Volume V - Annexes

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICEINTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATIONOF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION(THE STATE OF QATAR v.THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES)MEMORIAL OF THE STATE OF QATARANNEXES 124-148VOLUME V25APRIL 2019

VOLUME V
ANNEXES 124 - 148
Non-Governmental Organization Reports and Statements
Annex 124 International Federation for Human Rights, United Arab Emirates: Criminalising Dissent UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed, Judicial Observation Report (August 2013), available at https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/report_uae94_uk.pdf
Annex 125 Committee to Project Journalists, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain block Qatari news websites (25 May 2017), available at https://cpj.org/2017/05/saudi-arabia-uae-bahrain-block-qatari-news-webs…
Annex 126 Reporters Without Borders, Al Jazeera - collateral victim of diplomatic offensive against Qatar (7 June 2017), available at https://rsf.org/en/news/al-jazeera-collateral-victim-diplomatic-offensi…
Annex 127 Committee to Protect Journalists, UAE threatens 15 years in prison for expressions of ‘sympathy’ with Qatar (7 June 2017), available at
https://cpj.org/2017/06/uae-threatens-15-years-in-prison-for-expression…
Annex 128 National Human Rights Committee, First Report Regarding the Human Rights Violations as a Result of the Blockade on the State of Qatar (13 June 2017), avaialble at http://www.nhrc-qa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/First-Report-of-the-Q…
Annex 129 Amnesty International, Gulf / Qatar dispute: Human dignity trampled and families facing uncertainty as sinister deadline passes
(19 June 2017), available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/06/gulf-qatar-dispute-human…
Annex 130 Human Rights Watch, Submission for the Universal Periodic Review of the United Arab Emirates (29 June 2017), available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/29/submission-universal-periodic-revie…
Annex 131 Article 19, Qatar: Demands to close Al Jazeera endanger press freedom and access to information (30 June 2017), avaialble at https://www.article19.org/resources/qatar-demands-to-close-al-jazeera-e…
Annex 132 National Human Rights Committee, Second Report Regarding the Human Rights Violations as a Result of the Blockade on the State of Qatar (1 July 2017), available at http://www.nhrc-qa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NHRC-Second-Report-Re…
Annex 133 Twitter Post, Regarding the Arrest of Ghanem Mattar, @AmnestyAR (10 July 2017 at 2:14am) (with certified translation)
Annex 134 Human Rights Watch, Qatar: Isolation Causing Rights Abuses
(12 July 2017), available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/13/qatar-isolation-causing-rights-abus…
Annex 135 National Human Rights Committee, 100 Days Under the Blockade: NHRC Third report on human rights violations caused by the blockade imposed on the state of Qatar (30 August 2017)
Annex 136 National Human Rights Committee, 6 Months of Violations, What Happens Now? The Fourth General Report on the Violations of Human Rights Arising from the Blockade on the State of Qatar
(5 December 2017) (with certified translation)
Annex 137 Human Rights Watch, World Report 2018 Country Summary: United Arab Emirates (January 2018), available at https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/united-arab-emir…
Annex 138 Human Rights Watch, UAE Award-Winning Activist Jailed for 10 Years (1 June 2018), available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/01/uae-award-winning-activist-jailed-1…
Annex 139 Human Rights Watch, UAE Continues to Flout International Law
(29 June 2018), available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/29/uae-continues-flout-international-l…
Annex 140 National Human Rights Committee, Fifth General Report, Continuation of human rights violations: A year of the blockade imposed on Qatar (June 2018)
Annex 141 Reporters Without Borders, Unacceptable Call for Al Jazeera’s Closure in Gulf Crisis (28 June 2017), available at https://rsf.org/en/news/unacceptable-call-al-jazeeras-closure-gulf-cris…
Annex 142 Amnesty International, Report 2017/18: The State of the World’s Human Rights (2018), available at https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/POL1067002018ENGLISH.PDF
Annex 143 Asian Football Confederation (AFC), AFC DEC issues USD$150,000 fine on UAE FA (11 March 2019), available at http://www.the-afc.com/media/afc-dec-issues-usd-150-000-fine-on-uae-fa
Books, Articles, and News Articles
Annex 144 M. Banton, International Action Against Racial Discrimination (Oxford University Press, 1996)
Annex 145 A. A. Cançado Trindade, The Application of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 1983)
Annex 146 B. Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (Cambridge University Press, 2006)
Annex 147 J. Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law
(8th ed., Oxford University Press, 2012)
Annex 148 N. Lerner, The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (BRILL, 2014)

Annex 124
International Federation for Human Rights, United Arab Emirates: Criminalising Dissent UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed, Judicial Observation Report (August 2013), available at https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/report_uae94_uk.pdf

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore,
no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which
a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3: Everyone
has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall
be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
Judicial Observation Report
August 2013
United ArAb emirAtes:
CriminAlising dissent
UAe 94 triAl deeply FlAwed
August 2013 / N°614a – Photo: © Reuters
Annex 124
2 / Titre du rapport – FIDHPolice cars around the roads to the Court on the day of the verdict.
Annex 124
FIDH – United Arab Emirates: Criminalising Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed / 3I. INTRODUCTION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------4II. THE DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------5III. THE CHARGES -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------5IV. ARRESTS AND PRE-TRIAL DETENTION --------------------------------------------------6V. THE HEARINGS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------6VI. RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL -----------------------------------------------------------------------6VII. UAE, REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK: RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL -----------------------------------------------------------------------8VIII. VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL ---------------------------------------11 Right to a fair trial before a competent, independent and impartial court ----------------11 Right to a Public Hearing -----------------------------------------------------------------------12 Presumption of Innocence ----------------------------------------------------------------------13 Right to Defence ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 Right to Equality of Arms -----------------------------------------------------------------------14 Right to Call and Examine Witnesses ---------------------------------------------------------14 Right to a Public and Reasoned Judgment ----------------------------------------------------15 Right to Appeal -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------15IX. LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN RELATION TO TORTURE AND INHUMAN TREATMENT --------------------------------------------------------------15X. VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM TORTURE ----------------------16 Allegations of torture and inhuman treatment during the pre-trial period ----------------16 Hearing of 4th March 2013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------17 Hearing of 11th March 2013 --------------------------------------------------------------------17 Hearing of 19th March 2013 --------------------------------------------------------------------18 Hearing on 26th March 2013 -------------------------------------------------------------------18 Hearing of 6th May 2013 -----------------------------------------------------------------------18 Outside the trial hearings ------------------------------------------------------------------------18XI. CONCLUSION ON TORTURE AND INHUMAN TREATMENT ----------------------19XII. OVERALL CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------------19XIII. RECOMMENDATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------20
Annex 124
4 / United Arab Emirates: Criminalizing Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed – FIDHI. IntroductionThe trial of 94 intellectuals, activists, and human rights defenders, took place before the Special Security Court within the Federal Supreme Court in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE) between 4th March and 2nd July 2013. A coalition of four human rights organisations – the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the Arab Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) – appointed observer Melanie Gingell, a barrister of Doughty Street Chambers in London to monitor and report on the trial.On 27th January 2013, the 94 defendants were charged with founding, organising and admin-istering an organisation aimed at overthrowing the government, contrary to article 180 of the penal code. The offence carries a maximum sentence of 15-years’ imprisonment. At the conclusion of the trial on 2nd July 2013, 69 defendants were convicted and 25 acquit-ted. Many were sentenced to 10 years and others to 7 years imprisonment. The group tried in absentia received 15 years imprisonment and the UAE has started extradition proceedings against them. The observer attempted to gain access to the first two hearings on 4th and 11th March and the final hearing which took place on 2nd July 2013. She was denied entry to all hearings. As set out in the first report1, international observers were asked to comply with procedures and provide documents. All procedures were complied with but the observers were still denied entry. The coalition was informed in writing by the UAE Ministry of Justice that the final hearing in the trial of the UAE 94 would be open to the public and that international observers would be permitted entry in order to monitor proceedings. However, on attending at the Ministry of Justice on the day prior to the hearing the observer was informed that she would not be admitted. On the day of the hearing it was not possible to approach the Federal Supreme Court as the surrounding roads were subject to police roadblocks. There was a very heavy police presence in the surrounding area. No independent observation of the trial was allowed. The international media were also barred from the proceedings.The content of this report is therefore based on information gained from interviews with family members who were allowed access to the hearings, from local activists, from local press reports and other reports of international organisations. This report concludes that the trial was marred by recurrent and serious breaches of interna-tionally agreed standards of fair trial. This has led to 69 unfair convictions and the imposition of lengthy terms of imprisonment from which there is no right of appeal. It further finds that credible allegations of torture, which were repeatedly made by defendants to the tribunal, were ignored. The allegations are consistent with other reports of torture that have 1. See at “Trial Observation Report”, 26th March 2013 at http://www.fidh.org/United-Arab-Emirates-Flagrant-disregard-of-fair-tri…
Annex 124
FIDH – United Arab Emirates: Criminalising Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed / 5been made in UAE over the last 10 years2 leading to the fear that torture is systematic within the state’s penal system and the conclusion that it has occurred in this case. The failure by the authorities to allow independent observation of the trial and to instigate any investigations into the allegation adds weight to this conclusion. The failure to investigate the allegations of torture puts the authorities in breach of their international obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ratified by the UAE in July 2012.II. The defendantsThe large group of defendants includes prominent human rights lawyers, academics, judges, teachers and student leaders. They are all Emiratis with an interest in political reform. Many are members of a local group, the Reform and Social Guidance Association (Al-Islah), which advocates greater adherence to Islamic precepts. The group has engaged in peaceful political debate for many decades in the UAE. They have called on the ruling families of the UAE to take evolutionary steps towards democracy in the country.III. The chargesAll 94 defendants were charged under articles 117, 180/1 and 182 of the Federal Penal Code. The primary charge against the 94 defendants of founding and administrating an institution aimed at overthrowing the government is pursuant to Article 180 of the federal penal code. It provides that: A punishment of temporary imprisonment shall be inflicted on any person who institutes, founds, organises or administers a society, corporation, association, organisation, group, gang, or a subsidiary thereof of whatever name, aiming at overthrowing, seizing, or oppos-ing the basic principles supporting the government regime in the State, or preventing any institution of the state or any public authority from exercising its functions, or attempting at the citizens’ personal or other freedom or public rights guaranteed by the constitution or law, or harming the national unity or social peace. A punishment of imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years shall be inflicted on any person who joins a society, corporation, association or the organisations stated in the first paragraph of this article or cooperates therewith or participates therein in any manner or provides them with any financial or material aid whilst being aware of their purposes.32. See AI reports on UAE http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/uae?page=83. http://www.scribd.com/doc/122309224/UAE-Penal-Code-amended-1987#page=72
Annex 124
6 / United Arab Emirates: Criminalizing Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed – FIDHIV. Arrests and pre-trial detention The arrests began in early 2012 when 7 Emirati citizens were arrested after having been stripped of their nationality in December 2011. The arrests continued until many men were detained and held incommunicado in secret detention centres without charge. Of these people, at least 25 had signed a petition in March 2011 calling for democratic reform in the country. Arrests continued until a total of 94 were charged within the same indictment.V. The hearings The hearings took place in the Special Security Court within the Federal Supreme Court in Abu Dhabi before a tribunal made up of Presiding Judge Falah Al-Hajiri, Judge Mohamed Ahmed Abdulqader and Judge Adbulrassol Tantawy. There were a total of 14 days set aside to hear the case of the 94 defendants. The hearing days were not consecutive and took place on various dates between 4th March and 2nd July 2013. Several of the sessions did not last for a full day. At the first hearing on 4th March, the 61 male defendants who had been detained and 13 women who had been granted bail entered pleas of not guilty. At the second hearing on 11th March a further 12 defendants (some of them relatives of the detainees) had been arrested and entered pleas of not guilty. This brought the total present at the hearings to 86. The remaining 8 were tried in absentia as they were outside the country.At the final hearing on 2nd July 2013, 69 were found guilty and 25 acquitted including the 13 women defendants. Many defendants were sentenced to 10 years and the 8 who were tried in absentia were sentenced to 15 years. The rest received terms of 7 years and some financial penalties. The sentences are followed by a three-year monitoring period for those sentenced to 10 years. VI. Right to a fair trial The right to a fair trial guarantees all persons a public hearing before a legally constituted, competent, independent and impartial tribunal.4 By international law, this right is an absolute one that may suffer no exception.54. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article s 2(1),3.14 (1),26.5. United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment 32, paragraphs 18 and 19.
Annex 124
FIDH – United Arab Emirates: Criminalising Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed / 7Defendants’ relatives after the verdict was announced.
Annex 124
8 / United Arab Emirates: Criminalizing Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed – FIDHVII. UAE, regional and international legal framework: right to a fair trialThere are constitutional fair trial guarantees under the terms of Article 28 of the UAE constitu-tion that: “an accused shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a legal and fair trial.”The Arab Charter on Human Rights is the binding regional instrument ratified by the UAE: Article 13 (1) of the Arab Charter guarantees the right to a fair trial in criminal proceed-ings “before a competent, independent and impartial court that has been constituted by law to hear any criminal charge against him...” Article 13 (2) guarantees that trials “shall be public, except in exceptional cases that may be warranted by the interests of justice in a society that respects human freedoms and rights.” Article 14 (1) provides that: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, search or detention without a legal warrant.” Article 14 (5) provides that: “Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reason-able time or to release.” Article 16 sets out the presumption of innocence and the following minimum guarantees including equality of arms, adequate time to prepare a defence, to be able to communicate with his/her family, the right to appeal and to security of person and privacy: 1. The right to be informed promptly, in detail and in a language which he understands, of the charges against him. 2. The right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense and to be allowed to communicate with his family. 3. The right to be tried in his presence before an ordinary court and to defend himself in person or through a lawyer of his own choosing with whom he can communicate freely and confidentially. 4. The right to the free assistance of a lawyer who will defend him if he cannot defend himself or if the interests of justice so require, and the right to the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or does not speak the language used in court. 5. The right to examine or have his lawyer examine the prosecution witnesses and to secure the attendance of witnesses on his own behalf and for such witnesses to be examined in the same way as the witnesses against him.
Annex 124
FIDH – United Arab Emirates: Criminalising Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed / 9 6. The right not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt. 7. The right, if convicted of the crime, to file an appeal in accordance with the law before a higher tribunal. 8. The right to respect for his security of person and his privacy in all circumstances. In addition to the binding instruments set out above there are relevant persuasive standards contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1980) and the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990).The United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary6 state in the follow-ing articles: 1. The independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country. It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary. 2. The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. 3. The judiciary shall have jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature and shall have exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law. 4. There shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process, nor shall judicial decisions by the courts be subject to revision. This principle is without prejudice to judicial review or to mitigation or commutation by competent authorities of sentences imposed by the judiciary, in accordance with the law. 12. Judges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists.The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers7 state that: 1. All persons are entitled to call upon the assistance of a lawyer of their choice to protect and establish their rights and to defend them in all stages of criminal proceedings. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3 guarantees “the right to life, liberty and security of person.”6. Adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985.7. Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 118 (1990).
Annex 124
10 / United Arab Emirates: Criminalizing Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed – FIDHAlthough the UAE is not a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it constitutes an authoritative source and guideline reflecting international best practice in relation to the conduct of criminal trials. Article 14 states: 1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgment rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children. 3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; (b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to commu-nicate with counsel of his own choosing; (c) To be tried without undue delay; (e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; 5. Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.
Annex 124
FIDH – United Arab Emirates: Criminalising Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed / 11VIII. Violations of the right to a fair trialRight to a fair trial before a competent, independent and impartial court There are concerns that the tribunal in this case was not independent and free to conduct the trial in a proper manner. These concerns are based upon: (1) At the first hearing on 4th March the judge ordered that five defendants, Khamis Al-Sam, Abdulsalam Darwish, Ibrahim Al-Yassi, Saif Al-Ichlah and Adnan Julfar, be transferred to hospital in order to be examined by medical specialists. This order was never carried out. This was the only time that the judge acknowledged the poor physical condition of defendants in the trial. The judge did not pursue the failure to comply with the order. He further refused to entertain the defendants’ frequent appeals at later hearings to investigate allegations of torture. (2) At the 6th session on 16th April the judge demanded to know why the case papers had not been supplied to the defendants. The judge called for the prison wardens to be brought to court to explain. There was no compliance with this order. (3) At the 6th session the judge also criticised local media who had published articles endorsing prosecution evidence and approving the charges against the defendants. The local media nevertheless continued to publish a series of prejudicial articles in the run up to the final hearing. (4) At the 7th session on 30th April the judge ordered that the defendants be returned to state run prisons (instead of secret detention places where some of them were being held). (5) At the hearing on 6th May the defendant Mohammed Abdullrazaq stated that the judge’s order at the end of the last hearing had been overruled by security services in that the 7 defendants who had had their citizenship stripped from them were taken back to Al-Sader jail instead of Al-Razeen with the other defendants. They were held there incommunicado in solitary confinement. (6) The judge again ordered that the prison wardens allow the defendants to have the case papers. He ordered that the Public Prosecutor personally supervise that this order be carried out. This order was complied with in a partial manner at later stages in the trial. The discrepancy between the judicial approach to allegations of torture and that to providing case papers lead to concern that the tribunal was not free to follow lines of inquiry concerning torture and that some other agency had intervened. But further, where the judge did attempt to control proceedings through orders, often these were not carried out.After the first hearing the judge did not pursue his initial ruling to have certain defendants medically examined. He allowed defendants to make allegations of torture within the proceed-ings but did not make any rulings in relation to the allegations. In particular he did not order any investigation into the allegations. Annex 124
12 / United Arab Emirates: Criminalizing Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed – FIDHIn contrast to this, the tribunal repeatedly ordered the prosecution to ensure that case papers were delivered to the defendants in detention over the course of many hearings. These orders, however, were never fully carried out.Right to a Public HearingTrials shall be public, except in exceptional cases that may be warranted by the interests of justice in a society that respects fundamental freedoms and human rights.8 The trial was not held in public. The authorities made no suggestion that there should be restrictions warranted by the interests of justice or of national security; on the contrary, the authorities continued to claim the hearing was fully open to the public despite denying entry to some family members, members of the general public, the international media and international legal observers. Further, people who have used social media to publicise aspects of the trial have been imprisoned (see below). Strict procedures were put in place for family members to gain entry to the court. Each male defendant was allowed two family members and each female one family member. They had to provide copies of ID cards and car registration plates. They could take nothing in with them. Some family members were arbitrarily refused entry to certain hearings.Some people who discussed what happened inside the courtroom have been imprisoned. On 8th April 2013 Abdullah Al-Hadidi, the son of a defendant, was convicted under Article 1 of the new Cybercrimes Decree of spreading false information about the trial and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment. He had tweeted that allegations of torture within the trial should be investigated. On 11th May 2013 Waleed Al-Shehhi, an Emirati not connected to the trial used his twitter account to make statements supportive of the UAE 94. He was initially detained at an unknown location, until he was transferred to Al-Wathba jail on 17th May. At least ten individuals from the families received calls from the court after the hearing on 19th March 2013 informing them that they may no longer attend the hearings. These individuals had all tweeted about the court proceedings. The international media was denied entry to the proceedings. Following the first hearing on 4th March the security services confiscated cameras and recording equipment when journalists tried to interview defendants’ relatives in a public place. Prior to the first two hearings, international legal observers were required to provide docu-ments and attend at different ministries to get permission to enter. Despite complying with all the requirements they were not admitted. One member of the legal observation team was followed by security services.Prior to the last hearing on 2nd July 2013, the observer was informed in writing by the ministry of justice that she would be admitted. She was not, and further she and a journalist were taken by police and detained at a police station because they spoke to relatives of the defendants in a public place after the hearing. They were later released without charge. A senior officer apologised to the observer.8. Arab Charter on Human Rights, Article 13(2)
Annex 124
FIDH – United Arab Emirates: Criminalising Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed / 13Representatives of the local media were admitted. Their reporting during the course of the trial was so partisan as to be criticised by the tribunal.Overall, it was obvious that this trial was not held in public. The authorities did not approach this issue in an open and transparent way. Their claims that the hearing was public were demonstrably untrue.Presumption of InnocenceThe terms of the local press coverage was such as to ignore the presumption of innocence. For example on 28th January 2013 The National published an article quoting the Attorney General, Salim Saeed Kubaish setting out the prosecution case at length as if it had already been proven. The paper reports him as saying for example that the UAE 94 “launched, estab-lished and ran an organisation seeking to oppose the basic principles of the UAE system of governance and to seize power.” The local press continued to report the case in partisan terms throughout the life of the trial.The defendants were treated as if they were convicted criminals in the course of the trial. They were brought to court in handcuffs and shackles. Until the fourth hearing, they were obliged to wear prison uniform in court instead of civilian clothing as would be usual for remand prisoners.Right to Defence The prosecution evidence ran to approximately 7000 pages and it would there-fore have taken many hours over many months to prepare a defence adequately. None of the defendants or their lawyers received documents in good time so as to allow this to happen. Some of the defendants received incomplete court documents after the trial had begun. Many did not receive documents until very late in proceedings. This prob-lem was raised before the tribunal on many occasions but the situation was not remedied. One defence counsel had to act for 86 of the defendants as other lawyers were reluctant to come forward. There were a total of 7 defence lawyers in the case. One withdrew in the course of the trial citing personal reasons.Not all the defendants had had an opportunity to see a lawyer before the trial commenced. At the third hearing on 18th March, for example, a defendant told the judges that he had not yet been able to see a lawyer. On 19th March Khames Al-Sam, a sitting judge prior to his arrest, told the tribunal that he had been denied the opportunity to prepare a defence over the previous 6 months.At the hearing of 26th March the defendant Dr Al-Roken, a human rights lawyer, handed the tribunal a formal request that the defendants be allowed access to the case papers and be allowed to prepare a defence. This document listing many violations of the right to a fair trial was signed by 72 defendants. The tribunal declined to consider this application and the trial continued. At the same hearing the defence lawyer for the 86 defendants complained to the judge that he had again been unable to visit those of his clients detained at Al-Wathba jail.
Annex 124
14 / United Arab Emirates: Criminalizing Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed – FIDHAt the hearing on 6th May 2013, the defendant Khalid Al-Shiba told the tribunal that the lengthy handwritten notes he had prepared having read the case file had been confiscated by the prison authorities. The trial took place over the course of 13 days. This meant that there was inadequate time for 94 defendants to be heard sufficiently or at all. Overall, the observer was driven to the conclusion that the defendants were not given the chance to defend themselves properly and were not given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence.Right to Equality of Arms The defence was significantly disadvantaged in comparison to the prosecution. They did not have the same procedural means and opportunities available to them during the course of the trial nor were they in an equal position to make their case. At the hearing on 26th March 2013, the defendants Ahmed Al-Tabour, Salim Sahooh, Abdulrahmin Al-Zarouni, Dr. Hadif Al-Owais and Rashid Khalfan Bin Sabt all asked to be allowed to speak but were not allowed to do so. The prosecution team sat to the right of the judges, closer to them than the defence, who sat at tables facing the judges. When the court rose, the judges and the prosecution retire to the same room. The prosecutor had the opportunity to discuss the case with the judges outside the courtroom in the absence of the defence lawyers.The defence lawyer representing the 86 defendants was initially not allowed to bring case documents into court. The defence was not afforded a transcript of the proceedings, as was provided to the prosecution. In addition, the defence was not given copies of voice recordings and videos relied on by the prosecution.Right to Call and Examine Witnesses The defendants did not have the right to examine witnesses against them and to secure attend-ance and examination of witnesses on their behalf under the same conditions as witnesses appearing against them. Defence lawyers were restricted in the number of witnesses they could call and the number of questions they could ask. At the hearing on 18th March 2013 three prosecution witnesses gave evidence. Only three defendants were allowed to ask questions. The defence lawyers were limited to five questions each. One of them had prepared a total of 400 questions. At the hearing on 26th March 2013 six sealed envelopes containing videos were handed to the tribunal. The defence had not had an opportunity to see this evidence in advance. They were not given an opportunity to instruct voice recognition experts in order to rebut those instructed by the prosecution. Annex 124
FIDH – United Arab Emirates: Criminalising Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed / 15 The defence wanted an opportunity to call expert witnesses to show that the signatures on statements which the prosecution claimed had been signed by the defendants had been falsi-fied. They were denied the opportunity. The matters set out above suggest that defence questioning was limited to an unreasonable degree in the course of the trial. No similar restrictions appear to have been imposed on the prosecution.Right to a Public and Reasoned Judgment Everyone has the right to know the basis upon which a judgment is made against them.9 Despite the fact that many were convicted and sentenced to lengthy custodial terms on 2nd July, no reasoned judgment was made available to the defendants until 25th July 2013. Right to AppealEveryone convicted in criminal proceedings has the right to challenge his or her conviction and sentence and have it reviewed before a higher tribunal.10 In this case the Special Security Court has been constituted with no higher tier of courts for appeal. The authorities have an obligation to arrange their procedures so as to ensure that there is the possibility of double judicial scrutiny in all cases. The establishment of special jurisdictions for certain categories of crime or of people is not an adequate reason to fail to provide a forum for appeal.11IX. Legal framework in relation to torture and inhuman treatment The UAE ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in July 2012: Article 2 guarantees the right to be free of torture: “Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” Article 12 provides that: “Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.” 9. Human Rights Committee: General Comment 32 10. United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 14, para. 511. Human Rights Committee Views of 1st November 1991, Raphael Henry v Jamaica, Communication No.230/1987
Annex 124
16 / United Arab Emirates: Criminalizing Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed – FIDH Article 15 provides that: “Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.”There is a constitutional guarantee against torture in the UAE Constitution in Article 26: “... No person shall be subjected to torture or to degrading treatment.”X. Violations of the right to be free from tortureCredible and widespread allegations of torture of the defendants were made throughout the proceedings. They were made in court during the first hearing and repeated on several occa-sions. At the first hearing the tribunal ordered that five defendants be transferred to hospital and be examined by specialists. This order was never carried out and the defendants were returned to their places of detention without medical assessment or treatment. Witnesses in the courtroom described the physical condition of some of the defendants as being poor. They had lost significant amounts of weight, some were incoherent, and some had to be supported in order to stand. Some of the relatives were distressed by the appearance of their family members.The tribunal failed to order independent investigations into the veracity of the allegations. The trial was allowed to proceed despite the Judge’s view that some of the defendants required hospital treatment. A central piece of evidence relied on by the prosecution was the apparent confession of Ahmed Bin Ghith Al-Suwaidi. He retracted the statement at the first opportunity at the first hearing. He made a plea to the court to protect his life and those of his family as he had been told they would be killed if he dared to plead not guilty.Allegations of torture and inhuman treatment during the pre-trial period The family and lawyers of Ahmed Al-Suwaidi complained that he was held incommunicado at a secret location prior to the trial. This would amount to an enforced disappearance placing Al-Suwaidi outside the reach of law.12 Dr. Ahmed Al-Zaabi documented that during interrogations in a secret detention facility he was tortured by being suspended upside down and blindfolded. This is as per the prosecuting document. 12. Article 2 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance: For the purposes of this Convention, “enforced disappearance” is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.
Annex 124
FIDH – United Arab Emirates: Criminalising Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed / 17Hearing of 4th March 2013 Dr. Al-Roken called on the court to order that Ahmad Ghaith Al-Suwaidi be given treatment because of the obvious signs of intense psychological anguish he exhibited. Dr. Al-Roken also called for his son and son-in-law to be released as they had suffered 5 months of enforced disappearance during which time they had suffered physical torture including beatings.Ahmad Ghaith Al-Suwaidi made a plea that his life and those of his family be spared. The lawyer for the defendant Judge Dr Ahmad Al-Zaabi alleged that his client had been tortured including having his nails extracted. Issa Al-Sari said he had been locked in a vehicle for approximately half an hour while petrol fumes were directed in through the air vents causing him to choke and struggle to breathe. Dr. Ibrahim Al-Yassi told the Court he had been beaten and suffered facial injuries especially to his mouth.Rashid Al-Roken, Dr. Al-Roken’s son, said he had been beaten several times a day.Hearing of 11th March 2013 Dr. Ahmed Saleh Al-Hammadi said he had been treated in a degrading manner. He had been handled roughly and threatened with physical violence if he did not cooperate. He said that he could hardly recognise some of the defendants now as they looked as if they had “come out of their graves.” Issa Al-Sari was in a very poor psychological condition. He was talking to himself and at times shouting incoherently. He seemed to be hallucinating. Medical experts from among the relatives in court speculated that he could have been under the effects of a drug. The relatives were shocked and distressed by his appearance.Ahmad Ghaith Al-Suwaidi was in a poor condition. He did not seem to be aware of his surroundings, he did not speak and only shook his head when he was spoken to.A defendant suffering from a bladder disease was denied access to adequate toilet facilities. Dr. Al-Roken gave further details of the torture inflicted on his son and son-in-law. He said that on one occasion over the course of ten days they were repeatedly beaten on the hands and knees and that bodily hair was pulled out. They were put in electric chairs and threatened with electrocution. Lawyers requested that the health of all defendants be assessed because of their dramatic weight loss. Annex 124
18 / United Arab Emirates: Criminalizing Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed – FIDHHearing of 19th March 2013 The defendant judge Khamees Al-Sam told the judge that defendants who were ill and being held in the prison medical clinic were being shackled and left in solitary confinement between 10pm and 5am.Hearing on 26th March 2013 The defendant judge Dr. Ahmed Al-Zaabi told the judge that he had been severely beaten during interrogation to the extent that he had urinated blood. He had several wounds includ-ing bruising on the legs. One leg was so swollen it looked like “an elephant’s leg.” He had been unable to sleep or pray. He had been unable to walk properly for a month. He had been denied medical care. The judge refused to give Fatimah Humidan leave to travel for medical treatment. She presented a report from her cardiologist saying that she needed urgent heart surgery, which was not avail-able in the UAE. The judge said that the report should say that she needed to travel abroad not just that the procedure wasn’t available in the UAE. The 70-year-old mother of Dr. Al-Roken was denied entry to the hearing although she had attended all previous hearings. She had travelled for two hours to attend. The security services said her name was not on the list.Hearing of 6th May 2013Abdullah Al-Hajri stated that after he was detained, the prosecution denied to his family that they knew where he was. During this time he was beaten several times a day and subjected to electric shocks. Ibrahim Al-Marzooqi told the judge that he had been tortured in detention for a month. The judge told him that this was not the time to discuss such things.A letter was submitted to the court listing 17 types of torture to which the defendants had been subjected. It was signed by 71 of them.Outside the trial hearingsOn 9th May the defendants who are members of Al-Islah wrote a letter to the President of the UAE which included details of abuses they had suffered. In relation to torture they wrote, “We members of Al-Islah, were unlawfully imprisoned. We were held in solitary confinement for months in cramped window-less cells. As the painfully bright lights blared day and night, we were insulted, sworn at, threatened, and verbally abused. Some of us were physically abused as well. We were denied our right to legal counsel, and to medical care – to mention only a few of the horrendous violations we went through. Those violations are both alien to our country and ill suited for it.”
Annex 124
FIDH – United Arab Emirates: Criminalising Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed / 19XI. Conclusion on torture and inhuman treatment By the end of these proceedings there have been constant and consistent allegations of the most serious torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments of the defendants. The number of complaints, the terms of those complaints and the wide variety of the sources of those complaints amount to a formidable basis to accept that the most serious violations of the defendants’ rights have taken place. The failure of the Court to undertake a thorough and open investigation of those complaints is both a breach of the Court’s duty in its own right, and lends further weight to the truth of the allegations. In addition, the UAE’s refusal to allow international observers into the trial is at least consistent with a deliberate attempt to conceal these inhuman treatments.On all the material available to this mission, the observer has no hesitation in concluding that torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments have occurred in this case. XII. Overall conclusion For all the reasons set out above, it is concluded that the detention, trial and treatment of the defendants in this case has led to violations of numerous and widely accepted human rights, that the trial failed to even approach the most basic standards necessary for a fair trial, and that sustained and grave torture has been inflicted. The accused in this case suggest that the actions for which they are being prosecuted are the exercise of the rights to freedom of association and to freedom of expression. These are important rights. They are recognised by articles 19 and 22 of the ICCPR and Article 24 of the Arab Charter, to which the UAE is a signatory. The coalition of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights, the International Federation for Human Rights, the Arab Network for Human Rights Information and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies considers that this trial indeed aims at silencing lawyers, academics, judges, teachers and student leaders daring to advocate for democratic reforms in their country. This instrumentalisation of the judiciary blatantly violates their rights to freedom of opinion and expression.
Annex 124
20 / United Arab Emirates: Criminalizing Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed – FIDHXIII. Recommendations The coalition of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights, the International Federation for Human Rights, the Arab Network for Human Rights Information and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies therefore calls on the UAE authorities to: (1) Order the immediate release of those imprisoned as a result of this blatantly unfair trial, pending the outcome of any further inquiry. (2) Establish an independent inquiry into the conduct of the trial of the UAE 94 and make the findings of such inquiry public; (3) Provide an independent investigation into the allegations of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments forthwith, and ensure medical and psychological support, rehabilitation, compensation and other relevant forms of reparation to those who have been victims of such acts and make accountable those responsible for these crimes; (4) Establish an appellate mechanism to reconsider all the convictions in this case, once the above inquiries have been completed in accordance with their right to a fair trial and to a defense; (5) Amend the relevant law and ensure the right to appeal any judicial decision including those made in special courts in accordance with the right to a fair trial and to a defense; (6) Ensure all fair trial guarantees including the independence of the judiciary; (7) Refrain from using criminal proceedings against those advocating peacefully for the respect of democratic reforms or more generally to restrict freedom of opinion and expression; (8) Ratify the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol to United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; (9) Invite UN Special Rapporteurs on torture, freedom of opinion and on the independence of judges and lawyers to visit the UAE and grant them access to those convicted in this case, in particular those who stated that they have been tortured.The coalition further calls upon the international community to: (1) Systematically raise concerns regarding the blatant unfairness and politically motivated trial of the 94, in all bilateral dialogues with the UAE authorities, as well as in relevant UN bodies; and call for the immediate release of all those imprisoned as a result of this trial; (2) Request access of their diplomatic personnel in the UAE to the 61 prisoners of opinion currently in jail as a result of this trial.
Annex 124
FIDH – United Arab Emirates: Criminalising Dissent – UAE 94 Trial Deeply Flawed / 21Abu Dhabi skyscape.
Annex 124
The Gulf Centre for Human Rights is an independent, non-profit, and non-governmental NGO that works to strengthen support for human rights defenders (including independent journalists, bloggers, lawyers, etc.) in Bahrain, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. The GCHR was founded in 2011 by a group of human rights rights defenders, registered in Ireland and has offices in Denmark and Lebanon. In the second half of 2012, GCHR decided to begin providing support to human rights defenders in Syria, which although not technically a Gulf country, shares borders with the Gulf region and has a politi-cal impact on the region.www.gc4hr.orgFounded in 1993, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) is an independent regional non-govern-mental organization which aims to promote respect for the principles of human rights and democracy in the Arab region. A key component of CIHRS’ mandate is to help shape the understanding of and discourse around the most pressing human rights issues in the Arab region. CIHRS then seeks to coordinate and mobilize the key players and NGOs across the Arab world to work together to raise public awareness about these issues and to reach solutions in line with interna-tional human rights law.www.cihrs.orgThe Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) is a central repository for human rights information and websites in Arabic throughout the Middle East and North Africa. ANHRI provides a central site where Arabic readers can easily find links to and information about all human rights groups and their work in the region. The Network also fo-cuses on and seeks the expansion of freedom of expression on the internet in the Middle East.Its objective is to create a space where issues such as death penalty or minorities’ rights and other vital information about human rights can be discussed freely, and where people who share an interest in these areas can create a community.www.anhri.net/
Annex 124
Establishing the factsinvestigative and trial observation missionsThrough activities ranging from sending trial observers to organising international investigative missions, FIDH has developed, rigorous and impartial procedures to establish facts and responsibility. Experts sent to the field give their time to FIDH on a voluntary basis.FIDH has conducted more than 1 500 missions in over 100 countries in the past 25 years. These activities reinforce FIDH’s alert and advocacy campaigns.Supporting civil societytraining and exchangeFIDH organises numerous activities in partnership with its member organisations, in the countries in which they are based. The core aim is to strengthen the influence and capacity of human rights activists to boost changes at the local levelMobilising the international communitypermanent lobbying before intergovernmental bodiesFIDH supports its member organisations and local partners in their efforts before intergovernmental organisations. FIDH alerts international bodies to violations of human rights and refers individual cases to them. FIDH also takes part in the development of international legal instruments.Informing and reportingmobilising public opinionFIDH informs and mobilises public opinion. Press releases, press conferences, open letters to authorities, mission reports, urgent appeals, petitions, campaigns, website… FIDH makes full use of all means of communication to raise awareness of human rights violations.Keep your eyes openFIDH - International Federation for Human Rights17, passage de la Main-d’Or - 75011 Paris - FranceCCP Paris : 76 76 ZTel: (33-1) 43 55 25 18 / Fax: (33-1) 43 55 18 80www.fidh.orgFIDHhuman rights organisationsonrepresents 178continents5Imprimerie de la FIDH - Dépôt légal septembre 2013 - FIDH (English ed.) ISSN 2225-1804 - Fichier informatique conforme à la loi du 6 janvier 1978 (Déclaration N°330 675)Director of the publication: Karim LahidjiEditor: Antoine BernardAuthors: Melanie GingellCoordination: Kristina Stockwood and FIDH MENA teamDesign: Bruce Pleiser
Annex 124
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Article 8: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 11: (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty Find information concerning FIDH’s 178 member organisations on www.fidh.orgAbout FIDHFIDH takes action for the protection of victims of human rights violations, for the prevention of violations and to bring perpetrators to justice.A broad mandateFIDH works for the respect of all the rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights.A universal movementFIDH was established in 1922, and today unites 178 member organisations in more than 100 countries around the world. FIDH coordinates and supports their activities and provides them with a voice at the international level.An independent organisationLike its member organisations, FIDH is not linked to any party or religion and is independent of all governments.FIDHhuman rights organisationsonrepresents 178continents5
Annex 124
Annex 125
Committee to Protect Journalists, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain block Qatari news websites (25 May 2017), available at https://cpj.org/2017/05/saudi-arabia-uae-bahrain-block-qatari-news-webs…

