mozambique journalists who report on sensitive issues are at risk of violent attacks. In the 2019 presidential election year, human rights organizations documented several cases in which journalists and activists were threatened and subjected to pressures interfering with their work, including threats that were sent via SMS. Since June 2018, the government has barred various media organizations and correspondents from visiting the northern province of Cabo Delgado, while the army detained journalists who had travelled to cover the fighting against an armed Islamist group. The police also arrested several journalists on bogus charges.

Mozambique

large_1_6TThHEmO9S-lfxzaPOjWnw (1).png

medium_1_6TThHEmO9S-lfxzaPOjWnw (1).png

small_1_6TThHEmO9S-lfxzaPOjWnw (1).png

thumbnail_1_6TThHEmO9S-lfxzaPOjWnw (1).png

1_6TThHEmO9S-lfxzaPOjWnw (1).png

Discussing the state of freedom of expression and digital rights in Mozambique as it comes under review during the 38th session of the UPR.

Mozambique’s third UPR cycle and the need to improve its digital rights protection

The [38th session](https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/upr/pages/uprsessions.aspx) of the Human Rights Council (the Council) held from 3 to 13 May 2021. At the session, the human rights records of our UPRoar countries including Namibia, Mozambique, and Sierra Leone were reviewed through the [Universal Periodic Review (UPR)](https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/upr/pages/uprmain.aspx).

Since 2006, the UPR has been tasked with the assessment of human rights obligations of UN member states. The process, which is largely dialogic, addresses various thematic aspects of human rights based on international human rights treaties and how each State under review (SuR) has performed between four to five years. Since inception, the UPR has reviewed the human rights records of UN member states at least three times.

The various thematic aspects include women’s rights, children’s rights, rights of persons living with disabilities, protection of human rights during conflicts and many others. One of such nascent but crucial aspects of human rights is digital rights. [Digital rights](https://uproar.fyi/), also referred to as human rights online. With respect to the UPR, these rights have been broadly categorised into four, namely freedom of expression and opinion; freedom of information and censorship of content; right to equal access and opportunity; and right to data protection and privacy on the Internet.

In total, Namibia, Mozambique and Sierra Leone received 268, 266 and 268 recommendations respectively. 30 recommendations focused on the right to freedom of expression, media freedoms, access to information, developing rights-respecting policies on data protection and cybersecurity and protection of journalists. Namibia, Mozambique and Sierra Leone received recommendations from 22 UN member states namely Spain, Latvia, Netherlands, Ghana, Greece, France, Czech Republic, Uruguay, USA, Sweden, Slovenia, Norway, New Zealand, Malawi, Italy, Ireland, Germany, Canada, Iceland, Bulgaria, Iceland, Austria and Australia.

![1_Tq6RjE9_FBeEqiFqlUhFWw.png](https://res.cloudinary.com/riccardoerra/image/upload/v1646306891/1_Tq6_Rj_E9_F_Be_Eqi_Fql_Uh_F_Ww_26ccc78c7b.png)


During Namibia’s [review](http://webtv.un.org/watch/namibia-review-38th-session-of-universal-periodic-review/6252018168001/) which was held on 3 May 2021, it received three recommendations from Greece, Latvia and the United States with respect to digital rights protection. For Greece, it recommended that Namibia should ‘take concrete steps to improve the safety of journalists, investigate incidents of attacks on journalists and implement the [United Nations’ Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity.’](https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/un-plan-on-safety-journalists_en.pdf) Latvia also recommended that Namibia should ‘promote and protect the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, as well as media freedom and safety of journalists.’ Making a connection between fighting corruption and access to information, the United States recommended that Namibia should ‘prioritise fighting corruption by enacting an Access to Information law.’

Mozambique at its [review](http://webtv.un.org/watch/mozambique-review-38th-session-of-universal-periodic-review/6252363599001/) on 4 May 2021 received the highest number of recommendations with respect to protecting digital rights from 22 countries namely Spain, Latvia, Netherlands, Ghana, France, Czech Republic, Uruguay, USA, Sweden, Slovenia, Norway, New Zealand, Malawi, Italy, Ireland, Germany, Canada, Iceland, Bulgaria, Iceland, Austria and Australia.

For example, with respect to the protection of digital rights, Bulgaria recommended that Mozambique should ‘ensure that the right to freedom of expression and freedom of press is respected including on the Internet space and maintain a positive environment for the work of independent media and journalists.’ In addition, both Canada and the Czech Republic recommended that Mozambique should ‘ensure the protection of freedom of expression provided for under international human rights law are reflected in the texts of new laws governing media and broadcasting and that they are respected in practice.’

The United States also made two recommendations with respect to Mozambique’s obligations to protect the right to freedom of expression and protection of the press. First, it recommended that Mozambique should ‘allow independent press and civil society access to report on conflict regions and uphold Mozambique’s domestic and international obligations and commitments to respect the freedom of expression including those of the members of the press.’ It also recommended that Mozambique should ‘investigate and hold accountable those responsible for violent attacks against members of the press.’

