FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY - Article 19

ARTICLE 19GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR FREE EXPRESSIONsystems.’ 135 The Special Rapporteur developed his commentary on freedom of information in his 2000annual report to the Commission on Human Rights, noting the fundamental importance of this rightnot only to democracy and freedom, but also to the right to public participation and the realisation ofthe right to development. 136 The UN Human Rights Committee, the body established to superviseimplementation of the ICCPR, has also frequently urged States to enact freedom of informationlegislation. 137 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights recently stated unambiguously that freedomof expression, which includes the right to seek and receive information, ‘protects the right of everyperson to request access to the information under the control of the State’. 138Under the ECHR, 139 the regional human rights treaty ratified by Ukraine, the right to accessenvironmental information is enforced primarily through Article 8, which protects the right to privateand family life and peaceful enjoyment of the home. 140 The European Court of Human Rights, whichoversees compliance with the ECHR, has ruled that environmental pollution will generally affectpeople’s well-being and is therefore relevant to the protection of private and family life, under Article8. For example, in Guerra and Ors. v. Italy, 141 the Court ruled that the failure of the authorities toprovide information concerning pollution caused by a factory near the applicants’ home violated theirright to private and family life. Although there had been no active State interference with theapplicants’ right to respect for private and family life, the Court ruled that Article 8 imposes a positiveobligation on the State to ensure the enjoyment of that right, which includes the obligation to provideinformation. Two years later, in McGinley and Egan v. The United Kingdom, 142 the Court followed itsdecision in Guerra and Ors. v. Italy and confirmed that the ECHR guaranteed a right of access to therelevant information. 143 In the McGinley and Egan case the applicants had been exposed to radiation135 Report of the Special Rapporteur, Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion andExpression, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1998/40, 28 January 1998, para. 14.136Report of the Special Rapporteur, Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion andExpression, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/63, 18 January 2000, para. 42.137 See, for example, its Concluding Observations on Ireland (UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.21, 28 July 1993); andon Azerbaijan (UN Doc. A/49/40, 27 July 1994).138 Claude Reyes and Others v. Chile, 19 September 2006, Series C No. 151, para. 77 (Inter-American Court ofHuman Rights). Unofficial translation from the Spanish judgement.139Adopted 4 November 1950, in force 3 September 1953.140 Although early developments placed the right to access environmental information under Article 10, afreedom of expression provision similar to Article 19 of the ICCPR, jurisprudential quirks have resulted in itbeing placed under Article 8.141 Guerra and Ors. v. Italy, 19 February 1998, Application No. 14967/89 (European Court of Human Rights).142 McGinley and Egan v. The United Kingdom, 28 January 2000, Application Nos. 21825/93 and 23414/94(European Court of Human Rights).143 The Court did not find a violation. However, the respondent government had complied with its obligations byproviding a process by which access to the relevant information could be obtained, but which the applicants hadnot used.For Internal Use Only. Is Post-Chornobyl Ukraine Ready for Access to Environmental Information?ARTICLE 19, London, 2007""