4/1/2019Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain block Qatari news websites - Committee to Protect Journalistshttps://cpj.org/2017/05/saudi-arabia-uae-bahrain-block-qatari-news-webs… York, May 25, 2017-- Authorities in Saudi Arabia,the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain should ceaseblocking access to news websites, the Committee toProtect Journalists said today. Authorities in the alliedkingdoms yesterday blocked access to at least eight In this 2009 􀃘le photo, Palestinian journalists work in the Ramallah of􀃘ce of Qatari broadcaster Al-Jazeera. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain blocked access to Al-Jazeera's websites onMay 24, 2017. (Reuters/Fadi Arouri)Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain blockQatari news websitesMay 25, 2017 5:17 PM ET
Annex 125
4/1/2019Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain block Qatari news websites - Committee to Protect Journalistshttps://cpj.org/2017/05/saudi-arabia-uae-bahrain-block-qatari-news-webs… news websites, including those ofregional broadcaster Al-Jazeera, according to Al-Jazeera, government statements, and news reports.Regional media published screen shots of error messages saying the websiteswere blocked by government order.The censorship came hours after the Qatari state news agency QNA reportedremarks purportedly made by Qatar's Emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, in which he appeared to criticize U.S. foreign policy, to suggest thatU.S. President Donald Trump might not last long in power, to expresssupport for Hezbollah and Hamas, and to advocate for better relations withIran and Israel. In a series of tweets, chief Qatari government spokesmanSheikh Saif Bin Ahmed Al-Thani swiftly wrote that the news agency had beenhacked, that what had been published was "not true and totally baseless," andthat authorities were investigating the "despicable act."The Qatari government also claimed that hackers had written a series oftweets from the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs' account accusing Arabcountries of plotting against Qatar and claiming that the country hadwithdrawn its ambassadors to Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, andUnited Arab Emirates in response, according to media reports.Diplomatic relations between Qatar and its fellow members of the GulfCooperation Council have long been strained by divergent foreign policies."We call on Gulf kingdoms to resolve their political differences withoutbreaking their international treaty obligations to respect the free flow ofinformation," said CPJ's Middle East and North Africa Coordinator SherifMansour. "Gulf kingdoms should not hold the public's right to informationhostage to a diplomatic spat, and should immediately cease blocking Qatari-funded websites."Saudi authorities blocked at least eight Qatari-funded news websites,including those of Al-Jazeera's Arabic, English, and documentary channels;the website of the Qatari state news agency QNA; and the websites of the dailynewspapers Al-Watan, Al-Raya, Al-Arab, and Al-Sharq, the Saudi-government-funded Al-Arabiya satellite news channel reported yesterday.The Emirati government-owned daily newspaper Al-Bayan yesterday quotedan Emirati official, speaking anonymously, as saying that the country hadblocked access to Al-Jazeera's websites and "all" Qatari newspapers.
Annex 125
4/1/2019Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain block Qatari news websites - Committee to Protect Journalistshttps://cpj.org/2017/05/saudi-arabia-uae-bahrain-block-qatari-news-webs… authorities likewise said they had blocked Al-Jazeera and otherunspecified Qatari media outlets for what they called attempts to incitesedition, in violation of agreements between members of the GulfCooperation Council, according to media reports.Al-Jazeera yesterday reported on Bahraini security forces' forcible dispersalof a sit-in protest near the home of Shia preacher Eisa Al-Qassem, who isunder house arrest pending the conclusion of his trial on corruption charges.At least five people were killed and 286 were arrested on terrorism charges inthe operation, according to the Bahraini Ministry of Interior.Officials from the communications and information ministries of SaudiArabia, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates did not immediately respondto CPJ's request for comment.Egyptian authorities also blocked access to 21 websites, including Al-Jazeeraand other Qatari-owned media outlets, alleging that they support terrorism,are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, or report lies, according to newsreports.On May 20 Saudi King Salman Ibn Abdulaziz Al-Saud, U.S. President Trump,and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and others met in Riyadh for asummit "to embark on new initiatives to counter violent extremist messaging,disrupt financing of terrorism, and advance defense cooperation," accordingto a statement released afterward.Short URL:https://cpj.org/x/6cdeCommittee to Protect JournalistsCommittee to Protect Journalists330 7th Avenue, 11th FloorNew York, NY 10001
Annex 125
4/1/2019Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain block Qatari news websites - Committee to Protect Journalistshttps://cpj.org/2017/05/saudi-arabia-uae-bahrain-block-qatari-news-webs… where noted, text on this website is licensed under a Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)Images and other media are not covered by the Creative Commons license. Formore information about permissions, see our FAQs(http://www.cpj.org/about/faq.php) .
Annex 125
Annex 126
Reporters Without Borders, Al Jazeera - collateral victim of diplomatic offensive against Qatar (7 June 2017), available at https://rsf.org/en/news/al-jazeera-collateral-victim-diplomatic-offensi…

4/1/2019Al Jazeera – collateral victim of diplomatic offensive against Qatar | RSFhttps://rsf.org/en/news/al-jazeera-collateral-victim-diplomatic-offensi… 7, 2017Al Jazeera – collateral victimof diplomatic offensiveagainst QatarStan Honda/AFPReporters Without Borders (RSF) condemns theoffensive by a group of Arab countries against AlJazeera Media Network, which is suffering theconsequences of their decision to cut diplomaticrelations with Qatar.Just hours after Saudi Arabia and three other Arabian Peninsulacountries announced that they were severing diplomatic ties with Qataron 5 June, Saudi Arabia closed the Al Jazeera bureau in Riyadh andwithdrew its operating licence.SAUDI ARABIAQATARJORDANEGYPTMIDDLE EAST - NORTH AFRICACONDEMNING ABUSES
Annex 126
4/1/2019Al Jazeera – collateral victim of diplomatic offensive against Qatar | RSFhttps://rsf.org/en/news/al-jazeera-collateral-victim-diplomatic-offensi… The state-owned Saudi Press Agency accused(http://www.spa.gov.sa/viewstory.php?lang=ar&newsid=1637497) Al Jazeera of promoting thepropaganda of terrorist groups, backing the Houthi rebel militias inYemen and trying to create divisions within Saudi Arabia. Following the Saudi lead on Qatar, the Jordanian government later alsoannounced(http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/jordan-downgrades-ties-qatar-1706…) its intention toclose the Al Jazeera bureau in Amman and to withdraw the Qatari-owned TV broadcaster’s licence to operate in Jordan. Egypt, another member of the group of countries severing diplomaticties with Qatar, already forced Al Jazeera to pull out in 2013 afterseizing (https://rsf.org/en/news/al-jazeeras-egyptian-tv-station-banned-premises…) its production equipment andtransmitters. More recently, Gen. Sisi’s government blocked(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/25/egypt-blocks-access-news-…) the Al Jazeera website at the same time as 20 other newswebsites accused of bias in favour of the outlawed MuslimBrotherhood. A similar measure was taken by Saudi Arabia, Bahrainand United Arab Emirates, which blocked the(https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2017/5/24/egypt-blocks-qatars-al…)Al Jazeera(https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2017/5/24/egypt-blocks-qatars-al…) website on 23May. “Closing Al Jazeera’s bureaux is a political decision that amounts tocensoring this TV broadcaster,” said Alexandra El Khazen, the head ofRSF’s Middle East desk. “In Saudi Arabia, this violation of the freedomto inform compounds the country’s already very bad record on freespeech and media freedom, We urge the Saudi authorities to rescindthis decision and to let Al Jazeera resume operating.”
Annex 126
4/1/2019Al Jazeera – collateral victim of diplomatic offensive against Qatar | RSFhttps://rsf.org/en/news/al-jazeera-collateral-victim-diplomatic-offensi… For the time being, RSF has no information about the current state ofAl Jazeera’s employees in Riyadh or whether they are affected by theorder given to Qatari citizens to leave the country within 14 days. When reached by RSF, Al Jazeera condemned the Saudi governmentdecision and said in a statement: “This is not the first time that Saudiauthorities have imposed such restrictions on Al Jazeera's operations(...) We firmly believe these are unjustified measures by theauthorities in the Kingdom against the Network and its operations(...) We call upon the government to respect the freedom of press andallow journalists to continue do their job free of intimidation andthreats.” Al Jazeera also operates in Libya and Mauritania, two other membersof the group of countries which – like Bahrain and United ArabEmirates – announced that they were breaking off relations with Qatar. The diplomatic crisis with Qatar and the targeting of Al Jazeera arehaving repercussions throughout the region, including in Jerusalem. Individuals led by Israeli far-right activist Baruch Marzel stormed intothe building that houses the Al Jazeera bureau in East Jerusalemyesterday evening brandishing posters, accusing the broadcaster ofbeing allied to Islamic State and demanding its closure. After theirarrival outside the Al Jazeera bureau’s entrance, the Israeli police hadto intervene twice to get them to leave. Launched in 1996, Al Jazeera revolutionized the Arab world’s medialandscape by making room for the broadest range of viewpoints, fromthe most moderate to the most radical. It distinguished itself above allduring its coverage of the Arab Spring but enraged many of the region’sgovernments, which regard it as a Qatari foreign policy tool. Saudi Arabia is ranked 168th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2017 WorldPress Freedom Index (https://rsf.org/fr/ranking). Egypt, Jordanand Qatar are ranked 161st, 138th and 123th respectively.
Annex 126

Annex 127
Committee to Protect Journalists, UAE threatens 15 years in prison for expressions of ‘sympathy’ with Qatar
(7 June 2017), available at https://cpj.org/2017/06/uae-threatens-15-years-in-prison-for-expression…

4/1/2019UAE threatens 15 years in prison for expressions of 'sympathy' with Qatar - Committee to Protect Journalistshttps://cpj.org/2017/06/uae-threatens-15-years-in-prison-for-expression… York, June 7, 2017--Authorities in the United ArabEmirates should clearly and immediately repudiateEmirati Attorney General Hamad Saif al-Shamsi'sthreats to imprison and fine anyone who criticizes theUnited Arab Emirates' stance toward Qatar or whoexpresses any "sympathy" for Qatar, the Committee toProtect Journalists said today. Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed Bin Zayed al-Nahyan, who is also deputy commander of theUAE armed forces, shakes hands with U.S. President Donald Trump at a meeting of the Gulf CooperationCouncil in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, May 21, 2017. (Reuters/Jonathan Ernst)UAE threatens 15 years in prison forexpressions of 'sympathy' with QatarJune 7, 2017 3:28 PM ET
Annex 127
4/1/2019UAE threatens 15 years in prison for expressions of 'sympathy' with Qatar - Committee to Protect Journalistshttps://cpj.org/2017/06/uae-threatens-15-years-in-prison-for-expression… a statement circulated to Emirati media, Al-Shamsi said those who publiclycriticize the Saudi-Emirati stance on Qatar could be imprisoned for as manyas 15 years and fined no less than 500,000 Emirati dirhams (US$136,000)under the penal code and the law on Combatting Information TechnologyCrimes. "Strict and firm action will be taken against anyone who showssympathy or any form of bias towards Qatar, or against anyone who objects tothe position of the United Arab Emirates, whether it be through the means ofsocial media, or any type of written, visual or verbal form," the statementsaid."The United Arab Emirates' threat to jail anyone who objects to thegovernment's policy on Qatar is completely inconsistent with the image of aforward-looking, cosmopolitan, global hub it seeks to cultivate," CPJ MiddleEast and North Africa Program Coordinator Sherif Mansour said fromWashington, D.C. "This is censorship of a scope so bizarrely broad it is almosttotalitarian."Kuwaiti efforts to reconcile Qatar with fellow Gulf Cooperation Councilmembers Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain continuedtoday, according to news reports.Short URL:https://cpj.org/x/6d14Committee to Protect JournalistsCommittee to Protect Journalists330 7th Avenue, 11th FloorNew York, NY 10001Except where noted, text on this website is licensed under a Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Annex 127
4/1/2019UAE threatens 15 years in prison for expressions of 'sympathy' with Qatar - Committee to Protect Journalistshttps://cpj.org/2017/06/uae-threatens-15-years-in-prison-for-expression… and other media are not covered by the Creative Commons license. Formore information about permissions, see our FAQs(http://www.cpj.org/about/faq.php) .
Annex 127

Annex 128
National Human Rights Committee, First Report Regarding the Human Rights Violations as a Result of the Blockade on the State of Qatar (13 June 2017), avaialble at http://www.nhrc-qa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/First-Report-of-the-Q…

Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 First Report Regarding the Human Rights Violationsas a Result of the Blockadeon the State of Qatar
Annex 128
2 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 Phone & Fax Telephone: 0097444048844 Fax: 0097444444013 Hotline 0097466626663 0097450800006 009745006008 E-mail [email protected] Website www.nhrc-qa.org P. O. Box 23104 Doha, Qatar. All Rights reserved. this report or parts thereof may not be reproduced in any form, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means-without prior written permission of the publisher.
Annex 128
3 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 Content: I. Summary II. Report Methodology III. Most Notable Violations of the rights to: a. family reunification b. Education c. Work d. Freedom of Expression and Opinion e. Rights to movement and residence f. Other Violations: the right to private property, Inhumane Degrading Treatment, , the right to freedom of religious practice, and the right to health - Especially for People with Disabilities IV. Conclusions and Legal Description V. Recommendations Annex 128
4 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 I. Summary The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kingdom of Bahrain severed relations with the state of Qatar, on 5 June, 2017, that involved closure of sea, land, and air routes in the face of trades, and also in the face of Gulf Citizens in a series of actions never witnessed before by the states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), disregarding all human rights and humanitarian standards and principles and their legal obligations, as those three states are fully aware of the great interrelations and connections among the region’s people and nations on all social, economic, cultural, civilian levels. In this report, the National Human Rights Committee (NHRC) sheds light on the violations of the most basic human rights reported since 5 June, the day on which the blockade and ban was imposed, until Monday , 12 June, by citizens of: KSA, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain (without addressing the political domain, as it is not included in the mandate of the NHRC). Since Monday , 5 June 2017, hundreds of complaints have been submitted to the NHRC via e-mail, phone and hotlines , or personal visits to the NHRC headquarters in Doha, Qatar’s capital. According to the data received, approximately 11,387 citizens from the three states live in Qatar, and approximately 1927 Qatari citizens live in those states. All of those people have been affected in different areas and ways to varying degrees. In some cases, the actions taken by these states separated mothers from her children. Annex 128
5 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 On Sunday , 11 June, (Six days after the decision), KSA issued a royal order to take into consideration the humanitarian situation of mixed families ( Saudi-Qatari ), then the UAE followed their footsteps, and then Kingdom of Bahrain. While the NHRC appreciates this step and sees it as a step in the right direction, NHRC also calls on the three states to clarify the implementation mechanisms, emphasizes that it has to include all human rights and legal areas, and calls for ending the blockade and all violations in all its forms, and compensating the affected families and individuals. Dr. Ali al Marri, chairman of NHRC, stated that “The GCC Dispute Settlement Commission should play a role in resolving the ongoing conflict, especially that the conflict directly affects the lives and rights of a large number of GCC citizens.” II. Report methodology In the aftermath of the crisis that affected citizens of four GCC states (citizens and residents in the State of Qatar), NHRC extended working hours for monitoring, documenting, and following-up cases. NHRC received about 119 complaints via e-mail, and countless phone calls. About 381 individuals visited the NHRC to report their cases. During the period covered by the report, researchers opened files, filled in complaints forms prepared by NHRC, with attaching copies of identification documents, while some complainants attached university and school reports, work contracts, family related information, and other documents that are available in the NHRC archive. NHRC will, and is, progressively sharing these files with the concerned international human rights and legal parties. It is worth noting that an individual might be subjected to more than one type of violations. Therefore, the total number of files reflecting the total number of violations is certainly greater than the total number of individuals; as we reported cases in which some individuals were deprived of their families, their right to education and freedom of movement is affected. As of Monday, 12 June, a total of 764 violations have been reported since 5 June, the date on which the blockade, ban, and boycott imposed. In this report, we shed light on the most notable violations that occurred. Out of the 764 documented cases, we refer to the most notable two, or three forms of each violation, in order to maintain the size of the report. Please note that the concerned parties can acquire all of these forms and documents. Annex 128
6 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 Also, we referred to names using initial letters in order to preserve their safety and security, in light of unprecedented procedures by the UAE that involved imposing penalties including to 3-15 years' imprisonment and fines of 500,000 AED for merely showing sympathy towards the state of Qatar. Surely, the data provided by the victims are different from one case to another. However, all of these cases enjoy a high level of credibility. Most of the data were acquired personally through personal visits from the affected parties. Additionally, we received complaints from people regarding violations against their first-degree relatives, where the victims were in other countries and are, as they claimed, unable to visit the NHRC headquarters, contact it, or send an e-mail -which we are still receiving on a daily basis- in this regard, we encourage all the citizens of the four states who suffer from any violations as a result of these abusive decisions to submit their complaints at the NHRC or any other national or international organizations. In light of this, what the NHRC was able to report and document is still the bare minimum, considering that many of those whose rights were violated don’t know of the existence of any mechanisms for complaint submission. In addition, many of them seriously are afraid to reveal their identities due to that measures and actions that could be taken against them by their countries’ local authorities if they contacted or submitted a compliant. The Qatari government has not taken any action against the citizens of the three states, and we didn’t receive any complaint of that nature. III. Most notable violations The following table includes classifications of the 764 files we reported, and their distribution according to each of the 3 states: Annex 128
7 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 A. Violation to the right of family reunification This might be the most serious and appalling violation that resulted from the abusive decisions made by the three states, because it affects and threatens the ties of the united Gulf Families. It also threatens the most vulnerable categories of society – women, children, people with disabilities, and the elderly- not to mention that it is an explicit violation to many articles of the international human rights laws. In this regard, NHRC recorded 155 forms pertaining to families that were separated, even though we are absolutely certain that actual number is far greater. Annex 128
8 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 Mrs. (N.H.), Saudi born in 1990, visited the NHRC headquarters and stated the violations she suffered from: “I have been a widow for three years. I live in the State of Qatar along with my two minor children who have a Qatari nationality. I don’t have a job, but I am supporting my family financially from my late husband’s family, which is paid by the State of Qatar. I am enrolled in Qatar University, and living in a rented house until the inheritance case is settled at court. On 8 June, Saudi authorities informed me to go back to the Saudi Arabia without my children. I can’t leave my children alone in Qatar, but I am afraid arbitrary actions will be taken against me if I didn’t comply.” Mr. (K.S.), Bahraini born in 1984, called NHRC and then visited NHRC headquarters and stated that: “I live and work in the State of Qatar with my wife and my mother who both have Qatari nationality. The decision to sever relations with Qatar will force me to leave my work and family in Qatar and go back to Bahrain. How can I leave my wife and my mother, who suffers from a disability, and uproot my life and work here? I don’t wish to leave Qatar, and I am afraid of the punitive actions that might be taken against me by the Bahraini authorities.” Annex 128
9 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 B. Violation of the right to Education The education future of every Saudi, Emirati, or Bahraini studying in Qatar schools or universities has been put in jeopardy this year. Therefore, Qatari authorities decided to postpone those students’ exams in order to maintain their right to complete their education and lose the progress they made in their whole academic year especially that we are at the end of the school year. However, the focus remains on the Qatari students studying in the three states. NHRC received 30 cases regarding that violation in particular – we will highlight the following four main cases: (F.M.), an Emirati student, born in 1998, he was deprived of the opportunity to complete his education. Also, he was separated from his mother who has a Qatari nationality. He stated that: “I am in grade year 11 at Mohammad ben Abdul Aziz High School in Doha, Qatar. I live with my divorced mother in the State of Qatar. The Emirati authorities notified me that I have to leave Qatar, which will prevent me from completing my education, and will separate me from my mother who has a Qatari nationality.” Annex 128
10 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 (H.A.), Qatari born in 1986, contacted NHRC and stated that: “I study at the Applied Science University in the Kingdom of Bahrain. On 8 June, 2017, Bahraini authorities prevented me from entering the Bahraini lands, so I won’t be able to attend my exams, which means I will fail.” According to what Mrs. (A.F.), Qatari, stated to the NHRC that, University of Sharjah, in the UAE, cancelled her registration at the university and prevented her from completing her education until 2018 after ties were cut with Qatar: “After paying the full expenses for the summer internship semester at Sharjah University, I was prevented from continuing my studies on 8 June, 2017, and, even more, I was forced to leave UAE on the same day.” Mrs. (K.W.), Qatari born in 1992 and lives in Dubai emirate, he stated that : “I live, work, and study in Dubai emirate , in my last year at Zayed University, and I have a work contract as a jockey at Al Nasr Stable owned by Sheikh Hamdan Bin Rashid .. The university administration called me on 10 June, 2017, to inform me that I was banned from studying due to the “recent political developments”. I lost my education, my work, and my future.” C. Violation of the right to Work As with education, hundreds of business owners were affected after those states abruptly stopped -in order to cause as much harm as possible- all trading convoys, and thousands of tons of food or health supplies have expired. Hundreds of business owners lost great, immeasurable sums of money. What is even more crucial is that there are entire families that rely completely on traveling between Gulf states, and those families’ only source of income has been cut off. However, none of the three states have compensated those families or sought an alternative for them, which intensified popular resentment even further. Moreover, many citizens who are employed at public, private, or government sectors and used to move freely between the four countries are now jobless with no source of income and with no compensations from the three states that initiated the blockade. NHRC received no less than 38 complaints from individuals who are affected by these abusive actions. Annex 128
11 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 Mr. (H.M.), Saudi born in 1979, stated that: “I work at the State of Qatar, and I have a wife and kids who live with me in Doha, and I am also supporting my elder mother financially. Because of the decision to cut ties between my country and Qatar, I have to leave my job and go back to KSA. I am afraid that I will be subjected to arbitrary punitive actions in case I don’t comply with the news decisions.” Mr. (A.B.), Saudi, expressed his concern about him being subjected to sanctions if he doesn’t comply with his country’s decisions and leave Qatar. Mr. (A.B) stated that: “I have been living in Qatar since 1974. I have my wife and kids here who live with me in Doha and are enrolled in schools here. This decision will force me to leave my job and the country that I lived all this time in. I am afraid of the sanctions that would be incurred by the Saudi authorities if I don’t comply.” D. Violations to the right of Freedom of Opinion and Expression UAE imposes penalties 3-15 years' imprisonment and fines of 500,000 AED just for merely showing sympathy towards the State of Qatar by even a word, a like, or a tweet on social media in an unprecedented threat to freedom of expression. Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior imposes five-year imprisonment, while KSA considered this an internet crime. Annex 128
12 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 These very extreme and harsh actions betray the fragility of the grounds and legitimacy of the blockade decision by those three states, and reflect how much those states’ authorities are afraid from citizens’ freedom to express any opinions that don’t agree with their will. This blatantly goes against many of international and regional declarations and covenants as we will detail further in the Legal Description portion of this report. In the media field , the NHRC observed 103 affected media personnel from the three states that imposed the blockade and boycott, who used to work at several positions such as Audio, Print, and Visual Media in the State of Qatar have all been subjected to various types of violations, including being forced resign by their countries from their jobs. Accordingly, 10 of those were forced to submit and resign, and lost their jobs and source of income. There are still great pressures on everyone who didn’t submit their resignation. These actions constitute a blatant violation to the freedom of the press, freedom to work, freedom of residence, and freedom of opinion all at the same time. Annex 128
13 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 E. violations of the right to movement and residence (including for the dead) Mr. (M.R.), Saudi, stated that: “My father died at Hamad Hospital in the State of Qatar. On 7 June, 2017, Saudi authorities prohibited me from going to Qatar to receive his body. They don’t respect the sanctity of death.” F. Other violations We recorded other forms of violation, all were due to the blockade, and some of which overlap with the main aforementioned violations, such as family separation and denial of travel. These violations are: - Violation of the right of private property Mr. (A.E.), Qatari, visited NHRC and stated that: “I own a large group of camels in KSA, and I leased a land for my camels, in addition to a vehicle and also I hire workers whom I obtained a work residency from the State of Qatar so they can take care of my camels and feed and water them. On 5 June, 2017, Saudi authorities barred me from passing through the land crossing (Salwa) so I can access my properties. And I couldn’t bring the workers back to Qatar. These actions will result in fines being imposed on me related to the workers’ residency permits, and I don’t know what will be done to my properties in Saudi Arbaia, and I am afraid my camels will die.” Mr. (H.N.), Qatari who owns residential and industrial lands in UAE, called us and we asked him to come to NHRC headquarters, and stated that: “I have four residential lands in Masfout Strip, Ajman area, and one industrial land in Arqoub area, Sharjah city. Emirati authorities prevented me on 5 June, 2017, from entering UAE and accessing my properties. I don’t have any idea what will happen to my properties in light of this actions.” Annex 128
14 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 Mr. (K.M.), Qatari born in 1969, stated that after Emirati authorities banned him from entering their lands: “I have been living with my family in Dubai emirate for years. I have been working for Ras al-Khaimah Bank for 14 years. Emirati authorities banned me from going into UAE after the decision to cut ties with Qatar, and they didn’t let me see my wife and daughter, and I was subjected to a degrading, inhumane treatment by Dubai Airport employees.” - Being subjected to Inhumane degrading treatment, , and violation to the right to freedom of religious practices Qataris going for Umrah (minor pilgrimage to Mecca) in Saudi Arabia were prohibited from doing so after the decision to cut ties was taken. Saudi authorities forced them to leave their lands, and they treated them in an ill-manner. A Qatari citizen filming himself in a video at Jeddah Airport, and how Saudi authorities forbade him to go into Mecca for Umrah. https://youtu.be/64_Dn2XMw54 Mrs. (M.G.), Qatari born in 1954, told NHRC the details of the violations she suffered: “On 5 June, 2017, I had to leave KSA before I got to perform an Umrah. The authorities didn’t let me travel directly from Jeddah Airport to Doha Airport, and I had to go there through Turkey, which caused a great psychological and financial burdens on me.” Mr. (M.E.), Qatari born in 1942, contacted NHRC and gave a testimony, and talked about his violation: “On 5 June, 2017, and after the decision to cut ties with the State of Qatar, I was forced to leave KSA before I got to conduct an Umrah. The Saudi authorities prohibited me from traveling directly from Jeddah Airport to Doha Airport, and I had to go back through Turkey, which had caused a great psychological and financial toll on me.” - Violation of the right to Health - Especially for persons with Disabilities Mr. (K.S), Saudi, contacted NHRC and stated that: “I live in the State of Qatar, and I suffer from an illness in my kidney. On 11 June, 2017, I was supposed to undergo a surgery in my right kidney at Hamad General Hospital in the State of Qatar. But after the decision to Annex 128
15 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 cut ties between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, I have to go back to KSA, and the situation will be complicated and my health will be affected. In case I don’t comply, I will be subjected to the penalties KSA issued.” Mrs. (R.M.), Qatari, talked to NHRC and stated that: “I have health conditions, and I was about to undergo a surgery at Suliman al Habib Hospital in Riyadh city, KSA on 17 June, 2017, but the decision to cut ties with Qatar will force me to go back to Qatar without completing my treatment, which will affect my health, but I am afraid from the actions that could be taken against me if I stayed in Saudi Arabia” IV. Conclusions and Legal Description In their resolutions, KSA, UAE, and Kingdom of Bahrain, violated a number of principle international human rights laws and rules, which are related to the most fundamental human rights , which are treated as international norms. These resolutions violate a number of articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other articles included in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in addition to articles in the: Arab Charter on Human Rights, the GCC Declarations of Human Rights, and the Economic Agreement between the GCC States. Therefore, those states are responsible for protecting and preserving the rights and interests of the individuals living on their lands. The Texts of the Articles that were violated by the three Gulf states: First: Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 12 Annex 128
16 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Article 13 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 23 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. Article 26 1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. 2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious Annex 128
17 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. 3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. Second: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights PART II Article 2 1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Third: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Part III Article 6 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right. Article 10 The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that: Annex 128
18 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 1. The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children. Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses. 2. Special protection should be accorded to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth. During such period working mothers should be accorded paid leave or leave with adequate social security benefits. 3. Special measures of protection and assistance should be taken on behalf of all children and young persons without any discrimination for reasons of parentage or other conditions. Children and young persons should be protected from economic and social exploitation. Their employment in work harmful to their morals or health or dangerous to life or likely to hamper their normal development should be punishable by law. States should also set age limits below which the paid employment of child labor should be prohibited and punishable by law. Article 13 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. Fourth: Arab Charter on Human Rights Article 3 1. Each State party to the present Charter undertakes to ensure to all individuals subject to its jurisdiction the right to enjoy the rights and freedoms set forth herein, without Annex 128
19 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 distinction on grounds of race, color, sex, language, religious belief, opinion, thought, national or social origin, wealth, birth or physical or mental disability. Article 8 1. No one shall be subjected to physical or psychological torture or to cruel, degrading, humiliating or inhuman treatment. Article 26 1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State party shall, within that territory, have the right to freedom of movement and to freely choose his residence in any part of that territory in conformity with the laws in force. Article 32 1. The present Charter guarantees the right to information and to freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any medium, regardless of geographical boundaries. 2. Such rights and freedoms shall be exercised in conformity with the fundamental values of society and shall be subject only to such limitations as are required to ensure respect for the rights or reputation of others or the protection of national security, public order and public health or morals. Article 33 1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society; it is based on marriage between a man and a woman. Men and women of marrying age have the right to marry and to found a family according to the rules and conditions of marriage. No marriage can take place without the full and free consent of both parties. The laws in force regulate the rights and duties of the man and woman as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Annex 128
20 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 2. The State and society shall ensure the protection of the family, the strengthening of family ties, the protection of its members and the prohibition of all forms of violence or abuse in the relations among its members, and particularly against women and children. They shall also ensure the necessary protection and care for mothers, children, older persons and persons with special needs and shall provide adolescents and young persons with the best opportunities for physical and mental development. 3. The States parties shall take all necessary legislative, administrative and judicial measures to guarantee the protection, survival, development and well-being of the child in an atmosphere of freedom and dignity and shall ensure, in all cases, that the child's best interests are the basic criterion for all measures taken in his regard, whether the child is at risk of delinquency or is a juvenile offender. Fifth: Human Rights Declaration for the Member States of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf Article (6) The Freedom of belief and the practice of religious rites is a right of every person according to the regulation (law) without disruption of the public order and public morals. Article (9) Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and exercising such freedom is guaranteed insofar as it accords with Islamic Sharia law, public order and the regulations (laws) regulating this area. Article (14) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, originally com- posed of a man and a woman, governed by religion, morals and patriotism; its entity and bonds are maintained and reinforced by religion. Motherhood, childhood and members of the family are protected by religion as well as the State and society against all forms of abuse and domestic violence. Annex 128
21 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 Article (24) Every person, who has the capacity of doing so, has the right to work and has the right to free choice of employment according to the requirements of dignity and public interest, while just and favorable employment conditions, as well as employees’ and employers’ rights, are ensured. Article (27) Private property is inviolable and no one shall be prevented from the disposition of his property except by the regulation (law), and it may not be expropriated unless for public interest with fair compensation. V. Recommendations The United Nations and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) 1- The great amount of social violations constitute a threat to the stability of the region, and is stared to have a negative impact on the economic and social levels. Speedy steps must be taken to force the states that issued these unjust decisions to repeal their actions. 2- The OHCHR to prepare reports and statements documenting the various types of violations that affected great numbers of people, especially the families that were separated, including the negative consequences on women and children as a result of the separation of their families. Also, the OHCHR to call on these states to respect the basic freedoms of the people living on their lands. Human Rights Council To Take every possible action in order to end the blockade and its ramifications, and call for the compensation of all people who were harmed and affected. Human Rights Council Special Rapporteurs Annex 128
22 Report of Qatar National Human Rights Committee – Jun 13, 2017 To Document forms of the various types of violations that occurred, and contact the certain concerned governments in that regard as soon as possible. NHRC is fully prepared to share all the related data. General Secretariat of the Gulf Cooperation Council The Dispute Settlement Commission of the Supreme Council at the Gulf Cooperation Council to take urgent actions and do everything in its power to convince the concerned governments to start settling the dispute and the social, civil, and cultural situation for the affected families and citizens. KSA, UAE, and Kingdom of Bahrain 1- Respect the nature of the Gulf societies, and to refrain from making any decisions that sever the relations and ties between families and societies , and to repeal these decisions as early as possible.2- Respect the basic human rights related to freedom of movement, private property, work, residence, and freedom of expression and opinion that are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Arab Charter on Human Rights. 3- The political disputes must not affect the humanitarian and social rights and will being of citizens, which is considered a violation of the international law and the international human rights law. 4- Respect the holiness of the Month of Ramadan, repeal all decisions, and end the siege before Eid al-Fitr. Annex 128
Annex 129
Amnesty International, Gulf / Qatar dispute: Human dignity trampled and families facing uncertainty as
sinister deadline passes (19 June 2017), available at
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/06/gulf-qatar-dispute-human…-
facing-uncertainty-as-sinister-deadline-passes/