For its [review](http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/human-rights-council/watch/sierra-leone-review-38th-session-of-universal-periodic-review/6253886909001/?term=&lan=english) which was held on 12 May 2021, Sierra Leone received six recommendations with respect to digital rights. With respect to the right to freedom of expression of sexual minorities, Spain recommended that Sierra Leone should ‘investigate the restrictions of the right to freedom of expression and assembly of LGBTI persons as well as harassment, arbitrary detention and other forms of violence against them.’

Latvia also recommended that Mozambique should ‘ensure the right to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly as well as media freedom.’ Netherlands equally recommends that Sierra Leone should ‘uphold the right to freedom of expression and refrain from criminalising the legitimate activities of human rights defenders and journalists by restricting their activities and rights including arbitrary arrests of journalists and human rights defenders.’ Ghana, France and Czech Republic also gave various recommendations on the need for Sierra Leone should ensure the right to freedom of expression of media practitioners and human rights defenders.

In summary, recommending UN member states and stakeholders pointed out to Namibia, Mozambique and Sierra Leone to ensure that they all optimise the use of their Universal Service Funds, improve the safety of journalists and human rights defenders while also carrying out stakeholder-driven media sector reforms.

In doing this, the SuRs are encouraged to take advantage of the opportunity provided for technical assistance through the UPR system for the implementation of the recommendations made to them. On the part of local stakeholders, they are also encouraged to work in collaboration with the SuRs in terms of monitoring and evaluation of the recommendations made especially towards the next review of countries in question.

large_Sierra Leone.png

medium_Sierra Leone.png

small_Sierra Leone.png

thumbnail_Sierra Leone.png

Sierra Leone.png

Sierra Leone needs to stop arbitrary arrests and detention of journalists, media workers and critics simply for exercising their right to freedom of expression online or offline.

Sierra Leone is located in West Africa with a population of 8 million. Its government is a presidential republic.

The Sierra Leone Constitution Act No. 6 of 1991 guarantees the protection of freedom of expression and the press. The country is making progress in addressing issues of freedom of expression. However, Journalists and activists face arbitrary arrests and detentions for criticising and questioning authorities online and offline.
The Independent Media Commission (IMC) Act 2020 empowers the IMC to shut down media houses on ambiguous grounds of “public interest”. This raises new concerns around censorship. In July 2019, the IMC issued an ultimatum to suspend 12 media houses for non-payment of fines.

Sierra Leone

large_1_mPflHxWXCPaSIRG9oECnWg (1).png

medium_1_mPflHxWXCPaSIRG9oECnWg (1).png

small_1_mPflHxWXCPaSIRG9oECnWg (1).png

thumbnail_1_mPflHxWXCPaSIRG9oECnWg (1).png

1_mPflHxWXCPaSIRG9oECnWg (1).png

A summary of recommendations made to Namibia, Mozambique, and Sierra Leone during the 38th session of the UPR.

The 38th session of the Universal Periodic Review: Improving digital rights protection in Namibia, Mozambique and Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone has ratified [seven](https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?CountryID=156&Lang=EN) of the nine major international human rights treaties since its independence in 1962. In order to mainstream the various thematic aspects of these treaties into local contexts of member states party to them, including Sierra Leone, the UN has established various mechanisms including the [Universal Periodic Review ](https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/upr/pages/BasicFacts.aspx)(UPR).

The UPR was established by the Human Rights Council (UN HRC) in 2006 to promote, support and expand human rights on the ground in UN member states. This is done through periodic reviews of reports supplied by both state and non-state actors to the UPR every four to five years. These reviews are carried out by the UPR working group who can be joined by other UN member states to give various recommendations to the State under review (SuR) through an outcome report. These recommendations are either accepted or noted by the SuR. The SuR then has the primary responsibility of implementing the accepted recommendations within the cycle they received them and the next cycle.

One of the major benefits of the UPR is that the SuR is able to have its human rights records and obligations assessed by other peer countries based on international human rights instruments that they are party to. Additionally, such assessment is carried out based on democratised information — information supplied by the SuR, special procedures with the UN architecture and civil society groups.

Perhaps, one of the most defining features of the UPR is that various thematic aspects of human rights are considered by the recommending states under their international human rights obligations. One of such thematic aspects are [digital rights](https://uproar.fyi/) which are human rights that are impacted online through the use or non-use of technologies. For the purpose of assessment at the UPR, these rights have been divided into four major aspects including freedom of expression and opinion; freedom of information and censorship of content; right to equal access and opportunity; and right to data protection and privacy on the Internet.

Most countries, including Sierra Leone have gone through the UPR at least three times since 2011. On issues that relate to digital rights, Sierra Leone [received](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/SLindex.aspx) its first recommendation on the right to freedom of expression in its first cycle in 2011 at the 18th session on 11 July 2011. There were 129 recommendations made by 41 countries. During that review, Netherlands recommended that Sierra Leone should ‘uphold the right to freedom of expression and assembly.’

Subsequently, in 2016, during its second review at the 32nd session on 14 April 2016, Sierra Leone [received](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/SLindex.aspx) 208 recommendations from 80 countries with references made to the right to freedom of expression and the press but with no specific reference to digital rights.

