Silencing the Defenders - Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

struggle. Recognising this, the Declaration specifically protects the right “individually and in association
with others, to develop and discuss new human rights ideas and principles and to advocate their
acceptance” [emphasis added]. 11
While placing no restrictions on which human rights ideas defenders can promote, the Declaration
notes that the universality of human rights – the principle that all human rights belong to all human
beings – should be respected at all times. 12 In India, two men suspected of disfiguring two young
women in an acid attack were killed by the police in what was widely believed to be an extrajudicial
killing. 13 Caught up in the exigencies of the moment, some women’s rights groups, would-be defenders
themselves, spoke up in favour of the alleged police action describing it as “instant justice”. 14 In
doing so they undermined the suspects’ rights “to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according
to law” and to “a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal
established by law”. 15
Information is the cornerstone of the work of human rights defenders; without it, it is impossible to
develop the informed opinions that are the basis of the promotion and protection of human rights.
Having full and timely information also facilitates responsible and informed citizen participation in
governance. The Declaration reiterates the right to seek, obtain, receive and hold information relating
to human rights. States are required to ensure access to domestic legislation and international human
rights laws 16 and any other international documents relating to human rights including any periodic
reports by the state to the bodies established by the international human rights treaties to which it is
a party. 17
Free flow of information requires legal guarantees of access to government-held information. In 1999,
the Commonwealth laid down agreed principles that should shape access to information legislation
across the association, 18 and in 2002 drafted a model Freedom of Information Act, 19 but, despite
global trends to move towards more participatory democracy, to date only fourteen Commonwealth
countries have their own freedom of information laws (Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bangladesh,
Belize, Canada, India, Jamaica, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,
Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and the United Kingdom). Compounding the problem, many
Commonwealth countries still have official secrets acts, which are either based on or are identical to
the United Kingdom’s Official Secrets Acts of 1889, 1911 and 1920. While these colonial era laws
have been revised or repealed in certain countries (including in the United Kingdom) to take account of
a global movement towards increased transparency and accountability in government, other countries,
such as Barbados 20 and the Solomon Islands, 21 still retain the more repressive versions.
Significantly, the Declaration makes particular mention of the right to “solicit, receive and utilize
resources for the express purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms
through peaceful means”. 22 The receipt of funds is important to sustaining the activities of many
human rights defenders and reference to it in the Declaration aims to secure the financial basis that
makes those activities possible. Cooperation between organisations in terms of the supply of funding
increases the sense of solidarity amongst human rights defenders, as well as increasing possibilities
for advocacy, which are particularly valuable goals when achieved across borders. For this reason,
several human rights communiqués agreed by the international community exhort cross border support
– by way of technical assistance and finances – for the promotion of human rights. 23
Governments, however, tend to be resistant to cooperation of this nature, both within and across
their borders, because it provides a basis for stronger and more unified criticism of their own activities.
This in turn makes them suspicious of the entry into their countries of funds that could be used to
generate that criticism. Although the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has confirmed that
the entitlement to receive funding contained within the Declaration extends to the “receipt of funds
from abroad”, 24 governments continue to take advantage of the fact that the regulation of funds
from abroad is one of the easiest and most effective ways to restrict uncomfortable activities of
human rights defenders within borders. After 9/11, on the excuse of monitoring in-flows of funding
for terrorism, there has been a growing trend within the Commonwealth to place restrictions on, or
12 CHRI 2009 REPORT: SILENCING THE DEFENDERS •