NEWSQATARDISCRIMINATIONGulf/Qatardispute:Humandignitytrampledandfamiliesfacinguncertaintyassinisterdeadlinepasses19June2017,10:14UTCThousandsofpeopleintheGulffacetheprospectoftheirlivesbeingfurtherdisruptedandtheirfamiliestornapartasnewarbitrarymeasuresannouncedbySaudiArabia,BahrainandtheUnitedArabEmirates(UAE)inthecontextoftheirdisputewithQatarareduetocomeintoforcefromtoday,saidAmnestyInternational.ThethreeGulfstateshadgiventheircitizensthedeadlineof19JunetoleaveQatarandreturntotheirrespectivecountriesorfacefinesandotherunspecifiedconsequences.TheyhadgivenQatarinationalsthesamedeadlinetoleaveBahrain,SaudiArabiaandtheUAEandhaverefusedentrytoQatarinationalssince5June.“ThesituationthatpeopleacrosstheGulfhavebeenplacedinshowsuttercontemptforhumandignity.Thisarbitrarydeadlinehascausedwidespreaduncertaintyanddreadamongstthousandsofpeoplewhofeartheywillbeseparatedfromtheirlovedones,”saidJamesLynch,DeputyDirectorofAmnestyInternational’sGlobalIssuesProgramme.JamesLynch,DeputyDirectorofAmnestyInternational’sGlobalIssuesProgrammeThesituationthatpeopleacrosstheGulfhavebeenplacedinshowsuttercontemptforhumandignity.Thisarbitrarydeadlinehascausedwidespreaduncertaintyanddreadamongstthousandsofpeoplewhofeartheywillbeseparatedfromtheirlovedones.“”Page1of3GulfQatardisputeHumandignitytrampledandfamiliesfacinguncertaintyassinisterdea...2/6/2018https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/06/gulf-qatar-dispute-human…...
Annex 129
“Withthesemeasures,thegovernmentsofSaudiArabia,theUAEandBahrainhaveneedlesslyputmixed-nationalityfamiliesattheheartofapoliticalcrisis.”“Theyshouldimmediatelycancelthissinisterarbitrarydeadline,otherwisethousandsoffamiliesriskbeingtornapart,withotherslosingtheirjobsortheopportunitytocontinuetheireducation.PeopleundergoingmedicaltreatmentarebeingmadetochoosebetweencontinuingtheirtreatmentorcomplyingwiththeoverlybroadandharshmeasuresannouncedbySaudiArabia,UAEandBahrain.”ThedisputehascreatedgrowingconcernaboutwhatwillhappenifresidentschoosetoremainwiththeirfamiliesacrossGulfstates.SomehavetoldAmnestyInternationaltheyarepreparingtotraveltocountriesoutsidethedisputetobereunitedwiththeirfamilies.ThegovernmentsofBahrain,SaudiArabiaandUAEhavemadestatementsacknowledgingtheimpactoftheirmeasuresonmixed-nationalityfamiliesandannouncedtheestablishmentofemergencyhotlinesforaffectedindividuals.Suchameasureisclearlyinsufficienttoaddressthehumanrightsimpactofthearbitrary,blanketmeasuresimposedon5June.Additionally,AmnestyInternationalhasspokentoanumberofpeoplewhotriedtocallthesehotlines.Theirexperiencesraiseseriousquestionsaboutwhetherthesehotlinesareprovidingeffectiveadviceorinformation.Severalpeoplesaidtheyhadtriedinvainforhoursordaystogetthroughtothehotlines.Thosewhogotthroughsaidofficialsaskedthemforminimaldetailsabouttheircasesandtoldthemtheywouldreceiveacallback,buttherehadbeennofollow-up.AmnestyInternationalhasrungthehotlinesandaskedhowcasesregisteredwerebeingdealtwith,butofficialswerenotabletoprovideanyinformation.SomeaffectedfamilieshavetoldAmnestyInternationalthattheyaretooscaredtocallhotlinesandregistertheirpresence,ortheirfamily’spresence,ina“rival”countryforfearofreprisal.StatementsbytheauthoritiesinSaudiArabia,theUAEandBahrainthatpeoplewillbepunishedforexpressingsympathytowardsQatarorcriticizinggovernmentactionshavecontributedtotheclimateoffearspreadingacrosstheregion.On13JuneaBahrainilawyerwasarrestedafterhefiledalawsuitagainsthisgovernmentarguingthatthemeasurestakenagainstQatarareunconstitutionalandviolatetherightsofBahrainicitizens,thenpostedacopyofthiscomplaintonhisFacebookpage.AQatarimanunabletoreturntohisfarmlandinSaudiArabiahastoldAmnestyInternationalthathisfriendsinSaudiArabiaweretooscaredtolookafterhislandorremainincontactwithhimforfearofbeingprosecutedbytheSaudiArabiangovernmentforsympathizingwithhim.Page2of3GulfQatardisputeHumandignitytrampledandfamiliesfacinguncertaintyassinisterdea...2/6/2018https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/06/gulf-qatar-dispute-human…...
Annex 129
QATARSAUDIARABIAUNITEDARABEMIRATESOMANKUWAITBAHRAINDISCRIMINATION“Itisunthinkablethatstatescansoblatantlyinfringeontherighttofreedomofexpression.Citizenshavetherighttoexpressviewsandconcernsabouttheirgovernments,aswellasfeelingsofsympathytowardsothers,”saidJamesLynch.TopicsPage3of3GulfQatardisputeHumandignitytrampledandfamiliesfacinguncertaintyassinisterdea...2/6/2018https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/06/gulf-qatar-dispute-human…...
Annex 129

Annex 130
Human Rights Watch, Submission for the Universal Periodic Review of the United Arab Emirates
(29 June 2017), available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/29/submission-universal-periodic-revie…

JUNE29,201711:16AMEDTSubmissionfortheUniversalPeriodicReviewoftheUnitedArabEmirates29thsessionoftheUniversalPeriodicReview,January2018SummaryTheUnitedArabEmirateshascontinuedtoviolatehumanrightsnormssinceitslastUniversalPeriodicReviewin2012.Thissubmissionprovidesanupdateonthecontinuedlackofadequatelegalprotectionsformigrantworkers,women,andmembersoftheLGBTcommunity,suppressionofthefreedomofexpression,andarbitrarydetentionsandforceddisappearancescarriedoutbytheUAEbothathomeandduringthemilitarycampaigninYemen.1.MigrantWorkersandMigrantDomesticWorkersDespitelaborreforms,theUAE’slargemigrantworkerpopulationremainacutelyvulnerabletoforcedlabor.Foreignersaccountformorethan88.5percentofUAEresidents,accordingto2011governmentstatistics.Thekafala(visa-sponsorship)system,withsomereforms,continuestotiemigrantworkerstotheiremployers.Thosewholeavecanbepunishedfor“absconding”andfined,imprisoned,anddeported.In2016,aLaborMinistrydecreeoutliningtherulesforterminatingemploymentandgrantingworkpermitstonewemployeestookeffect,whichshouldtheoreticallymakeiteasierforworkerstochangeemployersbeforetheircontractendsiftheirrightsareviolated.Thesereformshowever,donotapplytodomesticworkers.Page1of10SubmissionfortheUniversalPeriodicReviewoftheUnitedArabEmirates4/6/2019https://www.hrw.org/print/305931
Annex 130
TheUAErejectedrecommendationsduringitspreviousUPRtoensureswiftandeffectiveimplementationoflegislationprotectingthelivingandworkingconditionsofforeignworkersandabusescontinuetooccur.Forexample,in2015,HumanRightsWatchdocumentedemployersattheSaadiyatIslandprojectwithholdingwagesandbenefitsfromworkers,failingtoreimburserecruitingfees,confiscatingworkerpassports,andhousingworkersinsubstandardaccommodation,nearlyfiveyearsafterHumanRightsWatchfirstrevealedsystematichumanrightsviolationsassociatedwiththeproject.TheUAEsummarilydeportedSaadiyatworkerswhowentonstriketoprotestlowpayaftertheiremployerscontactedthepolicein2015.Migrantworkershavenorighttoorganizeorbargaincollectively,andtheyfacepenaltiesforgoingonstrike.TheUAEcontinuestoexcludedomesticworkersfromUAElaborlawprotections.Atleast146,000femalemigrantdomesticworkersareintheEmirates–primarilyfromthePhilippines,Indonesia,India,Bangladesh,SriLanka,andNepal–cleaning,cooking,andcaringforfamilies.A2014HumanRightsWatchreportdocumentedarangeofabusesagainstdomesticworkersincludingunpaidwages,confinementtothehouse,workdaysofupto21hourswithnorestbreaksandnodaysoff,andinsomecases,employersphysicallyorsexuallyassaultingthem.Domesticworkersfacelegalandpracticalobstaclestoredress,andmanyreturnhomewithoutjustice.TheUAEhasmadesomereformstoincreasedomesticworkerprotection.Bytheendof2017,domesticworkersaretomovefromtheMinistryofInterior’sjurisdictiontotheMinistryofHumanResourcesandEmiratisation,whichoverseesallotherworkers.Whileanimportantmove,thishasnotresultedindomesticworkersbenefitingfromlaborlawprotections,orlaborministryenforcementmechanismssuchasthewageprotectionsystem,orreformstothekafalasystem.In2017,theUAEalsomovedtoadoptanewlawthatwouldstrengthendomesticworkerprotections,includinggrantingthemaweeklyrestdayandpaidleave,buttheseprotectionsremainweakerthanthoseintheUAElaborlaw.Aswithpastlaborreforms,strongregulation,inspections,andenforcementofpenaltiesarecriticaltoensuringthatrecruitmentagenciesandemployersareheldaccountableandmadetofollowthelaw.Recommendations•Passthedraftdomesticworkersbill.Afterthebillbecomeslaw,developimplementingregulationsthatwillbringthecountryintolinewiththeInternationalLabourOrganization’s(ILO)DomesticWorkersConvention.•RatifytheILODomesticWorkersConventionandalignnationallawstothetreaty.Page2of10SubmissionfortheUniversalPeriodicReviewoftheUnitedArabEmirates4/6/2019https://www.hrw.org/print/305931
Annex 130
•Passlegislationthatprohibitsemployersfromretainingtheiremployees’passportsandprovidesformeaningfulsanctionsforoffenders.•AbidebytheobligationunderUAELaborLawof1980toimplementaminimumwageandcostoflivingindex.•Ensurethatcriminaljusticeauthoritiesaggressivelyinvestigate,prosecuteingoodfaith,andimposemeaningfulpenaltiesonemployersthatviolaterelevantprovisionsofthelaborlaw,penalcode,andanti-traffickinglaw.•Passlegislationthatrequirescompaniestoescrowfundstoensureworkersreceiveallbenefitsandpaymentsineventofbankruptcyorotherliabilityissues.•AmendUAElaborlawtoguaranteeworkers’righttostrike—includingbyestablishingexplicitvotingandnotificationproceduresforstrikes—andtoprovideforbindingarbitrationofcollectivelabordisputesonlyuponworkers’requestandonlyinlimitedcircumstances.2.FreedomofExpressionDespiteacceptingarecommendationin2012to“respecttherighttofreedomofexpressionandassociation,andmaketheminimumuseofcriminalproceedingsagainstpersonsavailingthemselvesofthoserights”,peopleintheUAEwhospeakabouthumanrightsabusesareatseriousriskofarbitrarydetention,imprisonment,andtorture,andmanyareservinglongprisontermsorhavefeltcompelledtoleavethecountry.TheUAE’s2014counterterrorismlawprovidesforthedeathpenaltyforpeoplewhoseactivitiesarefoundto“underminenationalunityorsocialpeace,”neitherofwhicharedefinedinthelaw.UAEauthoritieshavelaunchedasustainedassaultonfreedomofexpressionandassociationsince2011.InMarch2017,theUAEdetainedAhmedMansoor,anaward-winninghumanrightsdefender.Heremainsdetainedandisfacingspeech-relatedchargesthatincludeusingsocialmediawebsitesto“publishfalseinformationthatharmsnationalunity.”Acoalitionof20humanrightsorganizationssaidMansoorwasthelastremaininghumanrightsdefenderintheUAEwhohadbeenabletocriticizetheauthoritiespublicly.UAEauthoritieshaveharassedandpersecutedMansoorformorethansixyears.Intheweeksleadinguptohisarrest,MansoorhadcalledforthereleaseofOsamaal-Najjar,whoremainsinprisondespitehavingcompletedathree-yearprisonsentenceonchargesrelatedtohispeacefulactivitiesonTwitter.Page3of10SubmissionfortheUniversalPeriodicReviewoftheUnitedArabEmirates4/6/2019https://www.hrw.org/print/305931
Annex 130
InMarch2017,theUAEalsosentencedprominentacademicNasserbin-Ghaithto10yearsinprison,whomauthoritiesforciblydisappearedinAugust2015,forchargesthatincludedspeech-relatedoffenses,includingpeacefulcriticismoftheUAEandEgyptianauthorities.UAE-basedJordanianjournalistTayseeral-Najjarwasalsosentencedtothreeyearsinprisonthatwasrelatedtohisonlinecriticismin2016ofIsraelimilitaryactionsinGazaandEgyptiansecurityforces’destructionoftunnels.Allofthesearrestsdespiteacceptinga2012UPRrecommendationto“Takestepstoprotecthumanrightsdefenders,journalistsandreligiousminoritiesfromdiscrimination,harassmentorintimidation,includingthearbitrarydeprivationofnationality”.TheUAEhasalsousedthepretextofnationalsecuritytoprosecuteprotectedexpression.InJuly2012,theauthoritiesintensifiedacrackdownondissidentswithallegedtiestoanIslamistgroup,al-Islah.Themasstrialof94defendantsforallegedlinkswithal-IslahbeganonMarch4,2013onchargesthattheyhadbeenpartofagroupthataimedtooverthrowthecountry'spoliticalsystem.Authoritiesdetained64ofthemenandheldthematundisclosedlocationsforuptoayearbeforethetrial,anddefendantslaterclaimedincourtthattheyhadbeenill-treatedindetention.TheUAEFederalSupremeCourtfound69ofthe94defendantsguiltyonJuly2,2013.UAEauthoritieshavealsousedcitizenshiprevocationasatooltopunishpeacefuldissidentsandcritics.InDecember2011,theUAEannouncedthroughitsofficialnewsagencythatithadstrippedsixmenoftheirUAEcitizenshipfor"actsposingathreattothestate'ssecurityandsafety"basedontheirmembershipinal-Islah.InMarch2016,theUAErevokedthecitizenshipoftwodaughtersandasonofimprisonedpoliticaldissidentMohammedAbdulraziqAl-Siddiq,whoisservingaten-yearsentencefollowinghisconvictiononchargesstemmingfrompeacefulpoliticalactivities.Accordingtoa2016reportfromCitizenLab,aresearchinstituteattheUniversityofTorontothatfocusesoninternetsecurityandhumanrightsidentifiedaseriesofdigitalcampaignsagainstUAEdissidents,datingbackto2012.CitizenLabdescribedtheoperatorofthesecampaignsas“asophisticatedthreatactor,”andsaidthatitwasimplausiblethatastate-actorwasnotbehindthecampaign.TheresearchidentifiedseveralpiecesofinformationsuggestingaconnectionbetweentheoperatorandtheUAEgovernment.Recommendations•Releaseallprisonersheldsolelyfortheirpeacefulpracticeoftheirrightstofreeexpressionandassociation,includingprisonersconvictedofallegedcrimes,prisonerscurrentlyontrial,andprisonersheldarbitrarily.Page4of10SubmissionfortheUniversalPeriodicReviewoftheUnitedArabEmirates4/6/2019https://www.hrw.org/print/305931
Annex 130
•RevokePenalCodearticlesandothercriminallegislationusedtoprosecuteindividualsfortheexerciseoftherightstofreedomofexpression,association,orpeacefulassembly,oramendsucharticlessothattheycomplywithinternationallaw.•Reviewalllawsintheareaofcybercrime,informationandcommunicationstechnology(ICT),andtelecommunicationstoensuretheircompliancewithinternationalhumanrightsstandards.•Reviewalllawsintheareaofcounterterrorismtoensuretheircompliancewithinternationalhumanrightsstandards.•Haltarbitrarywithdrawalsofcitizenshipinretaliationforpeacefulcriticismandprovidejudicialremediesforthosewhohavefacedwithdrawalofcitizenship.3.ArbitraryDetention,Torture,andMistreatmentofDetaineesTheUAEarbitrarilydetains,andinsomecasesforciblydisappears,individualswhocriticizetheauthorities,anditssecurityforcesfaceallegationsoftorturingdetaineesbothintheUAEandinYemen.TheUAEacceptedjust2outof17recommendationsrelatedtotheissueoftortureduringits2012UPR,includingthoseproposingastandinginvitationtotheSpecialRapporteuronTorture,orcallingontheUAEtoratifytheOP-CAT.InFebruary2017,agroupofUnitedNationshumanrightsexpertscriticizedtheUAE’streatmentoffiveLibyannationalswhohadbeenheldinarbitrarydetentionsince2014.Individualsarrestedatthesametimebutsubsequentlyreleasedallegedthatauthoritiestorturedthemtosecureconfessionsandsaidtheyheardotherdetaineesbeingtortured.TheLibyanssaidtheirinterrogatorsaskedthemaboutsupposedlinkstotheMuslimBrotherhood–whichtheUAEhasdesignatedaterroristorganization–anddescribedbeingsubjectedtobeatings,forcedstanding,andthreatsofrape,electrocution,anddeath.Thespecialrapporteurontorturesaidhehadreceivedcredibleinformationthatauthoritiessubjectedthementotorture.InMay2016,theFederalSupremeCourtacquittedthemenofhavinglinkstoarmedgroupsinLibya.InanothercaseinvolvingtheUAE’sstatesecurityapparatus,thesonofanadvisertoformerEgyptianPresidentMohamedMorsyclaimedthatUAEauthoritiessubjectedhimto“brutalphysicalandpsychologicaltorture”togethimtoconfesstomembershipintheMuslimBrotherhood.Theallegationechoesnumerousothersthatstatesecuritydetaineeshavemadesince2012.Page5of10SubmissionfortheUniversalPeriodicReviewoftheUnitedArabEmirates4/6/2019https://www.hrw.org/print/305931
Annex 130
InMarch2016,aDubaicourtacquittedBritishbusinessmanDavidHaighofchargesbroughtundertheUAE’scybercrimelaws.HaighclaimedafterhisreleasethatDubaipolicehadpunchedandtaseredhiminanunsuccessfulefforttomakehimconfesstoaccusationsoffraud.Haighsaidthatheregularlywitnessedprisonofficersbeatinginmatesduringhistwoyearsofincarcerationbutwasnotabletoseetheevidenceagainsthimathistrialnorgiveevidenceorcross-examinewitnesses.TheUAEisamemberoftheSaudi-ledcoalitionthathasconductedaerialandgroundoperationsinYemensinceMarch2015,includingscoresofapparentlyunlawfulattacks.TheUAEsupportsYemeniforcesthathavearbitrarilydetained,forciblydisappeared,tortured,andabuseddozensofpeopleduringsecurityoperationsinYemen.HumanRightsWatchhasdocumentedUAE-backedsecurityforcesarbitrarilydetainingorforciblydisappearingatleast38individuals.TheUAEalsorunsatleasttwoinformaldetentionfacilities,anditsofficialsappeartohaveorderedthecontinueddetentionofpeopledespitereleaseorders,andforciblydisappearedpeople,includingreportedlymovinghigh-profiledetaineesoutsidethecountry.Recommendations•Grantlawyers,journalists,independentmonitorsofdetentionfacilitiesandhumanrightsmonitorsaccesstobothofficialandunofficialdetentionfacilitiesintheUAEandtoanyUAE-runfacilitiesinYemen.•Provideindependentforensicmedicalexaminationstodefendantswhosaytheyhavebeentortured.•Excludeevidenceobtainedbytorturefromanytrialproceedings.•Ensureprompt,independent,andimpartialinvestigationsintoallegationsoftortureandotherill-treatment,enforceddisappearances,andotherserioushumanrightsviolationsandbringthoseresponsibletojusticeinproceedingsthatcomplywithinternationalfairtrialstandards;•Ensurethatvictimsoftorture,enforceddisappearance,andarbitrarydetentionreceivefullreparations.•RatifytheOptionalProtocoltotheUnitedNationsConventionAgainstTortureandOtherCruel,InhumanorDegradingTreatmentorPunishment.4.Women’sRights,Children’sRightsandSexualOrientationandGenderIdentityPage6of10SubmissionfortheUniversalPeriodicReviewoftheUnitedArabEmirates4/6/2019https://www.hrw.org/print/305931
Annex 130
DiscriminationonthebasisofsexandgenderisnotincludedinthedefinitionofdiscriminationintheUAE’s2015anti-discriminationlaw,despiteacceptingduringits2012UPRto“FullyincorporateintheConstitutionorothernationallegislationtheprincipleofequalitybetweenmenandwomen”.FederallawNo.28of2005regulatesmattersofpersonalstatusintheUAE,andsomeofitsprovisionsdiscriminateagainstwomen.Forinstance,thelawprovidesthat,forawomantomarry,hermaleguardianmustconcludehermarriagecontract;menhavetherighttounilaterallydivorcetheirwives,whereasawomanwhowishestodivorceherhusbandmustapplyforacourtorder;awomancanloseherrighttomaintenanceif,forexample,sherefusestohavesexualrelationswithherhusbandwithoutalawfulexcuse;andwomenarerequiredto“obey”theirhusbands.Awomanmaybeconsidereddisobedient,withfewexceptions,ifshedecidestoworkwithoutherhusband’sconsent.In2010,theFederalSupremeCourtissuedaruling—citingthepenalcode—thatsanctionshusbands’beatingandinflictingotherformsofpunishmentorcoercionontheirwives,providedtheydonotleavephysicalmarks.UAElawpermitsdomesticviolence.Article53oftheUAE'spenalcodeallowstheimpositionof“chastisementbyahusbandtohiswifeandthechastisementofminorchildren”solongastheassaultdoesnotexceedthelimitsprescribedbySharia,orIslamiclaw.MaritalrapeisnotacrimeintheUAE.Article356ofthepenalcodecriminalizes(butdoesnotdefine)“indecency,”andprovidesforaminimumsentenceofoneyearinprison.Inpractice,UAEcourtsusethisarticletoconvictandsentencepeopleforzinaoffenses,whichincludeconsensualsexualrelationsoutsideheterosexualmarriageandother“moral”offenses,includingsame-sexrelations.DifferentemirateswithintheUAEhavelawsthatcriminalizesame-sexsexualrelations,includingAbuDhabiwhere“unnaturalsexwithanotherperson”canbepunishedwithupto14yearsinprison,andDubaiwhichimposes10yearsofimprisonmentforsodomy.TheUAErejectedbothrecommendationsitreceivedin2012tode-criminalizeconsensualsame-sexmarriage.Recommendations•Enactalawprohibitinganyformofdiscriminationagainstwomeninpractice,policyorregulation.•AmendorAbolishPenalCodeArticle53,explicitlystatingthatnofamilymemberhastheauthorityto“discipline”femaledependentsusingviolenceandthat“discipline”isnotalegaldefenseincasesinvolvingfamilyviolence.•Enactalawcriminalizingdomesticviolenceandthatprovidesforpreventionofdomesticviolence,protectionofsurvivors,andprosecutionofabusers.Establishseparateunitswithinpolicestationsfocusedondomesticviolenceandensurethatallpolicestationsemployfemaleofficers.IssuePage7of10SubmissionfortheUniversalPeriodicReviewoftheUnitedArabEmirates4/6/2019https://www.hrw.org/print/305931
Annex 130
guidelinestopoliceonhowtodealwithdomesticviolencecases,includingpenaltiesforofficerswhodonotallowwomentofileacomplaint.•ReformthePersonalStatusLawtoprovidewomenwithequalrightsinenteringmarriage,duringmarriage,andatitsdissolution,includinginallissuesconcerningchildren,inheritance,andpropertyrights.•Undertakeathoroughreviewandissueguidancetojudgesprohibitingthemfromenforcingamale’sauthorityoverawomanthroughthelegalsystem.•Decriminalizeadult,consensualsexualrelationsconductedinprivate.Yourtaxdeductiblegiftcanhelpstophumanrightsviolationsandsavelivesaroundtheworld.$50$100$250$500$1,000OtherDonateNowRegion/Country•MiddleEast/NorthAfrica•UnitedArabEmiratesTopic•UnitedNationsPage8of10SubmissionfortheUniversalPeriodicReviewoftheUnitedArabEmirates4/6/2019https://www.hrw.org/print/305931
Annex 130
•HumanRightsCouncilMoreReading•April6,2019NewsReleaseLibya:ThreatofTripoliFightingRaisesAtrocityConcerns•April5,2019NewsReleaseKhashoggiCase:ACalltoPreventaCover-UpSourceURL:https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/29/submission-universal-periodic-revie…
Annex 130
[12]https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Submission%20for%20the%20Universa…
Annex 130
Annex 131
Article 19, Qatar: Demands to close Al Jazeera endanger press freedom and access to information (30 June 2017), avaialble at https://www.article19.org/resources/qatar-demands-to-close-al-jazeera-e…