During its [most recent review ](http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/human-rights-council/watch/sierra-leone-review-38th-session-of-universal-periodic-review/6253886909001/?term=&lan=english)which took place at the 38th session of the UPR on 12 May 2021, Sierra Leone recorded its highest number of recommendations which was 268 recommendations made by 103 countries. Out of these recommendations, no specific mentions were made with respect to digital rights. However, there were six specific recommendations with respect to the right to freedom of expression while there were mentions of other ancillary rights like media freedoms, protection of journalists, human rights defenders and LGBTQ groups.

In making its recommendation, Czech Republic recommended that Sierra Leone should “ensure the full enjoyment of freedom of expression for all including journalists, human rights defenders and opposition members.” France also recommended that Sierra Leone should “guarantee fundamental freedoms and put an end to arbitrary detentions of journalists, civil society actors, and human rights defenders.”

For Ghana, it enjoined Sierra Leone to “respect for the right to freedom of expression by ending the harassment of journalists” while Netherlands recommended that Sierra Leone should “uphold the right to freedom of expression and refrain from criminalising the legitimate activities of human rights defenders and journalists by restricting their activities and rights including arbitrary arrests of journalists and human rights defenders.”

Latvia equally pointed out in one of its five recommendations that Sierra Leone should “ensure the right to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly as well as media freedom.” Spain also recommended that Sierra Leone should “investigate the restrictions of the right to freedom of expression and assembly of LGBTI persons as well as harassment, arbitrary detention and other forms of violence against them.”

There were also a number of commendations by recommending states that bear on the need for Sierra Leone on digital rights issues. For example, the United Kingdom noted Sierra Leone’s “effort since the last review most notably in the field of media freedom.” It then “calls on Sierra Leone to ensure these principles of freedom of expression are protected in all future legislation including potential legislation on digital space.”

In addition, the United States commended Sierra Leone “for signing into law the Public Order Amendment Act which decriminalises sedition, libel and slander” while Togo was also “pleased about the abolition of legislation criminalising defamation.” Albania also “appreciates the efforts undertaken by the government evident in the new media law, particularly concerning the provisions on defamation and we hope that its implementation adheres to international human rights standards including the right to freedom of expression.”

These recommendations and commendations all point to the gradual recognition of digital rights as an important aspect of human rights in Sierra Leone at the UPR. However, there are still specific digital rights obligations Sierra Leone could fulfil. In the joint stakeholders’ [report](https://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=437) submitted by Small Media, Collaboration on International ICT Policy in Eastern and Southern Africa (CIPESA), Campaign for Human Rights Development International and Sierra Leone Reporters Union, at least five issues were highlighted to be of concern with respect to digital rights protection in Sierra Leone.

For example, currently, Sierra Leone has one of the lowest Internet penetration rates in the region which currently stands at 13.2%. This could be improved by optimising the mandate of the Universal Access Development Fund (UADF) which was established by Section 13 of the Telecommunications (Amendment) Act of 2009 to “promote universal service and access to Information and Telecommunication services to all Sierra Leoneans particularly those living in rural, un-served and under-served areas.”

Sierra Leone was also encouraged to pass data protection and cybersecurity legislation through a consultative process while also fulfilling its obligations under its Access to Information Law to ensure proactive disclosures and more responsiveness from State actors.

The report also recommended that Sierra Leone should desist from arbitrary arrests and detention of journalists, media workers and critics and protect their rights to express both offline and online. It also enjoined it to amend the Independent Media Commission (IMC) Act of 2020 to include oversight mechanisms and provide opportunities for redress for the Commission’s decisions.

In summary, while Sierra Leone is gradually waking up to its digital rights obligations, it needs to step up its commitments by focusing specifically on these recommendations made by States and relevant stakeholders. This will assist in no small measure to not only advantageously position Sierra Leone for the immense opportunities of the global digital economy but also protect the rights of Sierra Leoneans online.

large_Protecting digital rights in Sierra Leone .png

medium_Protecting digital rights in Sierra Leone .png

small_Protecting digital rights in Sierra Leone .png

thumbnail_Protecting digital rights in Sierra Leone .png

Protecting digital rights in Sierra Leone .png

Discussing the state of freedom of expression and digital rights in Sierra Leone as it comes under review during the 38th session of the UPR.

Protecting digital rights in Sierra Leone through the Universal Periodic Review

On 10 December 1948, Lebanon was one of [the original three countries](https://www.wya.net/op-ed/the-great-moments-of-the-near-east-are-the-judges-of-the-world/) that began the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration) which is today known as one of the most important human rights instruments. Describing the values that underpin the Universal Declaration, Dr Charles Habib Malik, the Lebanese representative [said that](https://www.wya.net/op-ed/the-great-moments-of-the-near-east-are-the-judges-of-the-world/):

> “whoever values man and his individual freedom above everything else cannot fail to find in the present Declaration a potent ideological weapon. If wielded in complete goodwill, sincerity and truth…”

The Universal Declaration since then has laid the foundation for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and many other human rights instruments. Lebanon has since ratified the ICCPR which means that obligations inherent in its various provisions, including the rights to privacy and freedom of expression online must be met by Lebanon.