4/1/2019Qatar: Demands to close Al Jazeera endanger press freedom and access to information - ARTICLE 19https://www.article19.org/resources/qatar-demands-to-close-al-jazeera-e… 1 MIN READ ARTICLE 19@article19org (https://twitter.com/article19org)Posted on June 30, 2017Recent demands made by Saudi Arabia and allies to Qatar to shutdown Al Jazeera, which is Qatar’s independent public servicebroadcaster, as well as a major regional and global mediaoutlet, represent a severe attack on free expression and informationand should be dropped. As negotiations continue related to thecurrent blockade, ARTICLE 19 calls for Saudi Arabia and its allies todrop this and any similar demands that endanger press freedom,both in Qatar and across the region.Public service broadcasters play a vital role in facilitating democraticdebate and ensuring media pluralism. Media organisations like Al Jazeera,whether in their role as PSB in Qatar or more broadly across the region,enable the free flow of information about a range of issues of publicinterest, and are key to enabling free expression across the region.Decisions about public service broadcasting should only be taken byparliaments and with public participation, not unilaterally or in responseto external demands. A unilateral decision by the government, forwhatever reason, to pull the plug leaves the public both without a say andwithout a vital source of information and ideas.We urge respect for freedom of expression and information to be a coreconsideration in ongoing negotiations between the states.Qatar: Demands to close Al Jazeera endanger pressfreedom and access to information(https://www.article19.org)English
Annex 131
4/1/2019Qatar: Demands to close Al Jazeera endanger press freedom and access to information - ARTICLE 19https://www.article19.org/resources/qatar-demands-to-close-al-jazeera-e…
Annex 131
Annex 132
National Human Rights Committee, Second Report Regarding the Human Rights Violations as a Result of
the Blockade on the State of Qatar (1 July 2017),
available at http://www.nhrc-qa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NHRC-Second-Report-Re…

1Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017NHRC Second Report Regarding the Human RightsViolationsas a Result of the Blockade on the State of Qatar
Annex 132
2Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017Phone & FaxTelephone: 0097444048844Fax: 0097444444013Hotline009746662666300974508000060097450006008E-mailnhrc@q…. O. Box23104Doha, Qatar.All Rights reserved. this report or parts thereof may not be reproduced in any form, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means-without prior written permission of the publisher.
Annex 132
3Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017a. family reunificationb. Educationc. Workd. Freedom of Expression and Opinione. Rights to movement and residencef. Violation of the right to private property g. Violation of the right to practice a religion h. Incitement of hate speech and violence i. Violation of the right to health (especially women, children and persons with disabilities) Report contentsSubjectSummaryReport MethodologyMost Notable Violations that OccurredConclusions and Legal DescriptionRecommendations FirstSecondThirdFourthFifthPage4682433
Annex 132
4Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017I. Summary The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kingdom of Bahrain severed relations with the state of Qatar, on 5 June, 2017, that involved closure of sea, land, and air routes in the face of trades, and also in the face of Gulf Citizens in a series of actions never witnessed before by the states of the Gulf Coop-eration Council (GCC), disregarding all human rights and humanitarian standards and principles and their legal obligations, as those three states are fully aware of the great interrelations and connections among the region’s people and nations on all social, economic, cultural, civilian levels.In this report, the National Human Rights Committee (NHRC) sheds light on the vi-olations of the most basic human rights reported since 5 June, the day on which the blockade and ban was imposed, until Wednesday 28 June, by citizens of: KSA, Qa-tar, UAE, Bahrain (without addressing the political domain, as it is not included in the mandate of the NHRC).Since Monday , 5 June 2017, hundreds of complaints have been submitted to the NHRC via e-mail, phone and hotlines , or personal visits to the NHRC headquarters in Doha, Qatar’s capital. According to the data received, approximately 11,387 citizens from the three states live in Qatar, and approximately 1927 Qatari citizens live in those states. All of those people have been affected in different areas and ways to varying degrees. In some cases, the actions taken by these states separated mothers from her children.
Annex 132
5Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017On Sunday , 11 June, (Six days after the decision), KSA issued a royal order to take into consideration the humanitarian situation of mixed families ( Saudi-Qatari ), then the UAE followed their footsteps, and then Kingdom of Bahrain. While the NHRC appreciates this step and sees it as a step in the right direction, NHRC also calls on the three states to clarify the implementation mechanisms, emphasizes that it has to include all human rights and legal areas, and calls for ending the blockade and all vi-olations in all its forms, and compensating the affected families and individuals.Dr. Ali Al Marri, chairman of NHRC, stated that ““The suffering of the GCC people has become notable through the reports of the NHRC, international reports and statements and stories published in the mainstream media and social media. After all, we hope that the besiege countries take into account the rights and interests of the GCC peoples”.
Annex 132
6Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017II. Report methodology In the aftermath of the crisis that affected citizens of four GCC states (citizens and residents in the State of Qatar), NHRC has increased working hours, even within the Eid holiday, due to the large number of complaints received daily, submitted by those affected. Victims communicate with the NHRC legal researchers via mail or the three dedicated hotlines. If victims are within the State of Qatar, they are asked to visit the Committee’s headquarters in person, where they fill in complaint forms with required basic details, along with their personal ID numbers. Some of them attach university or school reports, work contracts, or other documents, all of which are available in the Committee’s archives. It should be borne in mind that an individual may be subjected to more than one type of violations, and therefore the accumulated number of files re-porting all violations is certainly greater than the total number of individuals. We have recorded incidents in which some individuals have been separated from their families, prevented from continuing education and had their right to movement violated. So, three violations against one individual.In this report, we shed light on the most notable violations, we refer to the most no-table two, or three forms of each violation, in order to maintain the size of the report. Please note that the concerned parties can acquire all of these forms and documents.Also, we referred to names using initial letters in order to preserve their safety and security, in light of unprecedented procedures by the UAE that involved imposing penalties including to 3-15 years’ imprisonment and fines of 500,000 AED for merely showing sympathy towards the state of Qatar.Surely, the data provided by the victims are different from one case to another. How-ever, all of these cases enjoy a high level of credibility. Most of the data were acquired personally through personal visits from the affected parties. Additionally, we received Annex 132
7Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017complaints from people regarding violations against their first-degree relatives, where the victims were in other countries and are, as they claimed, unable to visit the NHRC headquarters, contact it, or send an e-mail -which we are still receiving on a daily basis- in this regard, we encourage all the citizens of the four states who suffer from any violations as a result of these abusive decisions to submit their complaints at the NHRC or any other national or international organizations. In light of this, what the NHRC was able to report and document is still the bare minimum, considering that many of those whose rights were violated don’t know of the existence of any mech-anisms for complaint submission. In addition, many of them seriously are afraid to reveal their identities due to that measures and actions that could be taken against them by their countries’ local authorities if they contacted or submitted a compliant. Finally, there are violations against minors (under 18 years), and since they do not have identity documents, statistics do not include a large number of them. However, the psychological impact of violations affected by them is too deep to heal by time.The Qatari government has not taken any action against the citizens of the three states, and we didn’t receive any complaint of that nature.
Annex 132
8Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017III. Most notable violationsThe following table includes classifications of the violations recorded by the NHRC, 2451 in total. The violations are sorted by the state that perpetrated the violation and the type of each violation. The table includes the violations against the citizens of the three states in addition to Qatari citizens: A. Violations of the right of family reunificationThis might be the most serious and appalling violation that resulted from the abu-sive decisions made by the three states, because it affects and threatens the ties of the united Gulf Families.ComplaintCountry
Annex 132
9Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017It also threatens the most vulnerable categories of society – women, children, people with disabilities, and the elderly- not to mention that it is an explicit violation to many articles of the international human rights laws.In this regard, NHRC recorded 480 forms pertaining to families that were separated, even though we are absolutely certain that actual number is far greater. In addition, the three besieging countries prevented any citizen or resident in the State of Qatar from carrying out any financial or even postal transactions, and thus not only cut family ties during the month of Ramadan and Eid, but prevented bread-winners from transferring money to their dependents, including women and children which constitutes, accordingly, a violation of all human rights and conventions. Consequently, given that the besieging countries have failed to rectify any of the repercussions of their unfair decisions, the National Human Rights Committee has the conviction that these countries have not taken these decisions randomly, but deliberately with the intention to inflict humiliating and commit violation of fun-damental freedoms, values and religious and social norms.M. B. is a Qatari national married to a Bahraini; she stated “I live with my family in Qatar. As a result of the decision to sever relations with Qatar, my husband and children will have to leave Qatar and our family will be separated. My husband has a job here and my children are schooling here as well. My life is under threat and the future of my family is unknown under this decision.” She said.
Annex 132
10Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017Mrs. (N.H.), Saudi born in 1990, visited the NHRC headquarters and stated the vio-lations she suffered from: “I have been a widow for three years. I live in the State of Qatar along with my two minor children who have a Qatari nationality. I don’t have a job, but I am supporting my family financially from my late husband’s family, which is paid by the State of Qatar. I am enrolled in Qatar University, and living in a rented house until the inheritance case is settled at court. On 8 June, Saudi authorities informed me to go back to the Saudi Arabia without my children. I can’t leave my children alone in Qatar, but I am afraid arbitrary actions will be taken against me if I didn’t comply.”Mr. (K.S.), Bahraini born in 1984, called NHRC and then visited NHRC head-quarters and stated that: “I live and work in the State of Qatar with my wife and my mother who both have Qatari nationality. The decision to sever relations with Qatar will force me to leave my work and family in Qatar and go back to Bahrain. How can I leave my wife and my mother, who suffers from a disability, and uproot my life and work here? I don’t wish to leave Qatar, and I am afraid of the punitive actions that might be taken against me by the Bahraini authorities.”B. Violation of the right to EducationThe education future of every Saudi, Emirati, or Bahraini studying in Qatar schools or universities including QF has been put in jeopardy this year. Therefore, Qatari authorities decided to postpone those students’ exams in order to maintain their right to complete their education and lose the progress they made in their whole academic year especially that we are at the end of the school year. However, the focus remains on the Qatari students studying in the three states, where their rights have been terribly violated, as laws have prevented them from traveling to complete their exams, obtaining documents from their university.
Annex 132
11Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017The National Human Rights Committee has recorded 139 cases pertaining spe-cifically to this violation, including the following six main cases:J.Z is a Qatari female student at the American University of the UAE, born in 1993; she sated “my graduation date was set on July 27, 2017; I am prevented from en-tering the UAE after the decision to sever relations with the State of Qatar.”Student H. M., a Qatari national born in 1997, reported to the NHRC headquarters and told his story of being denied access to education after the decision to sever relations with the State of Qatar: “I am a Qatari student at Ajman University in the UAE. I am left with only two examinations to finish my study. However, the UAE denied me entry into its territory and this will prevent me from realizing my dream and completing my educational journey.” He said. According to student M. H., he was prevented from completing his education at a university in the UAE after the authorities denied him entry because of being a Qatari citizen. “I booked my university seat at Al-Jazira University in Dubai and paid all fees installments. I was waiting for next semester to start my studies. However, after the decision to sever relationship with Qatar I won’t be able to con-tinue my studies, and thus I did not only lose my seat, but half the amount I paid because the university will not give me full refund.” He explained. Student H. M., a Qatari citizen born in 1991, has been denied access to educa-tion. “I am a student sent by the Commercial Bank of Qatar to complete my stud-ies in the Emirate of Sharjah. Only 9 hours separated me from graduation, but the decision to sever relations with the State of Qatar will prevent me from completing my studies and achieving my dream.” He told the NHRC.
Annex 132
12Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017Saudi child S. H. born in 2006, he was separated from his mother who is a Qatari national. “I am a 4th-grade student at the Qadisiya Independent Model School in Qatar. I have been living with my mother in Qatar. The Saudi authorities have asked me to leave Qatar, which will prevent me from completing my studies and will also separate me from Qatari mother.” He testified before the NHRC. Student H. A., a Qatari national studying at the University of Applied Sciences in Bahrain. “The Bahraini authorities have prevented me from entering their territory as of 8 June 2017. I will not be able to complete my exams and I will be fail if I am not allowed to enter the country.” He said in his report to NHRC.C. Violation of the right to WorkAs with education, hundreds of business owners were affected after those states abruptly stopped -in order to cause as much harm as possible- all trading con-voys, and thousands of tons of food or health supplies have expired. Hundreds of business owners lost great, immeasurable sums of money.What is even more crucial is that there are entire families that rely completely on traveling between Gulf states, and those families’ only source of income has been cut off. However, none of the three states have compensated those families or sought an alternative for them, which intensified popular resentment even further.Moreover, many citizens who are employed at public, private, or government sec-tors and used to move freely between the four countries are now jobless with no source of income and with no compensations from the three states that initiated the blockade.
Annex 132
13Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017The NHRC has received at least 101 cases of persons who have been denied access to their work due to the arbitrary decisions.Born in 1988, A. M. is a Saudi national female working as teacher in Qatar. “After the decision to sever relations with the State of Qatar, the Saudi authorities in-formed me that I should leave Qatar. I will lose my job if I return to Saudi Arabia, but I am also afraid of any consequences or punitive measures that will follow if I stay here.” She said in her testimony before the NHRC. Mr. H. Q, who is a Saudi national married to a Qatari woman, contacted the NHRC and then visited its headquarters in person. He gave details of the violation to which he was subjected. “I have been living and working in the State of Qatar as an administrative supervisor at a junior high school. On 18 June 2017 the Saudi authorities asked me to leave both my job and my Qatari wife and return to Saudi Arabia. I am afraid of losing my job and I do not want to leave my wife in Qatar alone. This decision will affect my life and the life of my entire family. I am afraid of any punitive measures against me by the authorities.” He explained.
Annex 132
14Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017 Mr. A. I, a Saudi national, contacted NHRC and presented his testimony. “I work for Qatar Aircraft Fuel Company. On 16 June 2017 the Saudi authorities informed me that I should leave Qatar and return to my country. I do not want to go back and I do not want to leave my job. This decision will make me lose the job I like, but I am afraid of any sanctions for not noncompliance with the decision”. Ms. Sh. M. mentions the violations she has been exposed to. “After the decision to sever relations with the State of Qatar, the Saudi authorities informed me that I should return to my country and leave my job at Hamad Medical Corporation,” she said. “This decision will separate me from my family, as I have a sister with Qatari nationality. We work together to support our mother. I will lose my job, and I will leave my family. I don’t know what penalties I have to face if I do not comply.”In an interview with Mr. A. M, a Saudi national, at the headquarters of the NHRC, he gave his testimony after his right to work came under threat. The Saudi author-ities asked him to leave Qatar: “I work at a car and motorcycle racing club. After the decision to sever relations with the State of Qatar I will have to give up my job. Otherwise, I will be subject to sanctions that the Saudi authorities may impose against me. This decision will threaten my future career.” He testified. Annex 132
15Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017Ms. F. A. who is a Saudi national expresses fear that she might be exposed to sanctions if she does not comply with her country’s decision to leave Qatar. “I have been in Qatar since 2007 and I work as a football trainer in the Qatar Women’s Sports Committee”, she said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “As a result of the decision to sever relations with the State of Qatar I will have to leave my job and the country where I lived all this time.” Mr. H. J, who is a Saudi national, told the NHRC about the details of what he was exposed to after the decision to sever relations with Qatar. He stated that he works for Qatar Steel. “Following my country’s decision to sever the relations with Qatar I will have to leave my job and return to Saudi Arabia. I am afraid of being subjected to arbitrary punitive measures in the event should I not comply with the decision.” D. Violations to the right of Freedom of Opinion and ExpressionIt is worth mentioning that the NHRC holds no right to record violations of the free-dom of opinion and expression in the three sanctioning states and Egypt. Howev-er, NHRC reported violations on the background of severing relations with Qatar. Violations have gone to extremes for just showing sympathy with Qatar via social media, including media outlets funded by the State of Qatar, that certainly do not broadcast newsletters or news programs or political matters, thus indicating the deplorable condition of the freedom of opinion and expression in the three coun-tries and Egypt. Just wearing a Barcelona or Paris Saint-Germain T-shirt, out of sympathy is enough for a person to receive severe punishment.
Annex 132
16Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017UAE imposes penalties 3-15 years’ imprisonment and fines of 500,000 AED just for merely showing sympathy towards the State of Qatar by even a word, a like, or a tweet on social media in an unprecedented threat to freedom of expression. Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior imposes five-year imprisonment, while KSA consid-ered this an internet crime. Annex 132
17Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017This very extreme and harsh actions betray the fragility of the grounds and legiti-macy of the blockade decision by those three states, and reflect how much those states’ authorities are afraid from citizens’ freedom to express any opinions that don’t agree with their will. This blatantly goes against many of international and regional declarations and covenants as we will detail further in the Legal Descrip-tion portion of this report.In the media sector alone, NHRC recorded that 103 media figures from the three states that imposed the blockade and boycott who used to work at several visual media outlets in the State of Qatar have all been subjected to various types of violations, including pressuring them as a way to force them to resign from their jobs. Due to the pressure, 10 of those were forced to submit and forcibly asked for their termination, and, therefore, lost their jobs and source of income. There are still great pressures on everyone who didn’t submit his resignation. These actions constitute a blatant violation to the freedom of journalism, freedom of work, free-dom of residency, and freedom of opinion all at the same time.E. Denial of the right to movement and residence (even for the dead)Mr. H. Q., a Qatari national was denied the right to movement. “My brother died following a traffic accident in Saudi Arabia on 6 June 2017. I was prevented from entering the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to receive my brother’s body to bury it”. He told the NHRC. Annex 132
18Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017Mr. S. M, a Saudi national, reports his plight to NHRC. “My father died in the State of Qatar and on 7 June 2017 the Saudi authorities prevented me from traveling to Qatar to receive the body of my father,” he said.Ms. W. H, a Qatari national, tells NURC: “I booked in a hotel in Mecca and paid my accommodation fees,” she said. “The reservation was cancelled on 13 June 2017, but I was not refunded.”F. Violation of the right to ownership:The sudden siege laws imposed by the three countries have resulted in huge losses of assets and property to tens of thousands of people, which indicate that those who have taken this decision have total disrespect basic rights. Money and property were confiscated because their owners could not travel, as all persons prohibited from traveling cannot be able to use their property or dispose of it.Due to the great overlap and interrelatedness of the businesses between the Gulf States, this may not be noticed by many organizations and countries. For exam-ple, we have received complaints that there are hundreds of workers in Saudi Arabia whose Qatari directors can no longer pay their salaries, because money transfer services have been stopped. Thus, their work was stopped in the first place, and secondly these workers are now displaced. Another blatant example is the loss of real estate purchased on installments such as land, buildings and apartments, especially in the Emirate of Dubai.
Annex 132
19Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017As a result of the freezing of the assets of Qatari nationals in these countries, cheque debits have been stopped and if the situation continues for two months, this may result in complete loss of the property. It may even lead to the owner be-coming subject to lawsuit because of the failure to pay its monthly debits.In addition to the above, the three countries have gone as far as limiting the fi-nancial transfers and postal transactions to any of the citizens or residents in the State of Qatar, to eliminate any possibility of saving any financial losses. All this indicates that the sanctioning countries meant to intentionally violate fundamental freedoms from the start. This is further emphasized by the fact that no measures have been taken so far to eliminate the serious repercussions on the citizens of the three countries as well as the citizens of the State of Qatar.The NHRC has also recorded presence of a large number of workers who hold Qatari residence permits and work in companies owned by Qatari citizens. After the decision to impose siege on Qatar, workers were prevented from returning to Qatar. They stopped working and there is no one to pay for their expenses. Mr. B. S, a Qatari national, visited the headquarters of the NHRC and presented his case in detail.“I own an apartment and a car in the UAE and I cannot reach them under the de-cision to sever relations with the State of Qatar. I have been deprived of my most basic rights.” He said. Annex 132
20Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017Mr. M. Kh, a Qatari national who owns property in Saudi Arabia, contacted us and we asked him to come to the headquarters of the NHRC. He gave his testimony and details of the violation he was subjected to: “I own a group of livestock and camels in Saudi Arabia and I cannot enter Saudi Arabia. I know nothing at all about the fate of my possessions.”Ms. A. R, a Qatari national told NHRC about the violation of her rights. “I cannot access my property in the wake of the decision to sever relations with Qatar. I have two studios in Jebel Ali in the UAE and two studios in Dubai,” said A R. “I have one car park, and I also own a hotel apartment with one car park, but now I cannot dispose of my property or access it.”Mr. H. M., a Qatari national, reported to the NHRC about his properties in Saudi Arabia. “I have 80 heads of camels and 120 of sheep in Saudi Arabia. I cannot provide these animals with water and feeds, because of the closure of the border and I am prevented from entering Saudi territory. I fear the loss of my livestock. I do not know the fate of my cars and workers. I am not in a position to renew their work permits if expired”. He explained. Ms. B. M, born in 1982 in Qatar, testified before the NHRC that she has been de-nied entry to Saudi Arabia following the decision to sever ties. “I have two pieces of land in Saudi Arabia and a house that I bought for 700,000 riyals, and a number of livestock. I have workers and I cannot renew their work visas in the event of expiration.” She said. “I have a bank account at Al-Rajhi Bank in Saudi Arabia and I cannot go to the bank to withdraw my money because of the violation,” said H. F, a Qatari lady before the NHRC.
Annex 132
21Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017G. Violations of the right to freedom to practice a religion:Mecca and Medina, two holy cities for all Muslims, are located in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The two cities are a constant destination for Muslims to perform Umrah. The blockade imposed by Saudi Arabia has impeded the rights of nearly 1.5 million Muslims residing in Qatar to performing religious rituals. Saudi Arabia did not make exceptions for those who might wish to perform such rituals. Instead of a trip that takes one and a half hours via Jeddah Airport, citizens and residents of Qatar have to travel via the city of Muscat in Oman, taking up to 12 hours, let alone the doubled cost. Scores of people have been held back from performing Umrah due to these conditions. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is held fully respon-sible religiously, morally and legally.When the unfair decisions were issued, the authorities in Saudi Arabia prevented a group of Qatari citizens who were on board the plane or at Jeddah airport from entering Jeddah and had to return to Qatar. A Qatari citizen filming himself in a video at Jeddah Airport, and how Saudi author-ities forbade him to go into Mecca for Umrah.Mr. M. A, a Qatari national who was born in 1987 contacted the NHRC and gave his testimony. “On 5 June 2017, after the decision to sever relations with the State of Qatar, I could not enter Saudi Arabia to perform Umrah, and in addition to being denied travel, I lost the amount I had paid for the hotel reservation in the city of Mecca.” He said. Annex 132
22Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017“On 11 June 2017, I was prevented from entering Saudi Arabia to perform Umrah following the decision to sever relations with Qatar,” said Mr. B. A. a Qatari nation-al who was born in 1984, to the NHRC.H. Incitement of violence and hate speech:The NHRC has recorded hundreds of cases of hate speech, some of which went as far as inciting the carrying out of bomb blasts in the State of Qatar. In some of the TV series, children have been indoctrinated and incited against Qatar. It is clear that all this amount of incitement, hate speech and violence will gener-ate tendency towards extremist reactions from the various segments of society, intellectuals and the illiterate alike. This may lead to the perpetration of criminal acts not only against Qatari citizens, but it may generate reactions from the Qatari society towards the nationals of these three countries and the State of Egypt as well. This will threaten peace, security and stability in the entire region. The NHRC has recorded the names and details of each person involved in hate speech and violence, particularly those who have been monitored by our researchers. They will be held legally responsible for any incident of racist, terrorist violence against any Qatari citizen or any citizen of the three countries and Egypt.International law clearly criminalizes hate speech and violence as set forth in Arti-cle 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrim-ination. These articles prohibit any advocacy of hate on the basis of nationalism, racism or religion, and consider it an incitement to enmity and violence.
Annex 132
23Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017I. Violation of the right to Health - Especially for persons with DisabilitiesHundreds of patients from the three sanctioning countries were receiving medical treatment in hospitals in the State of Qatar. Some Qataris were also receiving treatment in hospitals in these countries. All of them have been affected, as they were asked leaver without any exception or exclusion of the sick, injured, pregnant women, children or those with disability. It shows beyond doubt how the three countries blatantly disregard the rights of their sick citizens, as well as indiffer-ence towards their most basic human rights. The most fundamental aspect of the right to health is non-discrimination. The three countries should have not expelled Qatari patients for political differences, because the right to health is enshrined in several international treaties and conventions, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 12.
Annex 132
24Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017IV. Conclusions and Legal DescriptionIn their resolutions, KSA, UAE, and Kingdom of Bahrain, violated a number of principle international human rights laws and rules, which are related to the most fundamental human rights, which are treated as international norms. These reso-lutions violate a number of articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other articles included in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cul-tural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in addition to articles in the: Arab Charter on Human Rights, the GCC Declarations of Human Rights, and the Economic Agreement between the GCC States. Therefore, those states are responsible for protecting and preserving the rights and interests of the individuals living on their lands.The Articles that were violated by the three Gulf states:First: Universal Declaration of Human RightsArticle 5No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.Article 9No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.Article 12No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Annex 132
25Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017Article 131. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the bor-ders of each State.2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.Article 19Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart in-formation and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.Article 231. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favora-ble conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.Article 25(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and med-ical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All chil-dren, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Annex 132
26Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017Article 261. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the el-ementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and high-er education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.Second: International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsPART IIArticle 21. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.Article 201. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Annex 132
27Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017 Third: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural RightsPart IIIArticle 61. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.Article 10The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that:1. The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its estab-lishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent chil-dren. Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses.2. Special protection should be accorded to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth. During such period working mothers should be accord-ed paid leave or leave with adequate social security benefits.3. Special measures of protection and assistance should be taken on behalf of all children and young persons without any discrimination for reasons of parentage or other conditions. Children and young persons should be protected from eco-nomic and social exploitation.Their employment in work harmful to their morals or health or dangerous to life or likely to hamper their normal development should be punishable by law. States should also set age limits below which the paid employment of child labor should be prohibited and punishable by law.
Annex 132
28Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017Article 121. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. 2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for: (a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child; (b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene; (c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases; (d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and med-ical attention in the event of sickness. Article 13The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to partici-pate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activi-ties of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.Fourth: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial DiscriminationArticle 4States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed
Annex 132
29Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia: (a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof; (b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence pun-ishable by law; (c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination. Fifth: Arab Charter on Human RightsArticle 31. Each State party to the present Charter undertakes to ensure to all individuals subject to its jurisdiction the right to enjoy the rights and freedoms set forth herein, without distinction on grounds of race, color, sex, language, religious belief, opin-ion, thought, national or social origin, wealth, birth or physical or mental disability.
Annex 132
30Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017Article 81. No one shall be subjected to physical or psychological torture or to cruel, de-grading, humiliating or inhuman treatment.Article 261. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State party shall, within that territory, have the right to freedom of movement and to freely choose his residence in any part of that territory in conformity with the laws in force.Article 321. The present Charter guarantees the right to information and to freedom of opin-ion and expression, as well as the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any medium, regardless of geographical boundaries.2. Such rights and freedoms shall be exercised in conformity with the fundamental values of society and shall be subject only to such limitations as are required to ensure respect for the rights or reputation of others or the protection of national security, public order and public health or morals.Article 331. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society; it is based on mar-riage between a man and a woman. Men and women of marrying age have the right to marry and to found a family according to the rules and conditions of marriage. No marriage can take place without the full and free consent of both parties. The laws in force regulate the rights and duties of the man and woman as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Annex 132
31Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/20172. The State and society shall ensure the protection of the family, the strengthen-ing of family ties, the protection of its members and the prohibition of all forms of violence or abuse in the relations among its members, and particularly against women and children. They shall also ensure the necessary protection and care for mothers, children, older persons and persons with special needs and shall pro-vide adolescents and young persons with the best opportunities for physical and mental development.3. The States parties shall take all necessary legislative, administrative and judi-cial measures to guarantee the protection, survival, development and well-being of the child in an atmosphere of freedom and dignity and shall ensure, in all cases, that the child’s best interests are the basic criterion for all measures taken in his regard, whether the child is at risk of delinquency or is a juvenile offender.Sixth: Human Rights Declaration for the Member States of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the GulfArticle (6)The Freedom of belief and the practice of religious rites is a right of every person according to the regulation (law) without disruption of the public order and public morals.
Annex 132
32Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017Article (9)Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and exercising such freedom is guaranteed insofar as it accords with Islamic Sharia law, public order and the regulations (laws) regulating this area.Article (14)The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, originally com- posed of a man and a woman, governed by religion, morals and patriotism; its entity and bonds are maintained and reinforced by religion. Motherhood, child-hood and members of the family are protected by religion as well as the State and society against all forms of abuse and domestic violence.Article (24)Every person, who has the capacity of doing so, has the right to work and has the right to free choice of employment according to the requirements of dignity and public interest, while just and favorable employment conditions, as well as em-ployees’ and employers’ rights, are ensured.Article (27)Private property is inviolable and no one shall be prevented from the disposition of his property except by the regulation (law), and it may not be expropriated unless for public interest with fair compensation.
Annex 132
33Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017V. RecommendationsTo the international community:To take urgent action to lift the siege, and make every possible effort to mitigate its repercussions on the people of the State of Qatar and citizens of the three countries.The United Nations and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)1- The great amount of social violations constitute a threat to the stability of the region, and is stared to have a negative impact on the economic and social levels. Speedy steps must be taken to force the states that issued these unjust decisions to repeal their actions.2- The OHCHR to prepare reports and statements documenting the various types of violations that affected great numbers of people, especially the families that wereseparated, including the negative consequences on women and children as a re-sult of the separation of their families. Also, the OHCHR to call on these states to respect the basic freedoms of the people living on their lands.
Annex 132
34Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/2017Human Rights CouncilTo Take every possible action in order to end the blockade and its ramifications, and call for the compensation of all people who were harmed and affected.Human Rights Council Special RapporteursTo Document forms of the various types of violations that occurred, and contact the certain concerned governments in that regard as soon as possible. NHRC is fully prepared to share all the related data.General Secretariat of the Gulf Cooperation CouncilThe Dispute Settlement Commission of the Supreme Council at the Gulf Coop-eration Council to take urgent actions and do everything in its power to convince the concerned governments to start settling the dispute and the social, civil, and cultural situation for the affected families and citizens.KSA, UAE, and Kingdom of Bahrain1- Respect the nature of the Gulf societies, and to refrain from making any deci-sions that sever the relations and ties between families and societies , and to repeal these decisions as early as possible.2- Respect the basic human rights related to freedom of movement, private property, work, residence, and freedom of expres-sion and opinion that are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Arab Charter on Human Rights.
Annex 132
35Report of the National Human Rights Committee in Qatar (NHRC)1/07/20173- The political disputes must not affect the humanitarian and social rights and will being of citizens, which is considered a violation of the international law and the international human rights law.To the Qatari Government:To take all possible steps at the international level, at the level of the Security Council and the international forums, to lift the siege on the people of Qatar, to defend their rights in the face of violations against them, and to hold accountable the preparators.
Annex 132

Annex 133
Twitter Post, Regarding the Arrest of Ghanem Mattar,
@AmnestyAR (10 July 2017 at 2:14am)
(with certified translation)

Amnesty International @AmnestyAR If the arrest of Ghanem Mattar in #Emirates is because of his peaceful comments on the crisis with #Qatar, then he is a prisoner of conscience and we demand his immediate release.
Annex 133
Annex 133
Annex 133

Annex 134
Human Rights Watch, Qatar: Isolation Causing Rights Abuses (12 July 2017), available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/13/qatar-isolation-causing-rights-abus…

AroadsignisseennearAbuSamrabordercrossingtoSaudiArabia,QatarJune12,2017.©2017TomFinn/ReutersJULY12,20176:01PMEDTQatar:IsolationCausingRightsAbusesFamiliesSeparated;WorkersStranded;Education,MedicalCareInterrupted(Beirut)–TheisolationofQatarbySaudiArabia,Bahrain,andtheUnitedArabEmirates(UAE)isprecipitatingserioushumanrightsviolations,HumanRightsWatchsaidtoday.Itisinfringingontherighttofreeexpression,separatingfamilies,interruptingmedicalcare–inonecaseforcingachildtomissascheduledbrainsurgery,interruptingeducation,andstrandingmigrantworkerswithoutfoodorwater.TraveltoandfromQatarisrestricted,andthelandborderwithSaudiArabiaisclosed.OnJune5,2017,SaudiArabia,Bahrain,andtheUAEcutoffdiplomaticrelationswithQatarandorderedtheexpulsionofQataricitizensandthereturnoftheircitizensfromQatarwithin14days.Thethreecountriesappliedthetravelrestrictionssuddenly,collectively,andwithouttakingindividualsituationsintoaccount.OnJune23,thethreecountriesandEgyptissuedalistof13demandstoQatarforendingthecrisisthatincludedshuttingdownAlJazeeraandothermediatheyclaimarefundedbyQatar;downgradingdiplomatictieswithIran;severingtieswith“terroristorganizations,”includingtheMuslimBrotherhood;andpayingreparationstootherGulfcountriesfor“lossoflife”and“otherfinanciallosses”resultingfromQatar’spolicies.Page1of13Qatar:IsolationCausingRightsAbuses2/6/2018https://www.hrw.org/print/306510
Annex 134
“Gulfautocrats’politicaldisputesareviolatingtherightsofpeacefulGulfresidentswhowerelivingtheirlivesandcaringfortheirfamilies,”saidSarahLeahWhitson,MiddleEastdirectoratHumanRightsWatch.“HundredsofSaudis,Bahrainis,andEmiratishavebeenforcedintotheimpossiblesituationofeitherdisregardingtheircountries’ordersorleavingbehindtheirfamiliesandjobs.”HumanRightsWatchresearchersinterviewedanddocumentedthecasesof50citizensofQatar,Bahrain,andSaudiArabia,aswellas70foreignmigrantworkerslivinginQatar,manyofwhoserightshavebeenviolatedbyrestrictivepoliciesimposedsinceJune5.Morethan11,327GulfnationalswerelivinginQatarandnearly1,927QatarisinotherGulfcountries,Qatar’snationalhumanrightsbodyreportedonJuly1.GulfnationalstoldHumanRightsWatchthatparentshadbeenforciblyseparatedfromtheiryoungchildrenandhusbandsfromtheirwives,andthatfamilymemberswerepreventedfromvisitingsickorelderlyparents.QatarimediareportedthatfamilymembersofaSaudimanwhodiedinQataronJune8couldnotentertoretrievehisbody,andauthoritieseventuallyburiedhiminQatar.Article26oftheArabCharteronHumanRights,whichSaudiArabia,Bahrain,andtheUAEhaveratified,prohibitsarbitraryexpulsionofforeignersandanycollectiveexpulsion.OneQatarimansaidheiscutofffromhispregnantSaudiwife,whowasvisitingfamilymembersinSaudiArabiawhentherestrictionswereimposed.AQatariwomansaidthatsheleftherailing70-year-oldBahrainihusbandinBahrainbecauseherembassyadvisedhertoreturntoQatar.ABahrainiwomanvirtuallywentintohidingtokeephergovernmentfromdiscoveringshehadremainedwithherQatarihusbandand2-month-olddaughter,whoisaQataricitizen.SomeGulfstateshavethreatenedcitizenswhoremaininQatarwithspecificpunishments.SaudiArabia’sGeneralDirectorateofPassportsplacedQataronitslistofcountriestowhichSaudicitizensarenotallowedtotravelunderpenaltyofathree-yeartravelbanandafineof10,000SaudiRiyals(US$2,600).OnJune13,Bahrain’sInteriorMinistryissuedanorderstatingthat“anyonewhoviolatestheban…shallhavehispersonalpassportwithdrawnandhisrequesttorenewitshallbedenied.”OnJune12,inresponsetoreportsoffamilyseparations,SaudiArabia,Bahrain,andtheUAEannouncedthattheywouldgrantexceptionsfor“humanitariancasesofmixedfamilies”fortravelbackandforthfromQatarandeachcountryestablishedhotlines.Yet,ofthe12Gulfnationalswhosaidtheytriedtocontactthesehotlines,onlytwomanagedtogetpermissiontogobackandforth.OtherssaidthattheydidnotcallbecausetheyworriedthatthethreecountrieswouldusethehotlinestodiscovertheidentitiesofcitizenswhoremainedinQatar.Page2of13Qatar:IsolationCausingRightsAbuses2/6/2018https://www.hrw.org/print/306510
Annex 134
OtherGulfnationalssaidthatthetravelrestrictionshadinterruptedongoingmedicaltreatmentorstudies.TwoQatariparentssaidthattheirchildrenmissedscheduledsurgeriesinSaudihospitals,includingonegirlwhosemothersaidifshedoesnotreceivespecialisttreatmentshecouldendupparalyzed,anda67-year-oldSaudimanwhohadtoendongoingheartandkidneytreatmentinQatar.TheexceptionsSaudiArabia,theUAE,andBahrainannouncedmadenoreferencetomedicaltreatment.AQatariwomanwhohadbeeninherthirdyearataUAEuniversityshowedHumanRightsWatchascreenshotofanemailfromauniversityadministratoronJune7,informingherthattheuniversityhadwithdrawnherfromhersummerandfallcourses,wishingher“successinyoureducationaljourney.”AnotherQatariwomaninthefinalyearofhermedicaldegreeintheUAEalsowasabruptlywithdrawnfromherstudies.AllQataristudentsinterviewedsaidthatthetravelrestrictionsforcedthemtoreturntoQatar.FourQatarissaidthatmigrantworkerstheysponsorarestrandedinSaudiArabiawithoutadequatefoodorwater.HumanRightsWatchalsointerviewed70migrantworkersatvariouslocationsinDoha,nearlyallofwhomcomplainedabouttheriseinfoodpricesinQatarbecauseofincreasingimportcostsduetothelandborderclosure.Theborderclosurealsoexacerbatesexistingabusesthatworkerssaidtheyfaced,includingnon-paymentofsalaries.SaudiArabia,Bahrain,andtheUAEhavesoughttousetheirpoliticalmeasuresagainstQatartoshuttercriticalmediaoutletsintheircountries,especiallyAlJazeera,whichGulfleadershaveaccusedoffomentingterrorismandunrestacrosstheregion.BahrainandtheUAEhavethreatenedtopunishtheirowncitizensfor“expressingsympathy”forQataronline."Gulfcountriesneedtotakeastepbackandseetheharmtheyaredoingtotheirowncitizens,”Whitsonsaid."Gulfcountriesshouldputpeople’swell-beingbeforetheirharmfulpowergames.”FamilySeparationSaudiArabia,Bahrain,andtheUAEorderedtheexpulsionofallQataricitizensfromtheircountriesandmandatedthereturnoftheircitizensfromQatarwithin14days–byJune19.ThethreecountriesendedallcommercialdirectflightstoandfromDoha,forcingreturningGulfnationalstolayoverinathirdcountry,usuallyOmanorKuwait,andredirectedflightstoQataroutsideoftheirairspace.SomeGulfstateshavethreatenedcitizenswhoremaininQatarwithspecificpunishments.AJuly1reportbythestate-fundedQatariNationalHumanRightsCommitteesaysthatapproximately8,254Saudis,2,349Bahrainis,and784EmiratislivedinQatarpriortothecrisisandthat1,927QatarisPage3of13Qatar:IsolationCausingRightsAbuses2/6/2018https://www.hrw.org/print/306510
Annex 134
livedinthethreeneighboringcountries.Thereportsaidthatthecommitteehadreceived480familyseparationcasessinceJune5.NoGulfCooperationCouncil(GCC)countryallowsdualnationality,andalldiscriminateagainstwomenbynotallowingwomentopassnationalitytotheirchildrenonthesamebasisasmen.Qatar,likeotherGulfstates,allowsmentopasscitizenshiptotheirchildren,whereaschildrenofQatariwomenandnon-citizenfatherscanonlyapplyforcitizenshipunderstrictconditions.The2005acquisitionofQatarinationalitylawprovidesthatindividualsresidentformorethan25yearscanapplyfornationality,withpriorityforthosewithQatarimothers,underspecificconditions.“Sami,”a36-year-oldBahrainimanborninQatartoaQatarimotherandBahrainifather,said,“Iwasbornhere,studiedhere,andworkhere.”HeappliedforQatarinationalitysixyearsago,buthadnotbeennotifiedofadecision:“Thereisacommittee.Ididamedicaltest,CID[acheckwithCriminalInvestigationDepartment],andpaid3000riyals(US$823).Theysaidallfine,butsaidthatIhavetowaitforgovernmentapproval.Buttheydidn’tcallme.”Ofthe50GulfnationalsHumanRightsWatchinterviewed,22reportedthatthetravelrestrictionscutthemofffromimmediatefamilymembers.HumanRightsWatchinterviewed15peoplewhosaidtheyweremarriedtosomeoneholdinganotheroneofthesenationalitiesorweredivorcedbuthadchildrenwiththem.“Maher,”a37-yearoldQatari,saidthetravelrestrictionscuthimofffromhisSaudiwife,whohadbeenvisitinghermotherinSaudiArabia’sEasternProvince.Hesaidhiswife,whoisfromhisownextendedfamily,isnotallowedtoflybecausesheisinherlasttrimesterofpregnancy,andthatSaudiauthoritieswillnotallowhertocrossthelandborderintoQatar:“OnThursday[June15],Iwenttotheborderatnoonandspoketothem,andtheysaidIhavetospeakwiththeInteriorMinistry.Italkedtothemonthenumbertheygavemeandtheysaidtheywouldcallmeback.Iwaitedthere2hours,from12to2p.m....Iwentback[home]eventuallybecausemycarhadnopetrol[left].”Mahersaidthesituationiscomplicatedbythefactthatheneverregisteredhismarriageineithercountry:“Ijustwantmywifeandtobewiththebaby.Wedidn’tfinishourmarriagepapers,sothereisnoconfirmationofmarriageforus.NowIcan’tcompletethepapers.IamafraidtheywilltakemychildawayandmakehisnationalitySaudi.”Hesaidhealsofearspotentialcriminalsanctionagainsthiswifebecauseofherpregnancy.SexualrelationsoutsideofmarriagearecriminalizedinGulfstates,andfloggingpenaltiescanbeimposedonMuslims.“Leila,”a26-yearoldBahrainiwoman,saidthatshefrequentlytraveledbackandforthbetweenQatarandBahrainwithherQatarihusband.ShesaidshedeliveredababygirlinQatarseveralweeksbeforethePage4of13Qatar:IsolationCausingRightsAbuses2/6/2018https://www.hrw.org/print/306510
Annex 134
AsignindicatingaroutetoQatarembassyisseeninManama,Bahrain,June5,2017.©2017HamadIMohammed/Reuterstravelrestrictionswereimposed,andwasforcedtodecidebetweencomplyingwiththeordertoreturntoBahrainorremainwithherdaughterandhusband.ShesaidshewasdeeplyworriedoverBahrain’sordertocancelpassportsofcitizenswhoremaininQatar,andhopedshecouldkeepBahrainiauthoritiesfromlearningthatsheisinQatar.Shesaidshewouldnottraveluntilthecrisisisresolved:“I’mscaredtotravelanywhere.Whatiftheygetinformationaboutmeandareabletocancelmypassport?Idon’twantanyinformationinthesystemanywhere.”ShesaidshehadtriedtocalltheBahrainihotlinebutwastoldshehadtoreturntoBahrainandaskedforherpassportnumber.HumanRightsWatchinterviewedtwoQatariswhowereforcedtoreturnbutwerestayinginhotelsinDohabecausetheydidnothavehomesinQatar.“Reem”saidthatshehadlivedinBahrainwithherBahrainihusbandandchildrenfor36years.ShecalledtheQatariembassyinManama,whichshesaysinformedherthatshehadtoreturntoQatar.Shesaidthatsheleftbehindher70-year-oldBahrainihusbandandtwosons:“ThereisnobodyinBahraintotakecareof[myhusband].Heis70,hecanbarelytakecareofhimself,andmyothersonshavetheirownfamilies.TheywereveryupsetIwasleaving.”ShesaidthatshebroughttoQatarher25-yearoldson,aBahraininational,whosuffersfromanintellectualdisabilityandepilepsyandrequiresregularmedicaltreatment.ShesaidsheworrieswhatwillhappenifBahrainiauthoritiesdiscoverthatheisinQatar.InQatar,shehaslimitedforeigncurrencyincashthatshehaddifficultyexchanging,andisnowdependentontheQatariauthoritiesandcharitiestoprovideherwithaccommodationandfinancialassistance.AnotherQatariman,“Ahmed,”whoismarriedtoanEmiratiwomanandlivesintheUAE,saidthattheUAEhaddeniedhisentryaroundthetimeitimposedthetravelrestrictionsandforcedhimbacktoQatar,wherehewasstayinginahotel.“Doesanyonewantthis?”hesaid.“Doesthiscomplywithinternationallawsandcustoms?InHolyRamadan[theMuslimholymonth],thereisacompletelackofmercyandfamiliesarebrokenapart,childrenfromtheirfatherandahusbandfromhiswife.”Page5of13Qatar:IsolationCausingRightsAbuses2/6/2018https://www.hrw.org/print/306510
Annex 134
“Nora,”a36-yearoldSaudiwomanlivinginQatarsaidshehasa3-year-oldQatarisonfromapreviousmarriagetoaQatari.Shesaidthatshehaslegalcustodyoverhersonandisentitledtomonthlyfinancialandchildsupport,butthatherformerhusbandwasencouraginghertoreturntoSaudiArabiasothathecouldregaincustodyandstophissupportpayments.Ofthe50Gulfnationalsinterviewed,only12saidthattheyhadattemptedtocontactthefamilyseparationhotlines.Therestsaidthattheydidnotthinktheywouldreceivepermissiontotravelbackandforth,orthattheywereworriedthatthehotlineswereintendedtocollectinformationonwhichcitizenshadfailedtoreturntoorfromQatar.Only2ofthe12peoplewhohadcontactedthehotlines,oneSaudiandoneBahraini,saidtheyhadobtainedpermissiontoliveinQatarandtravelbackandforth.Forcedseparationoffamiliesoftenviolatestherightofallindividualstohavetheirestablishedfamilyliferespected.Therighttofamilylifeisenshrinedinarticle16oftheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights,article23oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,andarticle23oftheArabCharteronHumanRights.TheConventionontheRightsoftheChildprohibitsstatesfromseparatingchildrenfromtheirparentsagainsttheirwill,exceptwhennecessaryfortheirownbestinterests(article9),andfromdiscriminatingagainstchildrenonthebasisoftheirparents’status(article2).Article26oftheArabCharterstatesthat“[n]oStatepartymayexpelapersonwhodoesnotholditsnationalitybutislawfullyinitsterritory,otherthaninpursuanceofadecisionreachedinaccordancewithlawandafterthatpersonhasbeenallowedtosubmitapetitiontothecompetentauthority”andthat“collectiveexpulsionisprohibitedunderallcircumstances.”InterruptedMedicalTreatmentFiveGulfnationalssaidthatthetravelrestrictionsdisruptedmedicaltreatmentforthemselvesorfamilymembers.“Amani,”aQatariwoman,saidthather15-year-olddaughterwasbornwithaspinalproblemandhadundergoneaseriesofoperationsattwohospitalsinRiyadhsinceshewasaninfant.ShesaidthatinFebruary,herdaughterhadbrainsurgery,andthatshewasscheduledforanothersurgeryinRiyadhonJune17,whichshemissedbecauseofthetravelrestrictions.ShesaidsuchspecialisttreatmentisnotavailableinQatar:“[Thereis]nochancetotravelandtheheadachesarebecomingmoresevere.…Itcouldbecomeparalysis.Sheneedsanimmediatesolution.…Wedon’thavemoneytogoelsewhereforsuchtreatment.”Page6of13Qatar:IsolationCausingRightsAbuses2/6/2018https://www.hrw.org/print/306510
Annex 134
“Mahmoud,”a67-yearoldSaudiman,saidthathehaslivedandworkedinQatarformorethan10years.Hesaidhemissedthe14-daydeadlineashehadmedicalappointmentseveryday.HesaidhewouldreturntoSaudiArabiaandforgofollow-upmedicaltreatmentbecausehefearedfinesorprison:“Ihavemedicalconditions–oneinmyheart,andoneinmykidney.MycurrentmedicaltreatmentisinQatar.…Ihavetwoappointments[inQatar]thatIwillmiss.…Ifeelconfused,Iwanttoseemyfamily,butIwanttoworkhere.Iamscaredofactionsthatmaybetakenagainstme.”ShortlyaftermeetingwithHumanRightsWatch,hewasabletoenterSaudiArabia.“Walid,”56,aQatari,saidthathissonhadbeenscheduledforrequiredfacialsurgeryatahospitalinRiyadhonJune9.HesaidthetreatmentplanfollowingtheoperationisnotavailableinQatar.HesaidhewouldspeakwiththeQatariHealthMinistrytoseeiftheywouldprovidefinancialsupporttoseekthesurgeryandnecessarytreatmentoutsidetheGulf.InterruptedEducationElevenQatariswhohadbeenattendinguniversityprogramsorspecializedtrainingcoursesintheUAEwhentherestrictionswereimposedallsaidthattheiruniversitiessummarilywithdrewthemfromtheircoursesandtoldthemtoreturntoQatar.TheyexpressedconcernsthatuniversitiesinQatarorothercountriesmightnotallowthemtotransferandacceptacademiccreditsforcompletedcourses,orthatcertaincoursesarenotavailableinQatar.“Hassan,”34,saidthathewasamong13QatarisattendingaviationschoolintheUAE.Hesaidthathisgrouphadonlycompletedtwoofthefivecoursesnecessarytograduate:“Wecannotsitfortheexamandwewillnotgraduatethisyear.Itistheonlyaviationschoolintheregionwiththisprogram,otherwisewehavetogototheUKorUS,butIdon’tknowifthecreditswouldtransfer.”AnotherQatariman,“Samer,”oneofaround25to30studentsattendingapart-timeuniversitydegreecourseintheUAE,describedtheproblemsresultingfromhisexpulsion:“Wehaverentedapartments,furniture,andclothesthatarestillthereandhavetopayinternetandtelephonebills.Theowner[oftheapartment]hasourchecks–wehavetoprovidefourchecksinadvancewhichtheywilltakefromtheaccount.Therentalcontractisoneyear.Ifthereisnobalanceleftintheaccount,thentheownercanmakeapolicecasefile.Anytimeyougobackyoucanbearrested…”“Rana,”a22-yearoldQatari,saidthatherwithdrawalfromaprominentuniversityintheUAEhadsetbackherplantoeventuallypursuehighereducationinFrance:“AllIcansayisthatthissiegehasrobbedmeoftherighttopursuethequalityofeducationthatIaimedtoachieve.Thissiegehasharmedourdreamsandourfutures.”Page7of13Qatar:IsolationCausingRightsAbuses2/6/2018https://www.hrw.org/print/306510
Annex 134
IdentityDocumentationIssuesSaudiArabia,Bahrain,theUAE,andEgypthavewithdrawntheirembassiesandstafffromQatar,makingpassportrenewaldifficultfornationalsofthosecountrieswhodonothavepermissiontoremaininQatar.Theyalsofacesignificantobstaclesobtainingdocumentsfornewbornchildren.ResidencyvisasinQatararelinkedtovalidpassports,andsomeforeignnationalsexpressedconcernaboutwhatwillhappentotheirresidencyvisasoncetheirpassportsexpire.“Hussein,”a38-yearoldSaudi,saidthathehaslivedinDohafor25years,andthathiswifegavebirthtoasonthedaythetravelrestrictionswereimposed.HissonhasaQataribirthcertificate,butHusseinsaidhecannotaddthebabytohisSaudifamilybook,aformofIDthatiscommonlyusedaschildren’smainformofidentificationintheMiddleEast,orobtainapassportforhim,becausetheprocessinSaudiArabiarequireshimtocomeinperson.Hesaid,“thesysteminSaudiArabiaisthatanewborninthefirstweekmustobtainaSaudiID,butSaudiArabiarequiresmetogobacktocomplete[theprocedure].ButIfeelindangergoingback.HowcanIleaveSaudiArabiaifIgothere?”AnotherSaudiman,“Assem,”saidthathis12-yearoldsister’sSaudipassportexpired,andheworriedthathemaynotbeabletoenrollherinschoolinQatar,asQatarrequiresthatforeignstudentshavevalidpassports.AllBahrainiintervieweestoldHumanRightsWatchthattheyfearedtheconsequencesofBahrain’sannouncementthatitwouldrevokethepassportsofBahrainicitizenswhoremaininQatar.OnedivorcedQatariwomanwhoseadultchildrenhavetheirfather’sBahraininationality,butareestrangedfromhim,saidthatshecannottravelabroadwithherchildrenasshefearedthattheirpassportsmaybeinvalidated.HumanRightsWatchspoketosevenEgyptianemployeesofAlJazeerawhosaidthattheycannotrenewtheirEgyptianpassportsandthereforeareworriedaboutlosingtheirQatariresidencypermits.ManyofthemmovedtoQataraftertheywerethreatened,intimidated,beaten,orarrestedbyauthoritiesinEgypt.OnejournalistsaidheappliedforhisEgyptianpassportinJanuary,butthatEgyptianembassyofficialstoldhiminAprilthathewouldnotreceivethepassport.Itwillexpireinonemonth.EffectsonNon-GulfMigrantWorkersTheisolationofQatarhasnegativelyaffectednon-Gulfforeignmigrantworkers,primarilyfromSouthAsia.FourQatarisinterviewedsaidthatmigrantworkerstheysponsorarestrandedinSaudiArabia.OneQatari,“Omar,”saidthatheemployedtwoBangladeshiworkersata14,000-squaremeterfarmheownsjustovertheborderinSaudiArabia.HesaidtheworkersareregisteredinQatar,butthatSaudiPage8of13Qatar:IsolationCausingRightsAbuses2/6/2018https://www.hrw.org/print/306510
Annex 134
ArabiapreviouslyallowedQataristobringworkersinforthree-monthperiodsforafee.Hesaidhecannolongerreachhisfarmandworriesaboutthetwoworkers:“IcansendtheirsalariestoBangladesh,buthowcanIfeedthem?...Thesupermarket[inSaudiArabia]refusedtogivethemanything[becausetheyhavenomoney],andwearescaredthepolicewilltakethem.Thereisnowaytopaytheirsalariestothem.”Headded,“Theyarehumans,theyarecallingmeeverydaysayingtheyhavenothingtodrinkoreat,andtheyarescared.”OmarcalledoneoftheBangladeshimenonhisphoneinfrontofaHumanRightsWatchresearcher,andthemanconfirmedtheirplight.“Salim,”a50-yearoldQatari,saidthatheownstwohousesand150camelsinSaudiArabia.HesaidhehasgroupofQatar-registeredmigrantworkersfromIndia,Sudan,andNepalcaringforhiscamelsandpropertywhoarenowstrandedinSaudiArabia.“Anwar,”anotherQatari,saidthatheandhisbrothersown50camelsandthreecarsinSaudiArabia,whicharelookedafterbythreemigrantworkers–twofromBangladeshandonefromSudan–whoarestranded.Hesaidhelostcontactwiththemaweekintothecrisisbecausetheyranoutofphonecredit.Hesaidhecannotgettheirsalarytothemandisconcernedthattheyarerunningoutoffood.“Aweekbefore[the]crisisIgavefoodforonemonth.Butnowtheydon’thavepetrolforthe[generator-run]refrigeratorandtheairconditioner.”Hedoesnothavefriendsnearbytohelp.TheproblemsfortheseworkersarecompoundedbythefactthatinMarch,SaudiArabiadeclaredalarge-scalecampaign,“AHomelandwithnoViolator,”tolocateandexpelforeignersviolatingresidencylaws.InadditiontothemigrantstrappedinSaudiArabia,HumanRightsWatchinterviewed70migrantworkers–mostfromNepal,India,Bangladesh,andPakistan–atvariouslocationsinDoha,includingtheCorniche,al-AttiyahMarket,andMusheirib.Somereportedlong-standingabusessuchasnon-paymentorlatepaymentofsalariesorunsanitarylivingconditions,butnearlyallcomplainedthattheclosureofthelandborderhadcausedariseinfoodpricesinQatarthatwascausingseriouseconomichardship.A43-year-oldNepalesemanworkinginaplumbingshopinQatarsaidthatfromhismonthlysalaryof1,200QatariRiyals(US$327),henormallyspendsaround200Riyals($55)onfood,butthattheincreaseinfoodpriceswouldcosthimanextra100to300Riyals($27to$82)permonth,uptoathirdofhissalary.Another21-year-oldNepaleseconstructionworkersaidheearns800Riyals($220)amonthbutthathisfoodexpenseswouldincreaseto350Riyals($96),nearlyhalfofhissalary.HumanRightsWatchresearchersvisitedfoursupermarketsinDohaonJune22-23,includingtwosmallermarketsfrequentedbymigrants,andtwohigh-endsupermarkets.Nearlyallmigrantssaidthat,beforethePage9of13Qatar:IsolationCausingRightsAbuses2/6/2018https://www.hrw.org/print/306510
Annex 134
landborderclosure,tomatoescostbetween3-4QatariRiyals($0.82-$1.10)akilo.Forthelowerendsupermarketsinmigrantworkerareas,researchersobservedthatpoorqualitytomatoeswerenowsellingfor6.5Riyals($1.79)perkiloinonemarketandbetter-qualitytomatoesfor8Riyals($2.20)inanothermarket.Inthehigh-endmarkets,onehadnotomatoesinstock,whileanothersoldonlyexpensiveimportedtomatoesfromHolland,for24.75Riyals($6.80)perkilo.Oneofthelow-endmarketswassellingcucumbersfor8Riyals($2.20)perkilo,upfrom3Riyals($0.82)priortothecrisis.AcorporatesocialresponsibilityofficeratalargecompanyinQatarsaidbyphonethatsheheardfromtwoothercompanieswithmigrantworkeremployeesthatfruitcompanieswerenotsellingtheirproduce“insupermarketsforworkers”butdidnotknowwhy.Shesaidthathercompanywasfocusedonnutritionforitsmigrantworkersandlookingatalternativesforperishablefruitsandvegetablessuchasfruitjuice,andfrozenfruitsandvegetables.Twoconstructionworkersalsosaidthattheirworksiteshadrunoutofbuildingmaterialsbecauseofthelandborderclosure,andthattheyworriedabouttheircompanies’stability.Yourtaxdeductiblegiftcanhelpstophumanrightsviolationsandsavelivesaroundtheworld.$50$100$250$500$1,000OtherDonateNowRegion/Country•MiddleEast/NorthAfrica•QatarPage10of13Qatar:IsolationCausingRightsAbuses2/6/2018https://www.hrw.org/print/306510
Annex 134
MoreReading•July1,2017NewsReleaseQatar/SaudiArabia:AllowManTrappedatBordertoEnter•Page11of13Qatar:IsolationCausingRightsAbuses2/6/2018https://www.hrw.org/print/306510
Annex 134
June14,2017NewsReleaseMediaBlocked,ThreatenedinDisputewithQatarSourceURL:https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/13/qatar-isolation-causing-rights-abus…
Annex 134
3A//www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/13/qatar-isolation-causing-rights-abuses[24]ma…]http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https%3A//www.hr…
Annex 134

Annex 135
National Human Rights Committee, 100 Days Under the Blockade: NHRC Third report on human rights violations caused by the blockade imposed on the state of Qatar
(30 August 2017)

Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135
Annex 135

Annex 136
National Human Rights Committee, 6 Months of Violations, What Happens Now? The Fourth General Report on the Violations of Human Rights Arising from the Blockade on the State of Qatar (5 December 2017)
(with certified translation)