However, more than seventy-two years since Lebanon’s historic participation in the drafting of the Universal Declaration and more than forty-eight years since its ratification of the ICCPR, Lebanon seems to have abandoned the values shared by Dr Malik. The human rights principles which were at the heart of this history have now come under threat particularly today, as basic digital rights — the right to privacy and freedom of expression and opinion online are routinely violated.

For example, between 2010 till 2020, there were [170 documented cases of detention](https://muhal.org/en/cases/) with respect to the right to freedom of expression online. Currently, In the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) region, Lebanon has the [fourth most expensive Internet access](https://freedomhouse.org/country/lebanon/freedom-net/2020#footnote1_wmso2oe) while the [gap between Internet availability and affordability](https://www.hrw.org/legacy/advocacy/internet/mena/int-mena.htm) is one of the most significant in the region. As at April 2021, it also does not have a data protection law.

Articles 17 and 19 of the ICCPR which focus on the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression and opinion respectively are some of the basic digital rights protection obligations of Lebanon. These rights are divided into four broad aspects to include freedom of expression and opinion, freedom of information and censorship of content, right to equal access and opportunity and the right to data protection and privacy on the Internet.

One of the ways through which these obligations are monitored for compliance is the [Universal Periodic Review](https://www.upr-info.org/en/upr-process/what-is-it/brief-history-of-the-upr) (UPR). The UPR is one of the mechanisms established by the United Nations’ Human Rights Council (the Council) in 2006. Its primary goal is to facilitate the protection and promotion of human rights on the ground in all of the UN’s 193 member states through a peer-review system based on a member-state’s human rights obligations. Such obligations include those from treaties like the Universal Declaration and the ICCPR. Every four years, often referred to as a cycle, the reports of 42 countries are reviewed by the UPR Working Group comprising 47 members of the Council. These reports are from stakeholders including governments, human rights institutions and civil society in the State under review (SuR). As is custom, various thematic aspects of human rights are considered by other member states in their recommendations.

Lebanon’s first report was [first reviewed](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/LBIndex.aspx) in 2011 and has since been reviewed three times. At the sixteenth session of the Council which was Lebanon’s first UPR review, Lebanon received 129 recommendations from 49 UN member states with one recommendation on the right to freedom of expression by Armenia.

In the [second review](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/LBIndex.aspx) at the thirty-first session of the Council, Lebanon received 221 recommendations from 98 UN member states and only one related to the right to freedom of expression. It is noteworthy that the recommendation on the right to freedom of expression made by Israel was not accepted by Lebanon.

The most recent review on 18 January 2021 focuses the efforts of the Government of Lebanon in addressing the recommendations made to it by other member states in the previous cycle and taking recommendations based on the report of the cycle between 2015 to 2020. In the previous cycle, only one recommendation was made with respect to protecting the right to freedom of expression out of the 257 recommendations by 93 member states. It is worth noting that the recommendation was not made with respect to the right to freedom of expression online.

In the recent review, Lebanon [received](http://webtv.un.org/watch/lebanon-review-37th-session-of-universal-periodic-review/6223849351001/) 307 recommendations from 105 UN member states. Eight of these recommendations touched on the right to freedom of expression generally while there were six recommendations on the right to freedom of expression online to include protection of bloggers and online expression.

<center>

![1_BvSD32M6wXsDe1Oia5Ycbw.png](https://res.cloudinary.com/riccardoerra/image/upload/v1645116442/1_Bv_SD_32_M6w_Xs_De1_Oia5_Ycbw_e7f8827900.png)

</center>

There were no recommendations to Lebanon on any of the rights to freedom of information and censorship of content, equal access and opportunity online or data protection and privacy on the Internet. These pockets of recommendations to Lebanon on basic digital rights by states demonstrates that awareness on the need to prioritise basic digital rights protection especially during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UPR process is inadequate.

Moving forward, it is important to note that not only has Lebanon just suffered immensely from [the Beirut explosions](https://www.wsj.com/articles/beirut-explosion-what-happened-in-lebanon-and-everything-else-you-need-to-know-11596590426) on 4 August 2020 but also has [dire projections](https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/economy/to-halt-lebanon-s-meltdown-it-s-imperative-to-reform-now-1.1043805) for its economic future. These are coupled with [the biting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic](https://www.euromesco.net/publication/the-socioeconomic-impact-of-covid-19-on-lebanon-a-crisis-within-crises/). However, in dealing with these challenges, the Government of Lebanon must not only ensure that it provides affordable Internet access across divides, problematic provisions of laws on free speech like the Penal Code, Publication Law and others must be reviewed. In addition to this, given the peculiar challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, digital policies must be developed and carried based on international human rights standards. In doing this, Lebanon can begin to regain its lost grounds as digital rights are not mutually exclusive of economic development.

large_Lebanon.png

medium_Lebanon.png

small_Lebanon.png

thumbnail_Lebanon.png

Lebanon.png

Guarantee the freedom of expression and opinion online as well as offline for media and individuals, by correcting articles related to defamation and libel criminalizing criticism of politicians and blasphemy in the Penal Code.

Lebanon is located in Western Asia and has a population of 6.7 million people. Its 1926 constitution nominally protects free expression, press freedom and freedoms of assembly and association. However, both the Penal Code and the Publications Law contain penalties for defamation, libel, contempt, and blasphemy. Journalists, bloggers, and activists continually face judicial harassment under these laws. Citizens and residents are also subjected to privacy violations such as cyberattacks and device seizures from security forces and armed groups. The cost of internet services is also prohibitively high and the infrastructure is weak, limiting access. 

Lebanon

large_1_zIRyPoMl4Pyhv38QEVilEg.png

medium_1_zIRyPoMl4Pyhv38QEVilEg.png

small_1_zIRyPoMl4Pyhv38QEVilEg.png

thumbnail_1_zIRyPoMl4Pyhv38QEVilEg.png

1_zIRyPoMl4Pyhv38QEVilEg.png

Discussing the state of freedom of expression and digital rights in Lebanon as it comes under review during the 37th session of the UPR.

Lebanon at the 37th session of the UPR: leveraging digital rights protection for socio-economic recovery

On 25 January 2021, during the 37th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (the HRC) held virtually, Rwanda’s human rights record was reviewed for the 3rd time under the [Universal Periodic Review](https://uproar.fyi/blog/article/welcome-to-uproar) (UPR) mechanism. Rwanda received 284 recommendations from 99 UN Member States who participated in the review. 30 recommendations were on freedom of expression, access to information and media freedoms in general compared to 21 recommendations during the previous review in 2015.

#### **Understanding the UPR**

The UPR is a voluntary mechanism established by the HRC where UN Member States review the human rights records of a State every 4–5 years. So far, Rwanda, as a State under review (SuR) has been reviewed three times — January 2011, November 2015 and now January 2021. The review was made based on three major reports, the national report submitted by the SuR, the summary of stakeholders’ reports from civil society organisations and the National Commission for Human Rights as well as the information from UN Agencies, observations from UN Treaty body mechanisms and other special procedures.

#### **The UPR Cycle**

<center>

![0_2sgADpdmKlhj-8hB.png](https://res.cloudinary.com/riccardoerra/image/upload/v1645114393/0_2sg_A_Dpdm_Klhj_8h_B_97f71ca2e9.png)
##### The UPR cycle
</center>

#### **Pre-session lobbying and advocacy**

The [Center for Rule of Law Rwanda](https://cerular.org/) (CERULAR), in partnership with [Small Media](https://smallmedia.org.uk/) worked tirelessly to ensure that a number of recommendations on freedom of expression were made and accepted. For example, an online event was organized on 21 January 2021 where [four recommendations](https://twitter.com/uproar_fyi/status/1353703483174768640?s=20) on freedom of expression online were presented to a diverse group of about 30 stakeholders including government representatives from regulatory bodies like the Rwanda Governance Board, diplomats from local embassies, the Rwanda Media Commission, journalists and representatives of mainstream human rights organizations.

The participants [called](https://cerular.org/upr/) for accountability on violations of media freedoms, reforms of laws and practices that inhibit expression and capacity building for media practitioners to enhance their professional competence. On the same day of the review, CERULAR issued a [press release](https://cerular.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/PRESS-RELEASE_25th-January-2021.pdf) calling upon the Government of Rwanda to accept more recommendations including those on freedom of expression.

#### **Specific recommendations on freedom of expression**

During the review, the progress made in reforming media laws and the amendment of the Penal Code in 2018 to decriminalize all press offences including defamation of the President were commended. 30 countries made statements calling for improved respect, promotion and fulfillment of the right to freedom, media freedoms in general and the right to access to information.

For example, the United Kingdom recommended that Rwanda should “protect and enable journalists to work freely, without fear of retribution, and ensure that state authorities comply with the Access to Information law.”

Likewise, Sudan recommended that Rwanda should “continue efforts to guarantee the right of freedom of opinion and expression including by allowing a greater access to the independent news outlets.”

The Republic of South Korea also recommended that the Government of Rwanda should “continue implementing reforms aimed at expanding media freedoms and creating a citizen-centred media to ensure all individuals fully enjoy the right to freedom of expression.”

With respect to law reform on media freedoms, Lithuania recommended that the government should “eliminate from legislation all provisions that undermine freedom of expression and protection of journalists against harassment and intimidation” while Barbados equally recommended that “strengthen measures to encourage the exercise of an independent media and enhance the enjoyment by all persons of the freedom of opinion and expression, collectively and as individuals.”

In his remarks, Justice Hon. Johnston Busingye, Rwanda’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General and head of the Rwandan delegation at the 3rd periodic review working group rejected claims of freedom of expression being threatened, and denied allegations that journalists have been detained due to their profession, saying those detained were on “justifiable grounds provided under the law.” Nevertheless, he acknowledged that the Rwandan government is duty bound to respect and protect constitutional rights like freedom of expression, and that the institutions involved are forthcoming and open to engagement with stakeholders. In his final remarks following the adoption of the review report by the Working Group, the Honorable Minister said, “I wish to reiterate the commitment of the government of Rwanda to the implementation of the recommendations that we supported, they will be a key component of my government’s human rights agenda for the next five years.”