Doha,Qatar6MONTHSOFVIOLATIONSWHATHAPPENSNOW?THEFOURTHGENERALREPORTONTHEVIOLATIONSOFHUMANRIGHTSARISINGFROMTHEBLOCKADEONTHESTATEOFQATARDECEMBER5,2017
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC1CopyrightreservedbytheNationalHumanRightsCommittee,Doha,Qatar,2017TableofContentsOneSummaryTwoAbriefoverviewoftheCommitteeThreeMethodologyFourThemostsignificantviolations:a.Splitting-upoffamilies,particularlywomenandchildrenb.Stoppageofcontinuingeducationc.Stoppageofworkd.Violationoffreedomofopinionandexpressione.Violationoftherightofmovementandresidencef.Violationofpropertyrightsg.Deprivationoftherighttoperformreligiousobservancesh.Incitementtoviolenceandcoercioni.Violationoftherighttohealth,particularlyforwomen,children,andthedisabledj.TherighttolitigationFiveConclusionsandlegalcharacterizationSixRecommendations
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC2ONE:SUMMARYTheinhumaneblockadeimposedupontheStateofQatarhasbeenongoingsinceJune5,2017anditcontinuestothisdaybytheKingdomofSaudiArabia,theUnitedArabEmirates,andtheKingdomofBahrain,aswellastheArabRepublicofEgypt.Theviolationsassociatedwithithavealsocontinuedwithoutanyresponsivenessonthepartofthosecountriestoremedytheseviolations.ItisforthisreasonthattheNationalHumanRightsCommittee(NHRC)hascompiledaseriesofspecialreportsregardingtheseviolationsandhasobservedandrecordedtheirhumanitarianeffectsandthesocialandeconomicramificationsassociatedwiththem.Inthisregard,theNHRChascontactedsome450humanrightsentitiesandgovernmentalandnon-governmentalnationalandregionalorganizationstopleadwiththemtotakeurgentactiontodealwiththeeffectsofthehumanitariancrisisthatisbeingcausedbytheblockade.TheNHRChasalsoconducted33visitstoEuropeanandworldcapitalstomakethemawareofthescaleoftheviolationstakingplaceinQatarbytheblockadingcountries.ThisisthefourthgeneralreportissuedbytheNHRCtodocumenttheseviolations,anditjoinstheseriesofgeneralreportsalreadypreparedbytheNHRC:1.TheFirstReportonHumanRightsViolationsarisingfromtheblockadeoftheStateofQatardatedJune13,2017;2.TheSecondReportonHumanRightsViolationsarisingfromtheblockadeoftheStateofQatardatedJuly1,2017;and3.TheThirdReportonhumanrightsviolationsarisingfromtheblockadeoftheStateofQatardatedAugust30,2017.Theseareinadditiontothespecialreportsontheviolations:1.TheReportontheViolationoftheRighttoEducationdatedSeptember5,2017;2.TheReportontheDeprivationoftheRighttoPerformReligiousObservancesdatedAugust24,2017;3.TheReportontheViolationoftheRighttoOwnPropertydatedAugust30,2017;and4.TheReportontheViolationoftheRighttoFoodandMedicinedatedSeptember3,2017.Thisreportisbasedonnewtestimonyofnewvictimswhohavesufferedviolationsoftheirbasicrightsasaconsequenceoftheblockade.TheNHRCwillcontinuetoupdatethebasicreportwhiletheblockadecontinuesandthestreamofcomplaintsfromitsvictimscontinuestoflow.TheNHRChasmetwithnumerousinternationalhumanrightsorganizations,bothgovernmentalandnon-governmental,suchastheTechnicalDelegationoftheOfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRightsoftheUnitedNations(OHCHR)duringtheperiodfromNovember18-23,2017,theofficeofAmnestyInternationaltwiceduringtheperiodsfromJune6-8,2017andNovember28-30,2017,theofficeofHumanRightsWatch(HRW)duringtheperiodfromJune19-20,2017,andtheinternationalorganizationAFDduringtheperiodfromJuly22-25,2017.TheNHRChasalsometwithparliamentarydelegationsfromEuropeancountriesinordertofamiliarizethemwiththeviolationstakingplaceagainsttheStateofQatarduetotheblockade.Accordingtoinformationwehaveobtained,approximately11,387nationalsofthethreeblockadingGulfStatesresideintheStateofQatarand1,927Qatarinationalsresideinthosestates.
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC3TWO:ABRIEFOVERVIEWOFTHENATIONALCOMMITTEEFORHUMANRIGHTS(NHRC)TheNHRCisoneofwhatisknownastheNationalHumanRightsInstitutions(NHRIs),whichwereestablishedinaccordancewiththeso-calledParisPrinciples,whichwereendorsedbytheUnitedNationsGeneralAssembly.TheseorganizationsobtainmembershipintheGlobalAllianceofHumanRightsInstitutions(GANHRI)afterhavingbeensubjectedtoanaccreditationprocessapprovedbytheSub-CommitteeonAccreditation(SCA)oftheGANNRIAllianceunderthesupervisionoftheNationalInstitutions,RegionalMechanismsandCivilSocietySection(NRCS)oftheOfficeoftheHighCommissionerofHumanRights(OHCHR),whichistheequivalentoftheGeneralSecretariatoftheSub-CommitteeonAccreditation(SCA)oftheGANHRIalliance.TheNHRCwasestablishedin2002andvestedwithpowersandjurisdictiontoprotectandupholdhumanrightsinaccordancewiththeParisPrinciples,andobtainedaratingof“A”in2010forfiveyears.Itwasagaingiventhesameratingin2015foraperiodof5years,whichisthehighestratingthatcanbeawardedtoanationalorganizationandservestoconfirmitsreliability,independence,andcompleteadherencetotheParisPrinciples.THREE:METHODOLOGYTheblockadeagainsttheStateofQatarhasbeeninplacefor184daysasofthisdate,andtheNHRC’sofficialheadquartersintheQataricapital,Doha,continuestoreceivecomplaintsfromvictimswhohavebeenharmedbythedecisionsoftheblockadingcountries,whichhavecommittedviolationsofanumberofhumanrightsinthefollowingareas:Familyreunification,education,propertyrights,movementandresidence,performanceofreligiousrituals,health,employment,andothers.Thedecisionsoftheblockadingstatesandtheirconsequenceshavecausedharmatalllevelsofsocietyandconstituteaviolationofallofprovisionsonhumanrightsunderallinternationallaws,statutes,andcustoms.Thesemeasures,whichweresuddenlyannouncedpubliclyonJune5oflastyear,forcedthecitizensoftheStateofQatartoleavethethreeGulfStateswithin14days.Qataricitizenswereprohibitedfromenteringtheirterritoriesand,insomecases,womenwereseparatedfromtheirhusbands,andmothersfromtheirchildren.Thisstruckadevastatingblowagainstlegalandhumanitarianprinciplesandstandards.Itshouldbementionedherethatsingleindividualshavecertainly,insomecases,beensubjectedtomorethanonetypeofviolation.Therefore,thecombinedfilesaremorethanacollectionofreportsonagroupofindividuals;wehavealsorecordedincidentsinwhichanindividualhasbeenseparatedfromhis/herfamily,casesinwhicheducationhashadtobediscontinued,andotherswheremovementhasbeenprohibited.Insomeofthesecases,asingleindividualhassufferedfromallthreeoftheseviolations.WhentheCommitteereceivesreportsfromthevictimsoftheblockade,itdocumentstheviolationsagainsttheirrightsandthensharestheseviolationsonanongoingbasiswiththecompetentlegalandhumanrightsbodies.TheNHRCmonitorstheresponsivenessoftheblockadingcountriestoitsreports.TheNHRCmonitorsinstancesofviolationsreportedtothecompetentinternationallegalandhumanrightsbodiesandcontinuestoreportthem.Wewillcoverthisindetailforeachright.InthisreportweshinealightonthemostimportantviolationsthathavebeeninflictedontheStateofQatarasaresultofthecurrentlyongoingblockade.Wehaveselectedandpresentedthetestimonyofaselectionofvictimsofeachtypeofviolationinordertokeepthereportwithinamanageablesize.However,weconfirmthatitispossibleforthecompetentauthoritiestoobtainadequatesupportingforms.Inthisreport,werefertoindividualsbytheirinitialsinordertoprotecttheirprivacy,security,andsafety.
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC4Atthisjuncture,wemustpointoutthattheQatariGovernmenthasnottakenanysimilaractionagainstthenationalsoftheblockadingstates,andtheNHRChasreceivednocomplaintinthisregard.TheStateofQatarsetupaCompensationClaimCommitteefordamagesarisingfromtheblockadeonJune22,2017.Thatcommitteehasbeentaskedwiththefollowing:1.Toreceivecomplaintsandclaimsforcompensationfromindividuals,privateorganizations,andthepublicsector;2.Toinvestigatecomplaintsfromalegalpointofviewtoascertainwhetheritwastheblockadethatcausedharmtotheinjuredparties;3.Toinstructinternationallawfirmstoinvestigatethepossibilityofinitiatinglawsuitsagainsttheblockadingstatestoobtaincompensationfortheinjuredparties;4.Tosuperviseandcoordinateamongstateauthorities,theprivatesector,individuals,andlawfirmsinordertoensurethattheyarefurnishedwiththedocumentationtheyneed;and5.TocloselymonitortheclaimfiledbytheStateofQatartotheWorldTradeOrganizationandprovidetherequirementsthereof.AcooperativerelationshipexistsbetweentheNHRCandtheCompensationClaimCommittee,towhichtheNHRCrefersallofthecomplaintsitreceives.Numerousmeetingscontinuetobeheldwithitinordertocategorizethevictimsinordertoredressinjuriesinaccordancewiththerelevantinternationalandregionaltreaties.Aspartofongoingeffortstodealwiththeviolations,theNHRChascorrespondedwiththefollowing:TheSaudiNationalSocietyforHumanRights(NSHR),September24,2017;ThreelettersweresenttotheEmiratesHumanRightsAssociation:1.October8,2017,2.October15,2017,3.October23,2017;andTheEgyptianNationalCouncilforHumanRights(NCHR),October2,2017.TheNHRCsenttotheaboveorganizationsalllistsofthevictimsinordertohelpthemtocontacttheauthoritiesintheirowncountriesforassistancewiththeviolations.However,theCommitteehasnotreceivedanyresponseasofthepresenttime,apartfromtheEgyptianNCHR,whichrespondedpositivelytoourletter.WepointoutthattherehavebeencontinuousbutunsuccessfulattemptstocontacttheBahrainiNationalHumanRightsCommittee(NHRC).
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC5FOUR:THEMOSTSIGNIFICANTVIOLATIONSThefollowingtableshowsabreakdownoftheviolationsrecordedbytheNHRC,whichamountto3,970reportsasofthedateofpublicationofthisreport.TheyhavebeenclassifiedbythecountrythatcommittedtheviolationandaccordingtothetypeofviolationagainsttherightsofthecitizensandresidentsoftheStateofQatar:DateofrecordViolationsViolatingcountryEducationOwnershipFamilyReunificationMovementHealthPerformReligiousObservancesWorkResidenceTotalDecember5,2017SaudiArabia626773367531916366572,133Emirates146423803344-64997Bahrain285221312614-3732502Variousothers26822-39----329Total---9----95041,1746291,26137163109933,970ThistablesetsoutthelateststatisticsoftheviolationsagainsttheStateofQatarsincethebeginningoftheblockadeonJune5,2017untilDecember5,2017.Therewere504violationsagainsttherighttoeducation,1,174violationsagainsttherighttoownership,629violationsagainsttherightoffamilyunity,1,261violationsagainsttherighttomovement,37violationsagainsttherighttohealth,163violationsagainsttherighttoperformreligiousobservances,109violationsagainsttherighttowork,and93violationsagainsttherighttoresidence.A.FAMILYREUNIFICATION,PARTICULARLYWOMENANDCHILDREN7006005004003002001000JuneJulyAugustNovemberThischartshowstheincreaseinviolationsoffamilyunityfromJunetoNovember2017.
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC6TheCommitteehasreceivedthousandsofcomplaintsaboutviolationscausedbytheblockadeimposedupontheStateofQatar.ThemostcommonamongthemwerethoserelatingtotheviolationoftherighttokeepmembersofthesameGulffamiliestogether,whichhaveresultedintheseparationofwomen,children,peoplewithdisabilities,andtheelderly,anddeprivationofparentsoftherighttoremainwiththeirchildren.ThecitizensoftheGulfareinterconnectedbyfamilialbondsofkinshipthathaveexistedforhundredsofyears.ThedemandthatQataricitizensshouldleavetheblockadingstatesandthatthecitizensoftheblockadingstatesshouldleaveQatarhascreatedinhumanesituations,quiteapartfromconstitutingaviolationoftherighttotravelasprovidedbynumerousinternationalconventions.Thiseffectivelymeanscompulsorydeportationandsplittingoffamiliesandpreventionofmothersfrombeingabletoremainwiththeirchildren.Duetotheseviolations,theNHRChasrecorded629casesrelatingtofamiliesthathavebeenseparated,butitiscertainthatthetruefiguremustbemuchhigher.Therearecertainlysomeinstancesofviolationswherefamilieshavebeenpermittedtoenterbutforonlyonetimeandinarandomfashionwithoutanyclearmechanism,afterwhichthebordershavebeenfirmlysealed.Mr.S.F.isaSaudinationalandsoundengineerbornintheStateofQatarin1991.HecontactedtheNHRCinastateofgreatanxiety,saying:“MyfamilyandIweregreatlyaffectedbythenewsoftheblockade.WehavebeenorderedtoleavetheStateofQatarandhavebeenforcedtoleaveourfamilyandextendedfamilytocomplywiththeorders.MywifeissixmonthspregnantandisQatari.Iamsufferingpsychologicaldistress.”AccordingtothetestimonyofMrs.I.R.totheNHRC,shewasbannedfromtravellingtoseeherchildrenbecausesheisaQatarinational.“IamaQatarimotherwhoisdivorcedfromherBahrainihusband.IhavechildrenwithhimandItraveltotheKingdomofBahrainfourtimesayeartoseemychildren.Afterthisdecision,IamunabletodosoandthefatherisunwillingtosendthechildrentoQatarsoIcanseethem.”Mrs.A.F.,aQatarinationalbornin1987,gavetestimonytotheNHRCinwhichshesetoutindetailthenatureoftheviolationsshehasbeensubjectedto:“IwasmarriedtoanEmiraticitizen.Whenhedivorcedme,heinitiatedalawsuittodeprivemeofcustodyofmychildrenandhasnowmarriedanotherwoman.Afterthedecisiontoimposetheblockade,thejudgeintheEmiratesorderedthatIshouldbedeprivedofcustodywithoutjustification,andIhavebeendeprivedofallofmyrights.”Mr.Kh.A.,aQatarinationalbornin1968,visitedtheheadquartersoftheNHRCandmadeastatementinwhichhedetailedtheviolationsheandhisfamilyhavebeensubjectedto:“MywifeisSaudiandIamQatari.Eversincethedecisiontoimposetheblockade,whenall[Saudi]citizenswereorderedtoreturntoSaudiArabiaandleaveQatar,Ihavebeenunabletogetmywifebackbecausemysituationdoesnotallowit.”
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC7B.STOPPAGEOFCONTINUINGEDUCATION7006005004003002001000JuneJulyAugustNovemberThischartshowsthestatisticalincreaseinviolationsofstoppageofcontinuationofeducationfromJunetoNovember2017.TheCommitteehasbeeninundatedbycomplaintsunderthisheadingconcerningsome236caseswhereQataristudentswhowerestudyingatuniversitiesinSaudiArabia,theEmirates,andBahrainhavefoundthemselvesdeprivedoftheopportunitytocontinuetheirstudies;theyhavebeenforcedtoreturntotheircountriesafterthedecisionofthesecountriestoseverrelationswithQataronJune5,2017.Duetothosearbitrarymeasuresanddecisions,hundredsofstudentshavebeendeprivedoftheopportunitytocompletetheirstudies,whichconstitutesaflagrantviolationoftherighttoeducation.TheblockadingcountrieshavealsoforcedtheirstudentsstudyingatQatarUniversitytoreturntotheirowncountries(SaudiArabia,theEmirates,andBahrain)andhaveprevented706maleandfemalestudentsfromcompletingtheiruniversitystudies.H.A.,astudentofQatarinationalitybornin1986toldtheNHRC:“IamastudentattheUniversityofAppliedSciencesinBahrainandthisisthelastsemesterbeforegraduation.IhavetwocoursestocompleteandthenIshouldreceivemydegree.TherearelecturestoattendandexaminationstotakebutIhavenotbeenabletogobecauseofthedecisiontoimposetheblockade,whichhasseriouslydisruptedmystudies.”N.M.,aSaudifemalestudentatQatarUniversitybornin1995,toldtheNHRC:“IammarriedtoaQatarihusband.Myfatherdiedfouryearsagoandwehavetwochildrentogether.IamastudentatQatarUniversity.TheEmbassyoftheKingdomofSaudiArabiaaskedmetoreturntotheterritoryoftheKingdombutIamunabletoleavemychildrenandmyuniversitystudies.”H.A.wasbornintheStateofQatarin1986andisanothervictimoftheblockade.HetoldtheNHRC:“IamastudentattheAmericanUniversityintheEmiratesbutduetothedecisiontoimposeablockadeontheStateofQatarIamunabletocompletemyuniversitystudiesintheEmirates,inadditiontothemonetarylossesandpsychologicalstressIhavesuffered.”ThecontinuingmonitoringbytheNHRCofinstancesofviolationsoftherighttoeducationshowsthattheEmirateshasnotpermittedstudentsfromtheStateofQatartoresumetheirstudiesinanyway,asidefromsomeinternationaluniversitieswhichhavetransferredtheirstudentstootherbranchesoutsidetheEmiratesatincreasedcostsoftravelandlivingtothestudentsandtheirdependents,andwithfinancialandpsychologicalcostssufferedbythoseconcerned.
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC8TheNHRChasalsodocumentedtheresponseoftheQatariuniversities,whichhaveaccommodatedsome64affectedstudents.TheQatariMinistryofEducationhasalsomadesomeexceptionsforotherstudentswhohavesufferedasaconsequenceoftheblockade.STUDENTSSTUDYINGINTHE[ARAB]REPUBLICOFEGYPTTheNHRChasalsorecordedsome268complaintsfromstudentswhoareQatarinationalsorresidentswhoareenrolledatEgyptianuniversitiesandhavebeenpreventedfromcompletingtheirstudies.Someofthesestudentswerealsopreventedfromsittingfortheend-of-yearacademicexaminationsinSeptember2017.ThisprohibitionisduetotheactionstakenbytheEgyptianauthorities,whichhaveputrestrictionsonQataristudentsenrolledatEgyptianuniversitiesbymakingitaconditionthattheymusteachobtainasecurityclearancebeforegrantingthementryvisas.TheNHRChascorrespondedwiththeDirectoroftheEgyptianNationalCouncilforHumanRightsconcerningthismatterinordertohelpthestudentscompletetheirstudiesandalleviatethedifficultiestheyarefacing.TheNHRChasbeensuccessfulinconvincingtheEgyptianauthoritiestoremovetherestrictionsplacedontheirstudiesandtheEgyptianauthoritieshavenowissuednewdirectivesorderingentryvisastobegrantedtothestudentsandtherequirementforpriorsecurityclearancehasbeenrevoked.VIOLATIONSOFTHERIGHTTOEDUCATIONRECEIVEDBYTHECOMMITTEETODATE504totalcomplaintsSaudiArabia:62complaintsTheUAE:146complaintsBahrain:28complaintsArabRepublicofEgypt:268complaintsStudentswhoarenationalsofthefourcountriesenrolledinschoolsintheStateofQatarStudentsfromthefourcountriesconcernedresidingintheStateofQatarwho,asaconsequenceofthedecisionsmadebythosecountries,havebeenaffectedwithrespecttotherighttoeducation706atQatarUniversity4600Asof12/5/2017
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC9SomeexamplesofthecomplaintsreceivedbytheNHRC:A.F.,aQatarinationalbornin1992,isastudentinEgypt.HerecountedtotheNHRCthedetailsoftheviolationhesuffered:“IamaQataristudentstudyinglawatAinShamsUniversitysince2015.IamnowinmythirdyearandhavebeenpreventedfromcompletingmyeducationintheArabRepublicofEgyptduetothecurrentcrisis.BecauseIamQatari,Ihavebeenbannedforsecurityreasonsandamunabletoenter[Egypt]withoutasecurityvisa.IhavecontactedtheEgyptianembassytoobtainone,butsofaronehasnotbeenissued.”S.H.,aQatarinationalbornin1982,hasbeendeprivedoftheopportunitytocontinuehishighereducationattheUniversityofAlexandriainEgypt,eventhoughheisinthefinalyearofhisMastersstudies.HegavethefollowingtestimonytotheNHRC:“TheEgyptianauthoritiesmadeanarbitrarydecisiontoprohibitQataristudentsfromattendingitsuniversities.Wearenotpermittedtoenterthecountrywithoutasecurityvisaandthishasaffectedusandcausedpsychologicalandmaterialdamageamountingtosome12thousanddollars.”H.M.,afemalePalestiniannationalbornin1997,visitedtheheadquartersoftheNHRCandprovideddetailsonhowshehasbeendeprivedoftherighttoeducationbythedecisiontoseverrelationswiththeStateofQatar:“IamastudentatCairoUniversityunderanopeneducationprogramandhavecompletedayearandahalfofmystudies,whichhavebeenstoppedbecauseoftheblockade.Sofar,fivemonthshavepassedwithoutreceivingareplyfromCairoUniversityregardingmyrequestsandmyrights.”A.H.,aQatarinationalandborn1982,complainsoftheviolationhesufferedasaconsequenceoftheblockadeoftheStateofQatarbyEgypt.Inhiscomplaint,hetoldtheNHRC:“IamastudentatCairoUniversityinEgyptattheFacultyofLaw,andIaminmyfourthyearofstudies.IhavebeenharmedbytheblockadeoftheStateofQatarbecauseIhavebeenunabletocompletemystudiesatCairoUniversity.”C.STOPPAGEOFWORK140120100806040200JuneJulyAugustNovemberThischartshowsthestatisticalincreaseinviolationsoftherighttoworkfromJunetoNovember2017.TheinhumaneactionsandviolationscommittedbytheblockadingcountriesagainstQataricitizensorresidentshavenotstoppedthere,buthavealsoextendedintoallareas,includingviolationsoftherighttowork.Therighttoworkisoneofthemostimportanteconomicandsocialrights;itisaneconomicrightbecauseitprovidesanindividualwithfinancialandeconomicsecurityandenablestheindividualtopayforlife’snecessities.Itisalsoasocialrightbecauseitcontributestothestabilityofsociety.
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC10Theseviolationshavehadanegativeeffectonthebusinesssectorbecausecommercialandlaborinterestsarecloselyintertwined.Thedecisionsmadebytheblockadingcountrieshavecausedhundredsofpeopletolosetheirjobs,whichhasaffectedtheirlivelihoodsandtheirfamilies’circumstances.Thereisacontinuousstreamofcomplaintsbeingreceivedfromthissectorbecausethecountriesconcernedsuddenlyimposedordersdesignedtocausemaximumdamagetoallareasofbusiness.Moreseriously,thereareentirefamiliesthatdependfortheirlivelihoodonthetransportationbusinessamongtheGulfStatesandwhosesolemeansofearningalivingwascutoffatastroke.Noneofthethreecountriesconcernedhasactedtocompensateanyofthosepeopleorfindthemanalternative.Additionally,thereisalargenumberofcitizensandresidentswhoareemployedinpublic,private,orgovernmentalcompanieswhohadbeenabletoworkandmovefreelybetweenthosecountrieswhosesourceofincomehasalsobeencutoffatastroke.Theyhavebecomeunemployedwithoutanycompensationfromthethreecountriesthatimposedtheblockade.TheNHRChasrecordednofewerthan109casesofpeoplewhohavebeendeprivedoftherighttocontinuetoworkasaconsequenceofthosearbitrarydecisions.Amongthese,66areintheKingdomofSaudiArabia,6areintheEmiratesand37areintheKingdomofBahrain.Mrs.J.S.,anEmiratinationalbornintheyear1977,sufferedaviolationofherrighttowork.ShetoldtheNHRCwhenshevisitedit:“IamaresidentinDohaandIworkthere.MychildrenwerebornintheStateofQatar.MyhusbandisBahrainiandalsoworksinQatar.WeareunabletoreturnbecauseofthedecisionsimposeduponusasaconsequenceoftheblockadeoftheStateofQatarandbecausethesourceofourlivelihoodishere.”Mr.Y.A.,aBahraininationalbornin1986,spoketotheNHRCabouttheviolationhehassuffered,saying:“IamaBahrainicitizenandhavebeenaresidentoftheStateofQatarfortenyearswithmyfamilyandmynew-bornbabydaughter.IworkhereandIcan’tleavemyworkandfamilybecauseofthedecisionsmadebythosecountriesthathaveimposedablockadeontheStateofQatar.”Mr.F.A.,aSaudinationalbornin1996,expressedtotheNHRChisgreatanxietyandconcernabouttheviolationhehassuffered,saying:“IwasbornintheStateofQatarandamaSaudinational.MymotherisQatari.IamaresidentofandworkintheStateofQatar.ThedecisiontakenbymycountrythatIshouldleaveQatarwillhaveaneffectonmyworkbecauseIlivewithmymother.”D.VIOLATIONOFFREEDOMOFOPINIONANDEXPRESSIONFromtheoutset,itmustbeemphasizedthatitisnottheNHRC’sfunctiontorecordviolationsoffreedomofopinionandexpressioninthethreeblockadingstatesandEgypt.Werecordonlythoseviolationsandpunishmentssufferedbythecitizensofthosecountriesthathavereachedunprecedentedextremes,suchascriminalizinganyexpressionofsympathywithQataronsocialmedia,shuttingdownandblockingmediaoutletsfundedbytheStateofQatar,includingsportschannels,thatcertainlydonotbroadcastnewsorpoliticalprograms.ThisisanindicationoftheabyssintowhichfreedomofopinionandexpressionhasfalleninthethreeblockadestatesandEgypt.TheUnitedArabEmirateshasenactedpenaltiesof3-15yearsinprisonandfinesofuptoAED500,000justforshowingsympathyfortheStateofQatarwithacomment,“like,”ortweetonsocialmedia,inanunprecedentedthreattofreedomofexpression.TheBahrainiMinistryofInteriorfollowedthatupbythreatening5years’imprisonment.AsfortheKingdomofSaudiArabia,itconsiderssuchactsanInternetcrimesubjecttoupto5yearsinprisonandafineofuptoSAR3million.Theseextremeandharshmeasuresdemonstratethefrailtyofthegroundsandlegitimacyoftheblockadedecisionbythosethreestates.Theydemonstratethattheauthoritiesinthosestatesareafraidoftheircitizens’freedomtoexpressanopinioncontrarytothewilloftheauthorities.Thisisblatantlyatoddswithseveralinternationaland
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC11regionaldeclarationsandcovenants,whichwillbeaddressedinthesectiononLegalCharacterization.Inthemediasectoralone,NHRCrecorded103casesofmediafiguresfromthethreecountrieswhousedtoworkatanumberofvisualmediaoutletsintheStateofQatarwhowereallsubjectedtovarioustypesofviolations,includingpressuringthemtoresign.Basedonsuchpressure,10mediafigureswereforcedtosubmittheirresignations,consequentlylosingtheirjobsandsourceofincome.Greatpressureisstillexertedagainstthosewhohavenotresigned.Theseactionsareablatantviolationoffreedomofthepress,thefreedomtowork,freedomofresidency,andfreedomofopinionallatthesametime.ItshouldalsobementionedthattheblockadingstatesblockedQatarichannels,governmentalandprivate.Thiswascarriedoutthroughdecreesissuedbytheblockadestates’governmentstowarnallpartiestodeleteallchannelsfromtheStateofQatarandtheimpositionofafineof100,000riyalsagainstanypersonwhoviolatesthesedirectives.Thechannelscoveredbythedecreeinclude:QatarTelevisionchannelAl-RayyanchannelAl-KasschannelAl-JazeeraSatelliteNetworkbeInSportschannelE.VIOLATIONOFTHERIGHTOFMOVEMENTANDRESIDENCEJuneJulyAugustNovemberThischartshowstherisingnumbersofviolationsindeprivationofmovementandresidencebetweenJuneandNovember2017.Thedefinitionofthisrightisthatanindividualmustbeablemovewithinorbeyondtheterritorialboundariesofhisorherstateandhavetherighttoreturntothatstatewithoutrestrictionsorbarriers.TheblockadingstateshaveviolatedthisrightwithitsunjustblockadeontheStateofQatarbypreventingQataricitizensandresidentsfrommovingwithinorresidinginthosestates.ThereresideintheStateofQatar11,387citizensofthethreeGulfStates,andapproximately1,927Qatarisliveinthosestates.Allpersonsforcedtoreturntotheirhomecountrieswereharmedinvariousways.1400120010008006004002000
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC12Theblockadingstateshaveimposedpenaltiesandissueddecreescompellingthemtoexittheircountriesandprohibitingpassagethroughtheirentrypoints.ThiscausedmanyoftheviolationsrecordedbyNHRC,totaling1,354casesrelatedjusttothisrightalone.TheblockadingstatesalsoclosedallQatarAirwaysofficesintheircountriesassoonastheblockadewasannounced,withoutpriorwarningtothepeopleemployedatthoseofficesthatwouldhaveallowedthemtotaketheirbelongingsfromtheiroffices.AlthoughtheSaudiauthoritieshadpartiallyopenedtheSalwabordercrossingonanindividual,intermittentbasis,itrevertedandclosedthecrossingcompletely,eveninthefaceofhumanitariancasessuchaspatients,cross-borderfamilies,andindividualswithdisabilities.Thecrossingremainscompletelyclosedasofthewritingofthisreport,whichisapersistentviolationofthisrightbytheSaudiauthorities.Mr.A.F.,anEgyptiannational,toldNHRCwhenhegavehistestimony:“On11/19/2017,IreservedfiveplaneticketstoEgyptfor7,400riyals.IwassurprisedthattheairlineonwhichImadethereservationcancelledthemandrefundedtheamountpaidbecauseIresideintheStateofQatar.Thispreventedmeandmychildrenfromtraveling.”Ms.E.A.,aJordaniannational,toldNHRCaboutbeingdeniedfreedomofmovement,stating:“MymotherandIwereunabletoperformthe[religious]obligationofUmrahdespitepayingthevisafeebecausethelandcrossingbetweenQatarandSaudiArabiawasclosedandtheprocessoftransportingmycarfromJordantotheStateofQatarwasstopped.”Mr.A.M.,aBahraininationalbornin1993,visitedNHRCheadquartersandrecountedthedetailsoftheviolationhesuffered:“IwasbornintheStateofQatarandstudiedthereuntilhighschool.Myfatherisabusinessman,andwehavenofamilyintheKingdomofBahrain.Mymother’sfamilyisinQatar,andmysisterismarriedtoaQatariman.ThedecisiontoblockadetheStateofQatarandtheordertoreturntotheKingdomofBahrainishardonusbecauseofalloftheseconnections.”F.VIOLATIONOFOWNERSHIPRIGHTSJuneJulyAugustNovemberThischartshowstheincreasingnumberofownershiprightsviolationsbetweenJuneandNovember2017.Therighttopropertyisoneoftherightsthatacitizenenjoyswithinhisorherowncountryoroutsideitandhastherighttouseordisposeofthepropertyheorsheownswithoutpressurefromanyparty.Thesuddenblockadelawsimposedbythethreestatescausedtensofthousandsofpeopletosufferexorbitant