In response to the overwhelming recommendations on freedom of expression by member states, CERULAR’s Executive Director, John Mudakikwa said: “We appreciate the increasing interest and participation of CSOs, both national and international, during Rwanda’s 3rd Universal Periodic Review. Without a doubt, it positively influenced the number and quality of recommendations made to and accepted by Rwanda especially in relation to freedom of expression, media freedoms, as well as access to information. We also equally appreciate the openness expressed by the Government of Rwanda to continue engaging with all stakeholders, in particular CSOs, to ensure that the UPR mechanism truly contributes towards the enjoyment of human rights by everyone in Rwanda.”

#### **Adoption of the recommendations**

On 29 January 2021, the draft report of the Working Group was adopted. According to the report, of the 284 recommendations, 160 recommendations were accepted of which 14 recommendations relate to freedom of expression, media freedoms in general and access to information. 49 recommendations including four on freedom of expression will be examined by Rwanda and responses will be provided in due time, but no later than the 47th Session of the HRC. In addition, 75 recommendations including 14 on freedom of expression were noted.

In comparison, the 2015 UPR recommendations on freedom of expression increased from 21 in 2015 to 30 in 2021. Those accepted increased from 2 in 2015 to 14 in 2021 while those to be reviewed or considered under implementation reduced from 6 to 4 and those noted reduced from 13 in 2015 to 12 in 2021.

#### **Way forward**

After the adoption of the recommendations, the cycle begins again with implementation, mid-term and final review scheduled to take place in the next 4–5 years. CERULAR in partnership with Small Media will continue to engage with the UPR process. Partnering with more stakeholders including government agencies, media practitioners, civil society actors, and others, we plan to make interventions in the areas of legal and policy reforms aimed at improving the legal and policy environment to protect and guarantee freedom of expression, media freedoms and access to information in line with international standards and norms.

We also intend to conduct targeted capacity building for the media and CSOs practitioners and government agencies in charge of media regulation and oversight. We will continue to monitor progress, identify gaps and monitor s emerging trends or issues in line with freedom of expression. In the end, we hope to submit the mid-term and the alternative report to the HRC highlighting progress made and existing gaps in relation to the freedom of expression, media freedoms in general and access to information.

***David Nshuti is a Program Officer at CERULAR. He can be reached at: D.Nshuti@cerular.org***

large_Rwanda.png

medium_Rwanda.png

small_Rwanda.png

thumbnail_Rwanda.png

Rwanda.png

Rwanda has made great strides reforming defamation laws; however, there is further need to halt online censorship and harassment of journalists along with worrying cybersecurity and ICT laws. 

Rwanda, also referred to as “The Land of a Thousand Hills” is situated in East Africa and has a population of approximately 12.3million people. After the devastating genocide in 1994, Rwanda has over the years resiliently rebuilt the country is currently anchored by a robust ICT roadmap geared towards digitalising the economy. The Constitution guarantees freedom of expression,  press,  access to information and privacy.  In 2019, the Supreme Court decriminalised defamation and humiliation of public figures, in a bid to promote freedom of expression. Despite these guarantees, online platforms including websites have been blocked while many journalists have been harassed for doing their work. Interception laws like 
Law n°60/2013 of 22/08/2013 and Law No. 24 of 2016 governing ICT have caused a chilling effect and self-censorship among journalists and social media users, undermining the internet’s potential to advance free expression and the free flow of information. 

Rwanda

large_1_eE8kS6XDEbkc7jS8pA3VWw (1).png

medium_1_eE8kS6XDEbkc7jS8pA3VWw (1).png

small_1_eE8kS6XDEbkc7jS8pA3VWw (1).png

thumbnail_1_eE8kS6XDEbkc7jS8pA3VWw (1).png

1_eE8kS6XDEbkc7jS8pA3VWw (1).png

Exploring the recommendations made to Rwanda's during the 37th UPR session.

Rwanda at the 37th UPR session: leaps, hurdles and opportunities

large_Hannah.png

medium_Hannah.png

small_Hannah.png

thumbnail_Hannah.png

Hannah.png

Liberia and Malawi concluded their 3rd Universal Periodic Review cycle at the 36th session in Geneva Switzerland in early November 2020.

The Universal Periodic Review is a UN OHCHR mechanism wherein each UN member state is reviewed for their human rights records every 4–5 years.

Small Media, through its UPRoar initiative, worked with The Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR), based in Malawi, and [The Center for Media Studies and Peace Building](https://cemespliberia.org/) (CEMESP), based in Liberia to campaign and lobby for freedom of expression on and offline to be prioritised at the UPR.

**🇱🇷 LIBERIA**

On 2 November, in Monrovia, Liberia, CEMESP organised a public event with established journalists, activists, lawyers and other stakeholders in order to monitor the live UPR. Interviews on the radio and in print can be found here.

<center>

![0_d4GaTPyCKYG419CO.jpeg](https://res.cloudinary.com/riccardoerra/image/upload/v1645093491/0_d4_Ga_T_Py_CKYG_419_CO_fd74a119fb.jpg)

##### *Participants at CEMESP’s UPR live streaming event on 2 November.*

</center>

Liberia’s delegation affirmed that they had taken steps to promote and protect freedom of expression and the independence of the press and the media, stating that in compliance with the Declaration of Table Mountain, in 2018, the Government had repealed the law on sedition, criminal malevolence, and the Penal Law of 1978 on criminal libel against the President, and had instead enacted the Kamara Abdullah Kamara Act of Press Freedom in 2019.

Senegal, the United States, Czech, Timor-Leste, Philippines, Cuba and Georgia among others commended Liberia for its reforms in promoting freedom of expression, especially through enacting the Kamara Law on Press Freedom. However, the United States noted its concern against internet shutdowns during protests and through an advance question, probed the steps Liberia’s government has taken to thoroughly and transparently investigate the February 2020 death of broadcast journalist Zenu Koboi Miller. Sierra Leone further recommended the repeal the Penal Law of 1978 and decriminalization of speech, while the Maldives recommended that Liberia should uphold international standards to protect journalists and freedom of expression online and offline.

<center>

![0_BM79S1vohC4dRKhf.jpeg](https://res.cloudinary.com/riccardoerra/image/upload/v1645093572/0_BM_79_S1voh_C4d_R_Khf_a733e0489d.jpg)

##### *Ruth Gbatoe speaking on a local radio show on Liberia’s UPR.*

</center>

Ruth Gbatoe, the Programme Assistant at CEMESP stated that they had worked tirelessly in the run-up to Liberia’s review, to ensure that human rights online and freedom of expression in general were upholded at the UPR. She expressed their disappointment with the insufficient recommendations on freedom of expression online, but showed optimism in engaging the Liberian government to advocate for key digital rights legislations, crucial to advancing the country’s social-democratic credentials.

**🇲🇼 MALAWI**

On 3 November, during Malawi’s Universal Periodic Review, CHRR hosted a Town Hall session for civil society and media to monitor the session.

During the Review, Malawi’s delegation stated that their government had put in place the Access to Information Act of 2017, in order to provide for a framework that would facilitate access to information with the aim of promoting accountability and transparency.

A handful of States including Bangladesh, Chad, Pakistan and Zimbabwe commended the government of Malawi for taking steps to pass the Access to Information Act. The United Kingdom and Northern Ireland also applauded Malawi on the Access to Information Act and advances at enhancing media freedom, while Kenya lauded the country for enacting freedom of expression legislation. No specific recommendation was made towards legal and policy reform on digital rights, besides Sierra Leone’s recommendation asking Malawi to implement the Access to Information Act. Belgium however inquired about the measures the government of Malawi is taking or planning to take in order to guarantee the safety of human rights defenders including journalists.

<center>

![0_cDsCIJsW2Yi_a5W9.png](https://res.cloudinary.com/riccardoerra/image/upload/v1645093750/0_c_Ds_CI_Js_W2_Yi_a5_W9_c4b08492ec.png)

##### *Participants monitoring Malawi’s UPR review live in Lilongwe.*

</center>

>“We welcome Sierra Leone’s recommendation on the Access to Information Act along with the comments from the UK, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Kenya. We are still disappointed with the lack of additional recommendations, particularly from member states that have historically championed freedom of expression. In order to hold the government of Malawi further accountable, it is vital we receive more robust recommendations on digital rights, including freedom of expression and media during the next cycle.”

[Michael Kaiyatsa](michaelkaiyatsa@gmail.com), Executive Director, CHRR


On a positive note, Malawi accepted Sierra Leone’s recommendation on implementing the Access to Information Law, and following up on the delegation’s commitment to operationalize this Act, we urge the government to continue building capacities of all stakeholders including journalists and citizens in its implementation and to honor their pledge of mapping out all information holders in order to develop a comprehensive database.

— — -

Commenting on the process, Hannah Machlin, *Advocacy Manager at Small Media*, said that she observed a decrease in the number of states participating in the UPR and in recommendations made on digital rights.

>“As we see less participation in the UPR, internet access is more important than ever before. With hospitals to classrooms running online, it’s disheartening to see less recommendations were made on digital rights in UPR 36 compared to the previous cycle. We hope in the next reviews that member states not only participate in the UPR but also make recommendations that bolster freedom of expression online”

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — -

Note to editors:

The [UPROAR](https://uproar.fyi/about) initiative is being coordinated by Small Media, in collaboration with a network of digital rights organisations working internationally.

[Small Media](https://smallmedia.org.uk/) is a London-based organisation, with a multidisciplinary team of researchers, designers and developers supporting networks of activists and advocates to work creatively, effectively, and safely.

large_Liberia.png

medium_Liberia.png

small_Liberia.png

thumbnail_Liberia.png

Liberia.png

Liberia must mainstream digital rights protection into its policies.