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC13lossesoffundsandproperty.Thisindicatesthedecisionmakers’totalrecklessnessandindifferencetofundamentalrightswhenmakingthesedecisions.Moneyandpropertyhavebeensnatchedawaybecausetheirownerswereunabletotraveltothem.Allpersonspreventedfromtravelingarenolongerabletouseordisposeoftheirproperty.GiventheextensiveinteractionandinterconnectednessamongtheGulfStates,whichmightnotbenoticedbymanyorganizationsandcountries,buttherearehundredsofworkersemployedforQatarisanddoingbusinessinSaudiArabiawhoseQatarisupervisorscannolongerpaytheirwagesbecauseofthestoppageofmoneytransfers,andsotheirworkhasstopped.Anotherextremeexampleisthelossofrealestatepurchasedininstalments,includingland,buildings,andapartments,particularlyintheEmirateofDubai.DuetothefreezingofQataricitizens’assetsinthosecountries,checkdebitshavebeenstopped.Ifthissituationcontinues,itcouldresultinthecompletelossofthepropertyandeventotheownerbeinglegallyprosecutedduetonon-paymentofobligatorymonthlyinstalments,withouttheslightestmisdeedonthepartoftheowner.Inadditiontotheabove,thethreestateswentsofarastoprohibitfinancialtransfersandpostalmoneyordersforanycitizenorresidentoftheStateofQatarinordertoshutthedooronthepossibilityofforestallingfinanciallosses.Inouropinion,allofthisdemonstratesthatthethreeblockadingstates’decisionswerenotspontaneous;theyintentionallyviolatedbasicfreedomsandsoughttodosofromtheoutset.ThisisunderlinedbythefactthatnomeasureshavebeentakenthusfartoeliminatethegraverepercussionsoncitizensofthethreestatesandcitizensoftheStateofQatar.TheNHRCalsorecordedtheexistenceofalargenumberofworkerswithQatariresidencywhoworkforcompaniesownedbyQataricitizensinthosestates.Aftertheblockadewasimposed,theseworkerswerepreventedfromreturningtoQatar.Theyarenolongerworkingandnooneisspendingonthem.Weprovideafewexamplestoillustratethemagnitudeoftheviolations.Forinstance,thecomplaintswehavereceivedinclude:Ms.N.A.,aQatarinationalbornin1971,toldtheNHRCthedetailsoftheviolationshesuffered:“IboughtavillainaresidentialdevelopmentinDubai.IamnowprohibitedfromenteringDubaiandenjoyingmyownproperty,despitethefactthatImadethefirstpayment.Irequestarefundofthefullamount.”Mr.A.H.,aQatarinationalbornin1960whohaspropertyintheKingdomofSaudiArabia,cametotheNHRC’sheadquartersandgaveushistestimony,detailingtheviolationhehassuffered:“IhavecamelsandcarsinSaudiArabia,andworkerswhoseresidencyended.BecauseoftheblockadeontheStateofQatar,Ican’tgo.”Mr.N.A.,aQatarinationalbornin1952,visitedtheNHRC’sheadquartersanddetailedthepropertyrightsviolationhesuffered:“Ihave200,000riyalsattheBahrainIslamicBank.Icouldn’twithdrawthemoneyfromthebankbecausewewerenotallowedtoentertheKingdomofBahrainaftertheblockadedecisionagainsttheStateofQatar.”
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC14G.DEPRIVATIONOFTHERIGHTTOPERFORMRELIGIOUSOBSERVANCESJuneJulyAugustNovemberThischartshowstheincreasingnumbersofpropertyrightsviolationsbetweenJuneandNovember2017.MeccaandMedina,twocitiesthatareholytoallMuslims,arelocatedintheKingdomofSaudiArabia,andtheyareaconstantdestinationforMuslimstoperformtheritesoftheHajjandtheUmrah.Theblockadedecision,towhichtheKingdomofSaudiArabiaisaparty,hasdeprivedapproximately1.5millionMuslimslivingintheStateofQataroftheirrighttoengageintheirreligiousobservances,whichisaflagrantviolationoftherighttoworship.TheSaudiauthoritiesmadenoexceptionsfromtheunjustblockademeasuresforanyonewishingtoexercisehisorherrighttoperformtheritesoftheHajjandtheUmrah.Instead,theyinvolvedreligiousobservancesinpoliticalanddiplomaticdisputesandusedtheobservancesasatooltoexertpoliticalpressure,blatantlyviolatinginternationalhumanrightsagreements.Inlightofthecontinuedblockade,airembargo,landborderclosure,alongwiththeabusivemeasurestakenbytheSaudiauthoritiesregardingtherighttoworshipandengageinreligiousobservances,startingwithactionsto:PreventQatariUmrahperformersfromenteringSauditerritoryduringlastRamadantoperformtheritesoftheUmrah;CompelthosepresentintheKingdomtoexitSauditerritoryquicklywithoutcompletingthoserites;StopdealingwithQataricurrencyandQataribankcards;MistreatQatarisatlandandairentryandexitpointsintheKingdomofSaudiArabia;andPreventQatarAirwaysaircraftfromlandingatairportsintheKingdomofSaudiArabia,whichresultedinQatariUmrahperformersreturningtoDohaviaSaudiArabia,whowereforcedtoreturnonotherairlinesthroughtheStateofKuwaitandtheSultanateofOmanwithoutconsiderationforhumanitariancasessuchaspatients,women,children,elderlypersons,andindividualswithdisabilities.ItshouldbenotedthatalloftheabusivemeasurescarriedoutduringlastRamadanled[Qatari]citizensandresidentstofeartoperformtheirreligiousobservancesiftheywereallowedtodoso,outofconcernthateventswouldberepeated.Thisisinadditiontotheactionsoftheauthoritiesduringthe2017Hajjseason:180160140120100806040200
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC15Withtheapproachofthe2017Hajjseason,theSaudiauthoritieserectedimpedimentsandbarrierstoQataricitizensandresidentswishingtoperformtheobligationoftheHajj,“thefifthpillarofIslam.”Thesebarriersamountedtoaprohibition,becausetheauthoritiesrefusedtoworkorcoordinatewiththeMinistryofReligiousEndowmentsandIslamicAffairsintheStateofQatartoenablethosewishingtoperformtheobligationtodoso.TheauthoritieshavecontinuedthusfartoerectimpedimentsandbarrierstoperformingreligiousritesandobservancesbeforeQataricitizensandresidents.ThisisinadditiontothecomplaintssubmittedbytheownersofHajjandUmrahcarriersintheStateofQataraboutthecomplicationsanddifficultiesthathavebesettheperformanceofUmrahritualsforresidentsoftheState,including:ClosureoftheelectronicregistrationportalfortheHajjandUmrahandallUmrahperformersfromtheStateofQatarnotbeingallowedtoregister;PreventionbytheauthoritiesintheKingdomofSaudiArabiaofmonetarytransfersbetweenQataricarriersandSaudiUmrahagentsauthorizedtograntUmrahpermits;andTheSaudiauthorities’continuedrefusaltoworkorcoordinatewiththeMinistryofReligiousEndowmentsandIslamicAffairsintheStateofQatar.AllofthisdefinitivelyconfirmsthattheSaudiauthoritiesarecontinuingthepolicyofpoliticizingreligiousobservances,whichhasinflictedenormousharmandfinanciallossesontheStateofQatarsincethebeginningoftheblockadebecauseperformanceofHajjandUmrahisprevented.Suchharmandfinanciallossisexemplifiedin:ThelosstotheMinistryofReligiousEndowmentsandIslamicAffairsinconnectionwithHajjandUmrahaffairs,whichamountstoapproximatelySAR4,500,000,andotherlossesresultingfromtheblockadeimposedontheStateofQatar;andBurdensomelossestoHajjandUmrahcarriers.Wehavecommunicatedwithninecarriersandobtainedanaccountingoftheirlossesforthisyear:CarrierNameMonetaryLossesAl-ForganCarrier7millionFifthPillarCarrier4millionAl-HamadiCarrier2millionLabbaikCarrier6millionAl-HodaCarrier2.7millionTawbaCarrier2.7millionQatarCarrier400thousandriyalsHatemCarrier2.7millionAl-QudsCarrier3millionTotalQAR30.5millionInconnectionwithmaterialharmandlosses,thereisdefinite,seriouspsychologicalandintangibleharmthathavebefallenallQataricitizenandresidentMuslimsasaresultoftheirbeingdeprivedoftheirrighttoworkandengageinreligiousobservances,andtheKingdomofSaudiArabiabearsfullreligious,moral,rights-based,andlegalresponsibilitytherefor.
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC16Sincethestartoftheblockadeuptothisday,theNHRChasnoted163violations.Herearesometestimoniesofvictimswhosufferedsuchviolations:Mr.A.Sh.,aQatarinationalbornin1978,visitedtheNHRC’sheadquartersandgavehistestimony,detailingtheviolationhesuffered:“ImadeareservationatahotelinMecca,SaudiArabia,andIboughttravelticketsfor27,000riyalsinordertoperformtheobligationoftheUmrah,butthedecisionpreventedmefromperformingthisreligiousobservance,andthehotelrefusedtorefundthemoneyformyreservation.”Ms.F.A.,aPalestinianbornin1950,expressedherregretthatshecouldnotperformtheobligationoftheHajjin2017.ShegavehertestimonytotheNHRC:“AfterwaitingfiveyearstoperformtheHajjobligation,mychildrenandIwerebarredfromperformingitthisyear,andIamasickandelderlywidow.”Mr.A.A.,aQatarinationalbornin1981,detailedtheviolationhesufferedtotheNHRC:“ImadereservationsatahotelinMecca,SaudiArabia,andIpaid104,650riyalsforhotelreservations.IbookedtravelticketstogofortheUmrah,butIwasblockedfromgoingbecauseoftheblockadedecisionagainsttheStateofQatarthatbarsitscitizensfromtravelingtotheblockadingstates.”H.INCITEMENTOFVIOLENCEANDHATREDTheNHRChasrecordedhundredsofinstancesofhatespeechwhich,insomecases,reachedthelevelofincitementandprovocationtocommitterroristbombingsintheStateofQatar.SometelevisionserieshaveresortedtoincitingchildrenagainsttheneighboringcountryofQatar.WehavealsorecordeddiscriminatoryspeechthataimstodisparageandshameQataricitizens.Suchspeechhasincreaseddramaticallyduetotheblatantinvolvementofsomeofficialadvisorsandmediapersonalitiesinit.Indeed,merelywearingtheuniformsofFCBarcelonaorParisSaintGermainhascometobeviewedasanexpressionofsympathy,andthewearerispunishedduetothepresenceofthenamesandlogosofQatarAirwaysandQNBonthoseuniforms.Wecansummarizethecasesofhatespeechandincitementofviolenceasfollows:Useofhatespeechinsongs,televisionseries,anddocumentaryfilms;UseofsocialmediacelebritiestodisparagetheStateofQatar,includingitspeopleandsymbols;DisparagementofthesymbolsoftheStateinnewspapercartoonsinneighboringstates;andIncitementtoconductactsofsabotageandterrorismintheStateofQatar,andincitementtostriketheStateofQataranditsmediawithmissiles.ItisnosecretthatallofthismediaandartisticefforttoincitehatredandviolencewillgenerateextremereactionsamongthevarioussegmentsofsocietythatmaybringaboutthecommissionofcriminalactsnotjustagainstQataricitizens,butalsomaygeneratereactionsamongtheQataripopulationagainstthethreestatesandEgypt.Thisposesathreattothepeace,security,andstabilityoftheentireregion.WeattheNHRChaverecordedthenamesandcapacitiesofeverypersonwhohasincitedviolenceandhatredthatourresearchershavebeenabletoidentify.WeholdthemresponsibleforanyactofdiscriminatoryterroristviolencethatharmsanyQataricitizenoranycitizenofthethreestatesandEgypt.Internationallawclearlycriminalizeshatespeechandviolence,asprovidedbyArticle20oftheInternational
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC17CovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,asdoesArticle4oftheInternationalConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination,whichprohibitsanycallfornational,racial,orreligioushate,anddeemssuchcallstobeincitementofhostilityandviolence.Duetotheincitementofviolenceandhatespeechbytheblockadingstates,Qatarisintheblockadingstateshavebeensubjecttodefacementoftheirvehiclesandhavehadstonesthrownatthem.Further,hatred,hostility,anddiscriminationtowardQataricitizensbysomecitizensofneighboringstateshasbeenaresult.D.VIOLATIONOFTHERIGHTTOHEALTH,PARTICULARLYFORWOMEN,CHILDREN,ANDTHEDISABLED40352520151050JuneJulyAugustNovemberThischartshowstheincreaseinviolationsoftherighttohealthfromJunetoNovember2017.HundredsofpatientsfromthethreeblockadecountrieswhowerebeingtreatedinQatarihospitalswereharmed,aswellasQatariswhowerereceivingtreatmentinthesethreecountries’hospitals.Citizenswereinstructedtoleavewithoutanyexceptionsforcasesofillnessorspecialgroupssuchaspregnantwomen,youngchildren,oreveninfantsandthehandicapped.Thisclearlydemonstratestheextentoftheblatantrecklessnessbeingshownbythethreeblockadingcountriestowardtheirownailingcitizens,andthedepthoftheirdisregardforthemostfundamentalhumanrights.Themostbasicrighttohealthistherightnottobediscriminatedagainst.Therefore,thethreeblockadecountrieshavenorighttoexpelQataripatientsbasedonapoliticaldisagreement.Therighttohealthisexplicitlyprovidedforinseveralinternationalchartersandtreaties,includingArticle25oftheInternationalDeclarationofHumanRightsandArticle12oftheInternationalCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights.Mrs.N.A.,acitizenoftheUAEwhohasaQatarison,stated:“Ican’tgototheUAEbecauseoftheblockadeontheStateofQatar.Mypassportwillexpireintwomonths,andIcan’ttravelforfearthatImightnotbeabletoreturntoQatar.I’msickandIneedtobetreatedoutsidethecountry,butbecauseofmypassport[beingaboutto]expire,Ihaven’tbeenabletogofortreatmentbecauseI’mcurrentlyreceivingtreatmentinQatar.”Ayoungman,R.M.,aQatarinationalbornin1994,toldtheNHRC,“IhadanoperationonmyrightcorneainBahraininJanuarythisyear,andnowIhavepainintheeyeafterthestitchesonthecorneaopenedup.WhenI
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC18wenttoahospitalinQatar,theytoldmeIwouldneedtoseethedoctorwhoperformedtheprocedureinBahrain,butbecauseoftheblockadeagainstQatar,Ihaven’tbeenableto.Ineedtodosoassoonaspossiblebecausethepainisgettingworse,andIhaveinfections[inthewound].”Mrs.R.T.,aQatariwomanbornin1986,toldtheNHRCshewasafraidshewouldn’tbeabletocompletetreatmentinBahrain.“IhadanoperationinBahraininJanuary,andIneedtocompletetheremainingpartoftheoperationduringthesameyear,butIhaven’tbeenabletotravelbecauseofrelationswithQatarbeingcutoff.”J.THERIGHTTOLITIGATIONTherightofaccesstothejudiciaryisthelegitimateandlegalmeansofprotectinghumanrights,preventinghumanrightsviolations,keepingthemfromrecurring,andensuringjusticeforvictimsinkeepingwiththeprincipleofreparationsetforthinhumanrightsagreementsthroughrecoursetolitigationandthroughtheprovisionofproceduresnecessarytoachievethisend.GiventheconsequencesoftheblockadeagainstQatar,however,Qataricitizensandresidentshavenotbeenabletoaccessthecourtsintheblockadecountries.WhathashappenedasaresultoftheblockadebeingimposedagainstQatarhascausedmanyviolationswhichrequirerecoursetotheblockadingcountries’localjudiciaries.Suchviolationsincludethefollowing:1.Violationoftherighttoownership.Theseindividualspossesstherighttolitigationbecausetheyhavepropertiesandbusinessesduetopreviouscommercialactivitiesorinheritances.However,theyhavebeenpreventedfromcompletingthenecessarylitigationproceduresorfollowinguponcasesalreadybeforethecourts.2.Therighttoeducation.Theseindividualswerestudyingintheblockadingcountries,andsomeofthemhadpaidtheirtuitionaswellastheirresidencyfees.However,theyhavenotbeenabletorecovertheirmoney.3.Hotelandairplanereservationsweremade,andthevictimshavenotbeenabletoclaimtheirrights.TheNHRChasrecordedegregiousviolationsoftherighttolitigation.Thefollowingarethemostsalientaspectsoftheseviolations:HinderingQataricitizensandresidentsfromexercisingtheirrighttolitigationbeforethecourtsintheblockadingcountries,particularlytheUAEandSaudiArabia.NotallowingQataricitizensandresidentstoappearbeforethecourtsbypreventingthemfromenteringtheblockadecountries.Thisconstitutesaviolationoftheirrighttolitigationandotherrightsrelatedthereto,suchastherighttodefense.Makingitdifficultfortheirlegalrepresentativestoinitiatelegalproceedingsontheirbehalf.RefusalbylawfirmsintheblockadecountriestotakeonthecasesoflitigantswhoareQataricitizensorresidentsandneglectingtofollowuponcasestheyhadalreadytakenon.Non-implementationofverdictsissuedinfavorofQataricitizens.NullificationofverdictsissuedinfavorofQataricitizensandresidentsduetotheirinabilitytopursuetheircasesandexercisetheirrighttolitigationandlegaldefense.Mr.(I.A.),aQatarinationalbornin1964,toldtheNHRC,“Ihaveland,realestate,andprivateautomobilesintheUAE,soIneedtocheckonmyproperty,collectfinancialreturns,andfollowuponcommitteesandreal
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC19estateadministrativeprocedures.However,becauseoftheblockadeandthefactthatQataricitizensaren’tallowedintotheblockadecountries,I’vefacedfines,I’vebeendelayedinmyabilitytomakeuseoffacilities,andmyrealestatepropertieshavebeenfrozen.Thishascausedmemajorfinancialharm,includingamonthlylossofaround40,000riyals,andacommerciallossofmorethan16millionUAEdirhams.”Mr.(B.Th.[and]A.M.),bothQatarinationals,presentedtheircomplainttotheNHRC,saying,“WeinheritedseveralrealestatepropertiesfromourlatefatherintheUAE(Sharjah).Butthepropertiesarestillinourfather’sname,andstillhaven’tbeentransferred.Thereisanexecutivecase,aswellasapproximately133milliondirhams,bearinginmindthattherealestatepropertiesarelocatedintheindustrialzone,andsomeofthemarebeingrentedout.”Fifth:Conclusionsandlegalprofile:Throughtheirarbitrarydecisionsandillegalmeasures,thegovernmentsoftheblockadecountrieshaveviolated,andcontinuetoviolate,severalrulesandprinciplesofinternationalhumanrightslaw.Theyhave,forexample,clearlyviolatedseveralarticlesoftheInternationalDeclarationofHumanRights,andarticlesofboththeInternationalCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights,andtheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,aswellasarticlesofotherlegalinstruments,themostsalientofthesebeing:TheArabHumanRightsCharter,theDeclarationofHumanRightsoftheGulfCooperationStates,andtheEconomicAgreementBetweentheCountriesoftheGulfCooperationCouncilTheblockadecountrieshavealsoviolatedtheChicagoAgreementbybanningQataricivilaircraftfromflyingovertheirregionswithoutjustification,war-relatednecessity,orreasonsofrelevancetopublicsecurity.ThearticleswhichthethreeGulfcountrieshaveviolatedareasfollows:First:TheInternationalDeclarationofHumanRights:Articles2,5,7,8,9,10,12,13,19,23,25,and26Second:TheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights:PartII(Article2),andPartIII(Articles9,12,13,14,20,23,and24)Third:TheInternationalCovenantonEconomicandSocialRights:PartIII(Articles6,10,12,and13)Fourth:TheInternationalConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination:Article4Fifth:TheArabHumanRightsCharter:Article3
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC201.EverystatewhichispartytothisCharterpledgestoguaranteetoeachindividualunderitsmandatetherightsandfreedomsprovidedforinthisCharterwithoutdiscriminationbasedonrace,color,gender,language,religiousbelief,opinion,thought,nationalorsocialorigin,wealth,birth,orphysicalormentaldisability.Article(8)1.Nopersonmaybetorturedphysicallyorpsychologically,orsubjectedtocruel,degrading,demeaning,orinhumanetreatment.Article(11)Allpersonsareequalbeforethelawandhavetherighttobeprotectedtherebywithoutdiscrimination.Article(12)1.Allpersonsareequalbeforethejudiciary,andPartyStatesshallguaranteetheindependenceofthejudiciaryandprotectjudgesfromanyinterference,pressures,orthreats.Theyshallalsoguaranteetherighttolitigationinitsvariousdegreestoeverypersonundertheirmandate.Article(13)1.Everypersonshallhavetherighttoafairtrialwithsufficientguaranteesbyacompetent,independent,andpartialcourtpreviouslyestablishedbylawinthefaceofanycriminalaccusationraisedagainsthimorher,ortoruleonhisorherrightsandobligations.Moreover,eachPartyStateshallguaranteethatthosewhoarefinanciallyincapablewillreceivelegalaidtodefendtheirrights.2.Thetrialshallbepublicunless,inexceptionalcircumstances,theinterestsofjusticedictateotherwiseinasocietywhichrespectsfreedomsandhumanrights.Article(26)1.EverypersonlegallypresentintheterritoryofaPartyStateshallenjoyfreedomofmovementandthefreedomtochoosewhereheorsheshallresideinsaidterritorywithinthelimitsofthelawsinforce.Article(32)1.ThisCharterguaranteestherightto[access]themedia,freedomofthought,opinion,andexpression,aswellastherighttoobtainnewsandtransmitittoothersbyanymeansandwithoutconsiderationforgeographicalboundaries.2.Theserightsandfreedomsshallbeexercisedwithintheframeworkofthefundamentalcomponentsofsocietyandshallonlybesubjecttothoserestrictionsimposedbyrespectforothers’rightsorreputation,orbytheneedtopreservenationalsecurityorpublicorder,healthormorals.Article(33)1.Thefamilyisthenaturalandfundamentalunitofsociety.Thebasisforthefamily’sformationismarriagebetweenamanandawoman,who,fromthetimewhentheyreachmarriageableage,shallhavetherighttomarryandestablishafamilyinkeepingwiththeconditionsandpillarsofmarriage.Marriageshallonlytakeplacewiththefullconsentofbothpartiesthereto,andwithoutcompulsion.Theman’sandthewoman’srightsanddutiesshallberegulatedbythelegislationinforcewhenthemarriagegoesintoeffect,throughoutitsduration,anduponitsdissolution.2.Thestateandsocietyshallguaranteefamilies’protection,strengthentheirbonds,protecttheindividualsbelongingtothem,andprohibitallformsofviolenceandmistreatmentbyitsmembers,particularlyagainstwomenandchildren.Mothers,youngchildren,theelderly,andthosewithspecialneedsshallbeensuredthenecessaryprotectionandcare,whileteenagersandyoungadultsshallbeguaranteedmaximumopportunitiesforphysicalandmentaldevelopment.
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC213.PartyStatesshalltakealllegislative,administrative,andjudicialmeasuresnecessarytoguaranteeachild’sprotection,survival,developmentandwelfareinanatmosphereoffreedomanddignity.Thechild’sbestinterestshallbethefundamentalcriterionfordeterminingallmeasurestakeninthisconnectioninallcircumstancesandwhetherheorsheisdelinquentorliabletobecomeso.Sixth:TheDeclarationofHumanRightsoftheGulfCooperationCouncilArticle(6)FreedomofreligiousfaithandpracticeistherightofeverypersoninkeepingwiththeLawinsofarastheexerciseofsuchfreedomdoesnotprejudicepublicorderorpublicmorals.Article(9)Freedomofopinionandexpressionistherightofeveryperson,andtheexerciseofthisrightisguaranteedtoeveryoneinsofarasitisconsistentwithIslamicLaw,publicorder,andthelawsregulatingsuchmatters.Article(14)Thefamily,consistingofamanandawomanandgovernedbyreligion,morals,andloveofcountry,isthenaturalandfundamentalunitofsociety.Thefamilyentityispreserved,anditstiesstrengthened,byreligion,whichprotectsmothers,youngchildren,andothermembersofthefamilyfromallformsofabuseanddomesticviolence.TheprotectionofthefamilyistobeensuredbysocietyandtheState.Article(24)Workisarightofeveryable-bodiedperson.Eachindividualshallhavetherighttochoosethetype[ofworkheorsheengagesin]inkeepingwiththerequirementsofdignityandthepublicinterest.Thefairnessofthetermsofemploymentandtherightsofbothemployeesandemployersshallbeguaranteed.Article(27)Privatepropertyisprotected.NopersonshallbepreventedfromdisposingofhisorherpersonalpropertybeyondtheboundsoftheLaw.Normayanyone’spropertybewrestedfromhimorherexceptintheserviceofthepublicinterestandinreturnforjustcompensation.Article(32)Peopleareequalbeforethejudiciary,andtherighttolitigationisguaranteedtoeveryonewithinafullyindependentjudiciary.
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC22Sixth:RecommendationsoftheNationalHumanRightsCouncil:FreedomofreligiousfaithandpracticeistherightofeverypersoninkeepingwiththeLawinsofarastheexerciseofsuchfreedomdoesnotprejudicepublicorderorpublicmorals.Totheinternationalcommunity:Itisvitalthatimmediateactionistakentoendtheblockade,andthateverypossibleeffortbemadetomitigateitsrepercussionsfortheresidentsofQatarandcitizensoftheblockadecountries.TotheUnitedNationsandtheHighCommissiononHumanRights:TheUNHighCommissionerforHumanRightsconstitutedandsentatechnicalmissiontoDohafromNovember18and232017todeterminetheeffectsoftheblockadeonthehumanrightssituationofthecitizensandresidentsofDoha,QatarandsomecitizensoftheGCCcountries.Onthisbasiswedemand:First:ThattheblockadecountriesbeaddressedconcerningtheneedtoceaseanddesisttheirblockadeofQatar;thattheycorrecttheviolationscausedbythearbitrary,unilateralmeasurestheyhavetaken;andthattheyensurejusticeforthevictimsandcompensatethemforthematerialandpsychologicaldamagestheyhavesuffered.Second:Thatapresentationbemadeofthereportsandstatementsdocumentingthevarioustypesofviolationsthathaveaffectedhugenumbersofpeople,particularlyastheyrelatetothesplittingoffamilies.Suchreportsandstatementsshouldaddressthealarmingimplicationsoffamilydisintegrationforwomenandchildren,andtheblockadecountriesshouldbepressedtorespectthebasicfreedomsofthoseresidingintheirterritories.Third:ThatadetailedreportonhumanrightsviolationsbesubmittedtotheCouncilonHumanRights,staterapporteurs,andcontractualmechanismstoaddresstheseviolationsandensurethattheyarenotrepeated.TotheHumanRightsCouncil:Toissuearesolution,takeallpossiblemeasurestowardliftingtheblockade,putanendtotheviolationstowhichithasled,andprovidecompensationtoallindividualswhosuffereddamages.Toformafact-findingcommitteeandconductdirectinterviewswiththevictims.TothespecialrapporteursontheHumanRightsCouncil:First:TorespondquicklytothereportsoftheNationalHumanRightsCouncilandtolettersfromvictims,andissueurgentandjointcallstoactinthisconnection.Second:Tourgethegovernmentsoftheblockadingcountriestoeliminatetheviolationsandextendjusticetothevictims.Third:TomakefieldvisitstoQatarandtheblockadingcountriestogatherinformationonthehumanrightsviolationsresultingfromtheblockade.Fourth:TorecordtheviolationscommittedbytheblockadingcountriesintheperiodicreportsthataresubmittedtotheHumanRightsCouncil.TotheSecretariat-GeneraloftheGulfCooperationCouncil:TocalluponthelegalaffairssectorintheSecretariat-GeneraloftheGulfCooperationCouncil,aninparticularitsHumanRightsBureau,todemandthattheblockadingcountrieseliminatetheviolations,extendjusticetothevictims,andputastoptoanynewarbitrarymeasures.
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC23Totheblockadecountries:First:Committorespectthepledgeslistedinthehumanrightsagreementswhichyouhaveratifiedandjoined.Second:Ceasetheseviolations,correctthem,andextendjusticetothevictims.Third:RespondtotheNHRC’sreportsandinternationalreports.Fourth:Allowinternationalorganizationsandmissionstomakefieldvisitstofamiliarizethemselvescloselywiththehumanitariansituations,identifyresponsibilities,andextendjusticetothevictims.Fifth:Ceaseallowingpoliticstoimpacthumanitarianandsocialconditionsandstopusingthemasabargainingchipbecausedoingsoisaviolationofinternationallawandinternationalhumanrightslaw.TotheGovernmentofQatar:First:Takeallpossiblestepsattheinternationallevel,attheleveloftheSecurityCouncil,andbeforetheinternationalcourtsandarbitrationtribunalstolifttheblockadeonQatar’scitizensandresidents,andtoprovidejusticeforthevictims.Second:CallupontheCompensationCommissiontoexpeditelitigationproceduresinordertoensurejusticeforthevictims.Third:FacilitateprocedurestointegratestudentsintoQatariuniversitiesandtheQatarieducationalsystemandaddressthehumanitariansituationsofthosewhohavebeeninjured.
Annex 136
[logo:]NHRC24Doha,Qatar
Annex 136
٦ أشهر من الانتهاكات ..
ماذا بعد؟!
التقرير العام الرابع لانتهاكات
نسان جراء حصار دولة  حقوق ا
قطر
٥ ديسمبر ٢٠١٧ م
Annex 136
1فهرس التقرير
أولاً ملخص
نبذة تعريفية عن اللجنة
ثاني
منهجية التقرير
ثالث
أهم الانتهاكات التي وقعت:
طفال … النساء وا
سر، خصوص … ألف: قطع شمل ا
باء: التوقف عن متابعة التعليم
تاء: التوقف عن العمل
ثاء: انتهاك حرية الرأي والتعبير
قامة › جيم: انتهاك الحق في التَّنقل و ا
حاء: انتهاك حق الملكية
خاء: الحرمان من تأدية الشعائر الدينية
دال: التحريض على العنف والكراهية
عاقة › طفال وذوي ا … ذال: انتهاك الحق في الصحة، خاصة النساء وا
راء: الحق في التقاضي