Liberia is one of the countries located in West Africa and has a population estimate of 5.2 million. Its 1986 Constitution provides for a number of rights provided for under chapter three which includes the right to freedom of expression and opinion, privacy, association and assembly and a number of others. 

However, these rights face a lot of challenges given the some policies that impact digital rights. For example, the recent plans to increase mobile tariff may affect access and affordability for Liberians while regular arrests of journalists also affects online expression and rights. There is also a challenge posed by inadequate compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and the gap created by lack of legislative framework on data protection. 

Liberia

small_liberia.png

thumbnail_liberia.png

liberia.png

large_Malawi.png

medium_Malawi.png

small_Malawi.png

thumbnail_Malawi.png

Malawi.png

Amend existing media and digital legislation and bring them into line with international rights standards.

A landlocked Southeastern African country with 19 million population. It is a unitary presidential republic

Freedom of expression has declined in Malawi over the last few years – both online and offline – as a result of a 2019 internet shutdown, and arrests related to political speech online. In February 2016, three political opposition members were arrested and charged with treason for allegedly plotting a coup through a WhatsApp conversation. The government has arrested social media users for their posts and deactivated SIM cards. During the May 2019 general elections, a network disruption on state-owned service providers raised suspicions that the government had orchestrated the blockage.

Malawi

large_1_QQEMJ8jyOzkWDjasAQfc5A.png

medium_1_QQEMJ8jyOzkWDjasAQfc5A.png

small_1_QQEMJ8jyOzkWDjasAQfc5A.png

thumbnail_1_QQEMJ8jyOzkWDjasAQfc5A.png

1_QQEMJ8jyOzkWDjasAQfc5A.png

Activists discuss their campaigning and disappointments around Liberia and Malawi’s third UPR cycle

International Silence on Human Rights Online Alarms Front-Line Activists

large_Roary fb profile picture v.2.png

medium_Roary fb profile picture v.2.png

small_Roary fb profile picture v.2.png

thumbnail_Roary fb profile picture v.2.png

Roary fb profile picture v.2.png

large_Jordan.png

medium_Jordan.png

small_Jordan.png

thumbnail_Jordan.png

Jordan.png

The Kingdom of Jordan must commit to legal reforms on digital rights and desist from arbitrary use of state power to curtail online freedoms.

Jordan is a monarchy where the King plays a major role in its politics and governance. It is located in Western Asia with a population close to 10.3 million as of 2021. While internet access has improved in Jordan since the cycle 2, the government violates digital rights through arrests of journalists, blocking of online content and arbitrary electronic surveillance. 

Digital rights like freedom of expression online, data protection, access to information online are currently under threat in Jordan. Applicable provisions that violate digital rights in laws like the Press and Publications Law, Penal Code and Cybercrime Law need to be amended. In order to improve the digital rights operational environment in Jordan, the government must commit to the reform of these laws that impede digital rights and desist from arbitrary surveillance, arrests and blocking of online content.

Jordan

large_The Gambia.png

medium_The Gambia.png

small_The Gambia.png

thumbnail_The Gambia.png

The Gambia.png

Amend all laws that restrict freedom of expression, both online and offline in order to bring national legal provisions into line with international standards under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This small west African country with a population of 2 million people expected a new dawn for reforms in civil rights after the 2016 election that ended the two decade ruling of former president Yahya Jammeh. Although journalists and media experienced a more open environment, a number of laws still restrict freedom of expression and some groups including women and LGBTQ are facing descrimination.

Actions since the 2016 transition of power are encouraging, including the Supreme Court’s ruling that a number of articles of the 2013 Information and Communication Act were unconstitutional. However, there remains an urgent need for the new administration and the Constitutional Review Commission to take concrete action to consolidate The Gambia’s human rights progress.

The Gambia

small_Gambia.png

thumbnail_Gambia.png

Gambia.png

large_Kenya.png

medium_Kenya.png

small_Kenya.png

thumbnail_Kenya.png

Kenya.png

Kenya needs to ensure more protection of online rights by bringing its laws and practices in line with international human rights standards.

Kenya is located in eastern Africa and currently has a population estimate of 56.2 million people. It has a Constitution which was enacted in 2010 and provides for various rights in its chapter four including the right to freedom of expression, privacy, association, assembly and information.

One of the major issues with respect to protecting digital rights in Kenya has to do with the government's unfettered access to and demand for citizens’ personal information. The 2019 data protection provides broad exemptions for personal data processing for purposes of national security and public interest. Cost remains a barrier to internet access and there is a need to ensure more connections for the unconnected in Kenya, particularly in rural areas. In addition to these issues, journalists, bloggers, activists and private citizens critical of the government face arrests and judicial harassment through problematic laws like the provisions of the sections 23 and 27 of Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018.

Kenya

large_1_uPKJeehFUWh1sdWuur9Rpg.png

1_uPKJeehFUWh1sdWuur9Rpg.png

How the global pandemic has changed human rights online in Kenya, Gambia, Jordan and Rwanda