رابع
الاستنتاجات والتوصيف القانوني
خامس
التوصيات
سادس
سان، الدوحة – قطر، ٢٠1٧ 􀁿 جميع حقوق الطباعة محفوظة للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الان
Annex 136
٢
أولاً: ملخص:
ض على دولة قطر منذ تاريخ 5 يونيو ٢٠1٧ م و حتى يومنا هذا من 􀀺 ساني المفرو 􀁿 سار غير الاإن 􀂁 ستمر الح 􀁿 ي
صر 􀂁 سافة إ الى جمهورية م 􀀺 سعودية وا إ لامارات العربية المتحدة ومملكة البحرين بالاإ 􀁿 قبل كل من المملكة العربية ال
ستمر معه الاإنتهاكات دون أ اية تجاوب من هذه الدول لمعالجتها 􀁿 العربية. كما ت
سد 􀀹 سة بتلك الاإنتهاكات ، ور 􀀹 سلة تقارير خا 􀁿 سل 􀀷 ب إ اعداد NHRC سان 􀁿 و لهذا تقوم اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن
سادية المترتبة عليها . 􀂁 سانية، والتداعيات الاجتماعية والاقت 􀁿 وتوثيق الاآثار الاإن
نحو 45٠ جهة حقوقية ومنظمات دولية NHRC سان 􀁿 ض خاطبت اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀀹 سو 􀂁 و بهذا الخ
سبب بها 􀁿 سانية التي ت 􀁿 سدةً لهم بالتحرك العاجل لمعالجة اآثار الاأزمة الاإن 􀀸 و إ اقليمية حكومية وغير حكومية منا
سم اأوروبية وعالمية لتعريفهم بحجم الانتهاكات القائمة على دولة قطر 􀀹 سار. وقامت ب 33 زيارة لعوا 􀂁 الح
سدره اللجنة لتوثيق هذه الانتهاكات بجانب 􀂁 سار. وهذا هو التقرير الرابع العام الذي ت 􀂁 من قبل دول الح
أعدتها:- 􀀫 لتي 􀀫 لعامة 􀀫 لتقارير 􀀫 سلة 􀁿 سل 􀀷
. سار 13 يونيو ٢٠1٧ 􀂁 سان لدولة قطر جراء الح 􀁿 1. التقرير الاأول لانتهاكات حقوق ا إ لان
. سار 1يوليو ٢٠1٧ 􀂁 سان لدولة قطر جراء الح 􀁿 ٢. التقرير الثاني لانتهاكات حقوق ا إ لان
. ض ٢٠1٧ 􀁿 سط 􀁿 سار 3٠ اأغ 􀂁 سان لدولة قطر جراء الح 􀁿 3. التقرير الثالث لانتهاكات حقوق ا إ لان
سة:- 􀀹 لخا 􀀫 لانتهاكات 􀀫 ساً تقارير 􀂬 أي􀀫
. سبتمبر ٢٠1٧ 􀀷 1. تقرير انتهاك الحق في التعليم 5
. ض ٢٠1٧ 􀁿 سط 􀁿 سعائر الدينية ٢4 اأغ 􀂀 ٢. تقرير الحرمان من تاأدية ال
. ض ٢٠1٧ 􀁿 سط 􀁿 3. تقرير انتهاك الحق في الملكية 3٠ اأغ
. سبتمبر ٢٠1٧ 􀀷 4. تقرير انتهاك الحق في الغذاء والدواء 3
سار ، 􀂁 سية من جراء الح 􀀷 سا 􀀷 سحايا جدد انتهكت حقوقهم الاأ 􀂫 سهادات جديدة ل 􀀸 سيتطرق هذا التقرير اإلى ذكر 􀀷 و
سار، 􀂁 ستمر الح 􀀷 سي طالما ا 􀀷 سا 􀀷 بتحديث هذا التقرير الاأ NHRC سان 􀁿 سمر اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 ست 􀀷 . كما
سحايا . 􀂫 سكاوى من ال 􀂀 ستمر تدفق ال 􀀷 وا
سان الحكومية 􀁿 العديد من المنظمات الدولية لحقوق الاإن NHRC سان 􀁿 ستقبلت اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀀷 وقد ا
OHCHR سان بالاأمم المتحدة 􀁿 سامية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 سية ال 􀀺 منها و غير الحكومية مثل البعثة الفنية التابعة للمفو
مرتين خلال الفترة من )Amnesty( ٢3 نوفمبر ٢٠1٧ ، بعثة منظمة العفو الدولية - خلال الفترة من 18
خلال الفترة من HRW ض􀂀 ض وت 􀁿 3٠ نوفمبر ٢٠1٧ ، وبعثة منظمة هيومن راي - 8-6 يونيو ٢٠1٧ و ٢8
ستقبلت اللجنة 􀀷 ٢5 يوليو ٢٠1٧ . كما ا - الدولية خلال الفترة ٢٢ AFD ٢٠-19 يونيو ٢٠1٧ ، ومنظمة
ض الاطلاع على الانتهاكات 􀀺 ساً وفود برلمانية من دول اأوروبية بغر 􀂫 اأي NHRC سان 􀁿 الوطنية لحقوق الاإن
سار. 􀂁 سبب الح 􀁿 الواقعة على دولة قطر ب
لخليجية 􀀫 سار 􀂁 لح􀀫 طناً من دول 􀀫 بة 11387 مو 􀀫 سلنا عليها، يُقيم في دولة قطر قر 􀂁 لتي ح 􀀫 لبيانات 􀀫 سب 􀁿 بح
لدول، 􀀫 طناً قطرياً في تلك 􀀫 بة 1927 مو 􀀫 لثلاث، ويُقيم قر 􀀫
Annex 136
3نسان  : نبذة تعريفية عن اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق ا  ثاني
سان 􀁿 سات الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 س􀀷 هي جزء مما يعرف بالموؤ NHRC سان بدولة قطر 􀁿 الوطنية لحقوق الاإن
سل هذه 􀂁 ض والتي اعتمدتها الجمعية العامة للاأمم المتحدة، وتح 􀁿 سمى بمبادئ باري 􀁿 ساأ وفق ما ي 􀂀 التي تُن ،NHRIs
سوعها 􀂫 بعد خ GANHRI سان 􀁿 سات الوطنية لحقوق ا إ لان 􀁿 س􀀷 سوية في التحالف العالمي للم ؤ و 􀂫 سات على الع 􀁿 س􀀷 الموؤ
سات 􀁿 س􀀷 سم الموؤ 􀁿 صراف ق 􀀸 وباإ ،GANNRI التابعة للتحالف SCA لعملية اعتماد من اللجنة الفرعية للاعتماد
OHCHR سان 􀁿 سامية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 سية ال 􀀺 التابع للمفو NRCS الوطنية وا آ لاليات الاإقليمية والمجتمع المدني
ساأت 􀂀 واأن ،GANHRI في التحالف )SCA( سكرتارية اللجنة الفرعية للاعتماد 􀀷 وهي بمثابة الاأمانة العامة و
سان كما حددتها 􀁿 ساتها وولايتها لحماية وتعزيز حقوق الاإن 􀀹 سا 􀂁 في عام ٢٠٠٢ باخت NHRC اللجنة الوطنية
مرة A سنيفها ب 􀂁 سنوات، وتم اإعادة ت 􀀷 في عام ٢٠1٠ لمدة 5 A سنيف 􀂁 سلت على ت 􀂁 ض وح 􀁿 مبادئ باري
ستقلالية 􀀷 سداقية والا 􀂁 سة وطنية ويدل على الم 􀁿 س􀀷 سنيف يعطى لموؤ 􀂁 سنوات، وهو اأعلى ت 􀀷 أ اخرى في ٢٠15 لمدة 5
ض. 􀁿 والامتثال التام لمبادئ باري
: منهجية التقرير:  ثالث
تتلقى في مقرها NHRC سان 􀁿 سار دولة قطر 184 يوماً، ولازالت اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀂁 مر على ح
سببت في 􀁿 سار التي ت 􀂁 صررين من قرارات دول الح 􀂫 سحايا مت 􀀺 سكاوى من 􀀸 سمة القطرية الدوحة 􀀹 سمي بالعا 􀀷 الر
صر، التعليم، الملكية، التنقل والاإقامة، 􀀷 سمل الاأ 􀀸 لتالية: لم 􀀫 لمجالات 􀀫 سان طالت 􀁿 لاإن 􀀫 نتهاكات عدة لحقوق 􀀫
سحة، والعمل وغيرها من الانتهاكات الاأخرى. 􀂁 سعائر الدينية، وال 􀂀 سة ال 􀀷 وممار
سانية، انتهاكاً لجميع بنود 􀁿 سعدة الاإن 􀀹 صرار على كافة ا أ لا 􀀺 سار وما ترتب عليها من اأ 􀂁 وتعتبر قرارات دول الح
صرائع والقوانين وا أ لاعراف الدولية، واأجبرت تلك الاإجراءات 􀂀 ض عليها في كافة ال 􀀹 سو 􀂁 سان المن 􀁿 حقوق الاإن
سون 􀂫 سي مواطني دولة قطر على الخروج من الدول الخليجية الثلاث في غ 􀀺 المعلنة فجاأة في 5 من يونيو الما
ست أ احيانا بالتفريق بين المرء وزوجه 􀂫 سيها، وق 􀀺 14 يوما، ومنعت اأي مواطن قطري من الدخول اإلى اأرا
سانية. 􀁿 ض الحائط بجميع المبادئ والمعايير الحقوقية والاإن 􀀺 صرب عر 􀂫 وا أ لام ووليدها، وذلك بقرارات ت
سيلة 􀂁 ض لاأكثر من نوع واحد من الانتهاكات، وبالتالي فاإنَّ ح 􀀺 لابُدَّ من التذكير هنا أ ان الفرد الواحد قد يتعرَّ 􀁴
ض 􀀺 سجلنا حوادث تعرَّ 􀀷 الملفات التي تُعبِّرر عن جميع الانتهاكات هي بالتاأكيد اأكبر من مجموع الاأفراد، فقد
سلة تعليمه، ومن التَّنقل، فهذه ثلاثة انتهاكات وقعت على فرد 􀀹 صرته، ومُنع من موا 􀀷 صرُّد عن اأُ 􀂀 فيها الفرد للت
واحد.
ساركة حالات تلك 􀂀 سار وتوثيق الانتهاكات الواقعة بحقهم، بم 􀂁 سحايا الح 􀂫 ستقبالها ل 􀀷 تقوم اللجنة بعد ا 􀁴
سة. 􀂁 الانتهاكات على نحوٍ متتالٍ مع الجهات الحقوقية والقانونية الدولية المخت
.NHRC سان 􀁿 سار مع تقارير اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀂁 متابعة مدى تجاوب دول الح 􀁴التي تم رفعها للجهات الحقوقية NHRC سان 􀁿 متابعة حالات الانتهاكات من قبل اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁴
سل لكل حق على 􀂁 سكلٍ مف 􀂀 سنذكره ب 􀀷 سة ومحاولة رفع الانتهاك عنها، وهذا ما 􀂁 والقانونية والدولية المخت
حده.
سار و التي لا تزال 􀂁 سوء على أ اهم الانتهاكات التي وقعت على دولة قطر جراء الح 􀂫 سلطنا ال 􀀷 وفي هذا التقرير
سحايا لكل نوع من اأنواع الانتهاكات، حفاظاً 􀂫 ض ال 􀂫 سهادات بع 􀀸 ض 􀀺 ستمرة حتى الاآن، وذلك باختيار وعر 􀁿 م
ستمارات والوثائق كافة، 􀀷 سول على الا 􀂁 سة الح 􀂁 على حجم مُعيَّن للتقرير، مع التاأكيد اأنَّ ب إ امكان الجهات المخت
سلامتهم. 􀀷 سياتهم واأمنهم و 􀀹 سو 􀂁 سحايا حفاظاً خ 􀂫 سماء ال 􀀷 سارة إ الى ا أ لاحرف ا أ لاولى من اأ 􀀸 كما قمنا بالاإ
Annex 136
4 سار، ولم نتلقَ في اللجنة 􀂁 وننوه هنا ب أ ان الحكومة القطرية لم تَقُم ب أ اي إ اجراء مماثل بحق مواطني دول الح
ساء لجنة المطالبة 􀂀 ض. كما قامت دولة قطر باإن 􀀹 سو 􀂁 سكوى في هذا الخ 􀀸 أ اية NHRC سان 􀁿 الوطنية لحقوق الاإن
للجنة بالاآتي:- 􀀫 ص هذه 􀂁 سار بتاريخ ٢٢ يونيو ٢٠1٧ ، وتخت 􀂁 صرار الناجمة من الح 􀀺 سات عن الاأ 􀂫 بالتعوي
سة والقطاع العام. 􀀹 سات الخا 􀁿 س􀀷 سات من قبل الافراد والموؤ 􀂫 سكاوى المطالبة بالتعوي 􀀸 ستقبال 􀀷 1. ا
صررين. 􀂫 ساب المت 􀀹 صرر الذي ا 􀂫 سبب في ال 􀀷 سار 􀂁 سكاوى من الناحية القانونية بحيث يكون الح 􀂀 ٢. البحث في تلك ال
صررين. 􀂫 ض المت 􀂫 سار لتعوي 􀂁 3. تكليف مكاتب محاماة دولية لبحث أ اوجه اإمكانية رفع دعاوى على دول الح
ض والافراد وبين مكاتب المحاماة لتزويدهم بالوثائق 􀀹 سيق بين جهات الدولة والقطاع الخا 􀁿 صراف والتن 􀀸 4. الاإ
اللازمة.
5. المتابعة عن كثب دعوى دولة قطر في منظمة التجارة العالمية وتزويدها باللازم.
سات حيث تقوم 􀂫 و لجنة المطالبة بالتعوي NHRC سان 􀁿 وهناك علاقة وتعاون بين اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن
ستمرارية عقد العديد من 􀀷 صررين اإليها وا 􀂫 ستقبلتها من المت 􀀷 سكاوى التي ا 􀂀 اللجنة الوطنية ب إ احالة كافة ملفات ال
ض عليه في الاتفاقيات الدولية 􀀹 سو 􀂁 صرر المن 􀂫 سحايا وتحقيق مبد أ ا جبر ال 􀂫 ساف ال 􀂁 الاجتماعات معها، من اأجل اإن
والاإقليمية.
بمخاطبة كلاً NHRC سان 􀁿 سعيها الدائم إ الى معالجة الانتهاكات قامت اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀀷 وفي اإطار
من:
. سبتمبر ٢٠1٧ 􀀷 سعودية بتاريخ ٢4 􀁿 سان – ال 􀁿 الجمعية الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁴سان وجهت لها ثلاث خطابات:- 􀁿 جمعية ا إ لامارات لحقوق الاإن 􀁴
. 1. بتاريخ 8 اأكتوبر ٢٠1٧
. ٢. بتاريخ 15 اأكتوبر ٢٠1٧
3. بتاريخ ٢3 اأكتوبر ٢٠1٧
صر بتاريخ ٢ اأكتوبر ٢٠1٧ م. 􀂁 سان بم 􀁿 ض القومي لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 المجل 􀁴
سل مع 􀀹 سعي و التوا 􀁿 ض ال 􀀺 سحايا بغر 􀂫 كافة قوائم ال NHRC سان 􀁿 سلت لهم اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀀷 حيث أ ار
ض القومي 􀁿 سلطاتهم لمعالجة تلك الانتهاكات، ولم تتلقى اللجنة أ اي ردود من طرفهم حتى الاآن، عدا المجل 􀀷
سل 􀀹 ستمرة للتوا 􀁿 سير هنا إ الى محاولات اللجنة الم 􀂀 صر الذي تعامل باإيجابية مع خطابها ، ون 􀂁 سان بم 􀁿 لحقوق ا إ لان
في مملكة البحرين دون جدوى. NHRC سان 􀁿 سة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 س􀀷 مع الموؤ
Annex 136
نوفمبر
٠١٠٠
٢٠٠
٣٠٠
٤٠٠
٥٠٠
٦٠٠
٧٠٠
أغسطس يوليو يونيو
5: أهم الانتهاكات التي وقعت:  رابع
والتي NHRC سان 􀁿 سجلتها اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀀷 سب الانتهاكات التي 􀁿 يُظهِرُ الجدول التالي فرزاً بح
سب الدولة التي قامت بالانتهاك، 􀁿 سلت اإلى 39٧٠ حالة حتى تاريخ اإعداد هذا التقرير، وقد تم توزيعها بح 􀀹 و
سب نوع كل انتهاك وقع بحق مواطني ومقيمي دولة قطر: 􀁿 وبح
سار الموافق 􀂁 سة بالانتهاكات الواقعة على دولة قطر منذ بداية الح 􀀹 سائيات الخا 􀂁 سح هذا الجدول اآخر الاإح 􀀺 يو
سمبر ٢٠1٧ ، حيث وقع 5٠4 انتهاكاً للحق في التعليم ، 11٧4 انتهاكاً للحق في 􀁿 5 يونيو ٢٠1٧ وحتى 5 دي
سحة، 􀂁 صر ، 1٢61 انتهاكاً للحق في التنقل، 3٧ انتهاكاً للحق في ال 􀀷 سمل الاأ 􀀸 الملكية، 6٢9 انتهاكاً للحق في لم
سعائر الدينية، 1٠9 انتهاكاً للحق في العمل، و 93 انتهاكاً للحق في الاإقامة. 􀂀 سة ال 􀀷 163 انتهاكاً للحق في ممار
طفال:  النساء وا  سر، خصوص  ألف: قطع شمل ا
سهر يونيو وحتى نوفمبر 2017 􀀸 سر من 􀀷 لاأ 􀀫 سمل 􀀸 لانتهاكات في قطع 􀀫 سب 􀁿 رتفاع ن 􀀫 سح 􀀺 سم بياني يو 􀀷 ر
تاريخ
حصائية ‰ ٥ ديسمبر ٢٠١٧ ا
الانتهاك
البلد التي قامت
بالانتهاك
التعليم الملكية لم شمل
سرة التنقل الصحة  ا
ممارسة
الشعائر
الدينية
جمالي ‰ قامة ا ‰ العمل ا
السعودية ٢١٣٣ ٥٧ ٦٦ ١٦٣ ١٩ ٧٥٣ ٣٣٦ ٦٧٧ 62
٩٩٧ ٤ ٦ - مارات ٤ ٣٣٤ ٨٠ ٤٢٣ 146 ‰ ا
٥٠٢ ٣٢ ٣٧ - البحرين ١٤ ١٢٦ ٢١٣ ٥٢ ٢٨
٣٢٩ - - - - ٣٩ - متنوع 22 268
٩ - - - - المجموع - - - 9
٣٩٧٠ ٩٣ ١٠٩ ١٦٣ ٣٧ 1261 ٦٢٩ ١١٧٤ ٥٠٤
Annex 136
6 ض على دولة قطر ، و اأبرزها تلك التي طالت 􀀺 سار المفرو 􀂁 س أ ان انتهاكات الح 􀂀 سكاوى ب 􀂀 تلقت اللجنة آ الاف ال
ساء، والاأطفال، 􀁿 ستيت الن 􀂀 صر الخليجية الواحدة، و نتج عن ذلك ت 􀀷 صر الاأُ 􀀹 سمل ، حيث قطعت أ اوا 􀀸 الحق في لم
سن، وحرمان ا أ لامهات وا آ لاباء من البقاء مع اأبنائهم واأطفالهم. 􀁿 ض ذوي الاإعاقة، وكبار ال 􀀹 سخا 􀀸 والاأ
سبب طلب مغادرة 􀁿 سنين، حيث ت 􀁿 ساهرة تعود لمئات ال 􀂁 سب وقرابة وم 􀁿 ويرتبط مواطنو دول الخليج بعلاقات ن
ساع غير 􀀺 سار من دولة قطر باإيجاد اأو 􀂁 ساً ترحيل مواطني دول الح 􀂫 سار واأي 􀂁 المواطنين القطريين لدول الح
سافراً لعدة مواد في القوانين الدولية، من خلال الترحيل الاإجباري للعائلات 􀀷 سانية عدا عن كونها انتهاكاً 􀁿 اإن
ستيتها، وحرمان ا أ لامهات وا آ لاباء من اأبنائهم واأطفالهم. 􀂀 وت
صر 􀀷 سمل الاأ 􀀸 ستمارة تتعلق بحالات قطع 􀀷 سان قرابة 6٢9 ا 􀁿 سجلت اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀀷 سبب هذا الانتهاك 􀁿 وب
ض حالات الانتهاك 􀂫 سكل كبير. مع العلم ب أ ان هناك بع 􀂀 سخم ب 􀀺 سيلة الحقيقية اأ 􀂁 ستيتها، لكنَّها على ثقة اأنَّ الح 􀂀 وت
سحة، وتم اإغلاق 􀀺 سوائية ومن دون اآلية وا 􀂀 ُسمح لها بالدخول، ولكن لمرة واحدة فقط و بطريقة ع 􀀷 صرية 􀀷 الاأ
الحدود تماماً بعدها.
سوت يتحدث مع اللجنة 􀀹 ض 􀀷 سية، من مواليد دولة قطر لعام 1991 م يعمل كمهند 􀁿 سعودي الجن 􀀷 ض. ف( 􀀷 سيد ) 􀁿 ال 􀁴
سار 􀂁 سماع خبر الح 􀀷 سى قائلاً: "قد ت أ اثرت أ انا وعائلتي كثيراً بعد 􀀷 بكل اأ NHRC سان 􀁿 الوطنية لحقوق الاإن
صرنا وعائلاتنا واأطفالنا لتنفيذ تلك القرارات، وزوجتي 􀀷 الذي أ امرنا من خلاله بمغادرة دولة قطر وترك اأ
سية". 􀁿 سطرابات نف 􀀺 ض وهي قطرية واأنا أ اعاني من ا 􀀷 ساد 􀁿 سهر ال 􀂀 حامل بال
سفر اإلى 􀁿 سان فقد تمَّ حرمانها من ال 􀁿 سيدة ) إ ا . ر( التي أ ادلت بها للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 سهادة ال 􀀸 سب 􀁿 وبح 􀁴
سية، ولدي اأطفال منه ، 􀁿 سية القطرية: " اأنا اأم قطرية مطلقة من زوج بحريني الجن 􀁿 اأطفالها كونها تحمل الجن
ستطع ذلك ولم 􀀷 سنة اإلى مملكة البحرين من أ اجل روؤية أ اطفالي، لكن بعد القرار لم اأ 􀁿 و أ اذهب اأربع مرات في ال
سال ا أ لاولاد لقطر من اأجل أ ان اأراهم". 􀀷 يقبل الاأب باإر
،NHRC سان 􀁿 سهادتها للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀂀 سية من مواليد عام 198٧ ب 􀁿 سيدة ) أ ا. ف( قطرية الجن 􀁿 اأدلت ال 􀁴
سية ورفع مطلقي علي 􀁿 ست له : "كنت متزوجة من مواطن اإماراتي الجن 􀀺 سيل الانتهاك الذي تعر 􀀹 وذكرت تفا
سي في دولة 􀀺 سار أ امر القا 􀂁 سانة أ ابنائي وهو متزوج من امراأة اخرى ، وبعد قرار الح 􀂫 سقاط ح 􀀷 سية اإ 􀂫 ق
سبب وجردني من جميع حقوقي". 􀀷 سانة عني بدون اأي 􀂫 سقاط الح 􀀷 ا إ لامارات باإ
،NHRC سان 􀁿 سية القطرية مقرَّ اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 سيد )خ. ع( من مواليد 1968 يحمل الجن 􀁿 زارَ ال 􀁴
سية، وبعد قرار 􀁿 سعودية و أ انا قطري الجن 􀀷 ض له هو وعائلته من انتهاك: "زوجتي 􀀺 سيل ما تعرَّ 􀀹 وذكر تفا
سعي 􀀺 ستطع اإرجاع زوجتي أ لان و 􀀷 سعودية ومغادرة قطر، لم اأ 􀁿 سار وقرار رجوع كافة المواطنين إ الى ال 􀂁 الح
سمح بذلك". 􀁿 لا ي
Annex 136
٧
باء: التوقف عن متابعة التعليم:
سهر يونيو وحتى 􀀸 لتعليم من 􀀫 لانتهاكات في حق متابعة 􀀫 سائية 􀂁 ح􀀫 رتفاع 􀀫 سب 􀁿 سح ن 􀀺 سم بياني يو 􀀷 ر
نوفمبر 2017
سكاوى حيث بلغت ما يقارب ٢36 حالة من طلاب قطريين 􀂀 سيلاً من ال 􀀷 ستقبلت اللجنة في انتهاك هذا الحق 􀀷 ا
ستهم، 􀀷 سهم فجاأة محرومين من متابعة درا 􀁿 سعودية وا إ لامارات والبحرين، وجدوا اأنف 􀁿 سون في جامعات ال 􀀷 يدر
. ض من يونيو ٢٠1٧ 􀁿 بل أ اجبروا على المغادرة اإلى وطنهم، بعد قرار تلك الدول قطع علاقاتها مع قطر في الخام
سكل هذا انتهاكاً 􀀸 ستهم 􀀷 ستكمال درا 􀀷 سفية في حرمان المئات من الطلبة من ا 􀁿 سبب ا إ لاجراءات والقرارات التع 􀁿 وب
سين في جامعة قطر على العودة اإلى 􀀷 ساً طلابها الدار 􀂫 سار اأي 􀂁 سارخاً للحق في التعليم. حيث أ اجبرت دول الح 􀀹
ستهم الجامعية ويبلغ عددهم ٧٠6 طابب 􀀷 ستكمال درا 􀀷 سعودية، ا إ لامارات، والبحرين( ومنعتهم من ا 􀁿 دولهم )الوطالبة.
التالي: " NHRC سان 􀁿 سية من مواليد عام 1986 للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 يقول الطالب )ح.ع( قطري الجن 􀁴
سالة 􀀷 سي للتخرج، بقي لي مادتان ور 􀀷 سل درا 􀂁 أ انا طالب في جامعة العلوم التطبيقية في البحرين وهذا اآخر ف
سار الذي اأدى اإلى عرقلة 􀂁 سبب قرار الح 􀁿 ستطع الذهاب ب 􀀷 صرات وامتحانات ولم اأ 􀀺 التخرج، هناك محا
ستي". 􀀷 درا
سية، طالبة 􀁿 سعودية الجن 􀀷 وهي من مواليد عام 1995 م، NHRC سان 􀁿 تقول )ن.م( للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁴
ض في 􀀷 سنوات ولدي ولدان منه، واأدر 􀀷 سية وتوفي قبل 4 􀁿 في جامعة قطر: " أ انا متزوجة من زوج قطري الجن
ستطيع اأن 􀀷 ض المملكة واأنا لا اأ 􀀺 سعودية العودة إ الى اأرا 􀁿 سفارة المملكة العربية ال 􀀷 جامعة قطر. وقد طلبت مني
ستي الجامعية". 􀀷 اأترك اأولادي ودرا
سته للجنة 􀂁 سار، يروي ق 􀂁 سحايا الح 􀀺 سحية أ اخرى من 􀀺 )ح،اأ( من مواليد دولة قطر لعام 1986 م وهو 􀁴
سار 􀂁 سبب قرار الح 􀁿 ض في الجامعة الاأمريكية في دولة الاإمارات وب 􀀷 اأدر " :NHRC سان 􀁿 الوطنية لحقوق الاإن
سائر 􀁿 سافة إ الى الخ 􀀺 ستي الجامعية في دولة الاإمارات بالاإ 􀀷 على دولة قطر لم اأتمكن من الذهاب لاإكمال درا
المادية والمعنوية".
سمح دولة الاإمارات 􀁿 لحالات انتهاك الحق في التعليم، لم ت NHRC سان 􀁿 ومع متابعة اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن
ض الجامعات الدولية التي حولت الطلبة 􀂫 سكال، عدا بع 􀀸 سكل من الاأ 􀀸 ستهم ب أ اي 􀀷 ستئناف درا 􀀷 لطلبة من دولة قطر با
سة أ اكبر، مما كبد الطلبة ومرافقيهم 􀂀 سفر ومعي 􀀷 سين فيها اإلى اأفرع اأخرى خارج ا إ لامارات ولكن بتكاليف 􀀷 الدار
سوم مادية ومعنوية اأكثر من ذي قبل. 􀀷 متطلبات ور
نوفمبر
٠١٠٠
٢٠٠
٣٠٠
٤٠٠
٥٠٠
٦٠٠
٧٠٠
أغسطس يوليو يونيو
Annex 136
سان تجاوب الجامعات القطرية التي قامت باإدماج ما يقارب 64 طالبا 􀁿 سدت اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀀹 كما ر
سار. 􀂁 صررين جراء الح 􀂫 ستثناءات للطلاب الاآخرين المت 􀀷 ض الا 􀂫 صررا ، حيث قامت وزارة التعليم القطرية ببع 􀂫 مت
سر􀂁 سون في جمهورية م 􀀷 ر􀀫 لد 􀀫 لطلاب 􀀫
صرية 􀂁 سون بالجامعات الم 􀀷 سكوى من طلاب قطريين ومقيمين في دولة قطر يدر 􀀸 سدت اللجنة حوالي ٢68 􀀹 كما ر
سبتمبر 􀀷 سهر 􀀸 سي في 􀀷 سهم من دخول امتحانات نهاية العام الدرا 􀂫 ستهم، كما منع بع 􀀷 ستكمال درا 􀀷 منعوا من ا
سعها قيودا على الطلبة 􀀺 صرية من و 􀂁 سلطات الم 􀁿 سبب ا إ لاجراءات التي قامت بها ال 􀁿 ٢٠1٧ ، وقد جاء هذا المنع ب
سيرة 􀀸 سول على موافقة أ امنية قبل منحهم تاأ 􀂁 صرط الح 􀀸 صرية تمثلت في 􀂁 سون بالجامعات الم 􀀷 القطريين الذين يدر
صرية واأداء الامتحانات بها . 􀂁 ستهم بالجامعات الم 􀀷 ستكمال درا 􀀷 دخول لا
صر في هذا 􀂁 سان بم 􀁿 ض القومي لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 ض المجل 􀁿 رئي NHRC سان 􀁿 وقد خاطبت اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن
ض القومي بذلك 􀁿 سعاب أ امامهم ، وقد قام المجل 􀂁 ساتهم وتذليل ال 􀀷 ساعدة الطلاب لاإكمال درا 􀁿 س أ ان من اأجل م 􀂀 ال
سة ، وذلك بقيام 􀀷 صرية برفع الاإجراءات التي اأعاقت انتظامهم في الدرا 􀂁 سلطات الم 􀁿 سعي لدى ال 􀁿 ، عن طريق ال
سيرة دخول واإلغاء الموافقة الامنية المطلوبة 􀀸 سي بمنح الطلبة تاأ 􀂫 سدار تعليمات جديدة تق 􀀹 صرية ب إ ا 􀂁 سلطات الم 􀁿 ال
سابقاً. 􀀷 منهم
8
Annex 136
9 -:NHRC سان 􀁿 لاإن 􀀫 لوطنية لحقوق 􀀫 للجنة 􀀫 لتي كانت قد تلقتها 􀀫 سكاوى 􀂀 ل􀀫 أمثلة 􀀫 ومن
صر، للجنة 􀂁 ض في جمهورية م 􀀷 سية القطرية ويدر 􀁿 ذكر الطالب )ع. ف( من مواليد عام 199٢ ، يحمل الجن 􀁴
ض له: "اأنا طالب قطري التحقت بجامعة عين 􀀺 سيل الانتهاك الذي تعرَّ 􀀹 تفا NHRC سان 􀁿 الوطنية لحقوق الاإن
سية الثالثة وتم منعي من 􀀷 سنة الدرا 􀁿 ض منذ عام ٢٠15 لاإكمال تعليمي في مجال القانون، واأنا الان في ال 􀁿 سم 􀀸
سباب امنية ، ولا 􀀷 سبب الاأزمة الحالية ولاأني قطري تم منعي لاأ 􀁿 صر العربية ب 􀂁 تكميل تعليمي من قبل جمهورية م
سدر اإلى الاآن". 􀂁 سدارها ولم ت 􀀹 صرية لاإ 􀂁 سفارة الم 􀁿 ستطيع الدخول الا بفيزا امنية، وراجعت ال 􀀷 ا
ساته العليا في 􀀷 سية من مواليد عام 198٢ ، للحرمان من متابعة درا 􀁿 ض . ح ( قطري الجن 􀀹 ض الطالب ) 􀀺 تعر 􀁴
سهادته للجنة 􀂀 ستير، وقد اأدلى ب 􀁿 سنة الاأخيرة من الماج 􀁿 صر وهو في ال 􀂁 سكندرية في جمهورية م 􀀷 جامعة الا
صرية 􀂁 سلطات الم 􀁿 ض له: "لقد اتخذت ال 􀀺 سيل الانتهاك الذي تعرَّ 􀀹 وذكر تفا NHRC سان 􀁿 الوطنية لحقوق الاإن
سماح بدخول الدولة اإلا بفيزا اأمنيه 􀁿 سفياً بمنع الطلاب القطريين من الالتحاق بجامعاتها. وعدم ال 􀁿 قراراً تع
سائر مادية تقارب 1٢ األف دولار". 􀁿 سية وخ 􀁿 سدمة نف 􀀹 سبب لنا 􀀷 وهذا ما اأثر علينا و
سطينية وهي من مواليد عام 199٧ م، مقرَّ اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق 􀁿 سية الفل 􀁿 زارَت الطالبة )ح. م( تحمل الجن 􀁴
ست له من حرمان للتعليم في ظلِّر قرار قطع العلاقات مع دولة 􀀺 سيل ما تعرَّ 􀀹 وذكرت تفا ،NHRC سان 􀁿 الاإن
سار 􀂁 سبب الح 􀁿 ستي ب 􀀷 سف وتوقفت درا 􀂁 سنة ون 􀀷 ض في جامعة القاهرة للتعليم المفتوح، أ اكملت 􀀷 قطر: "اأنا اأدر
ستجب جامعة القاهرة لمطالبنا اأو لحقوقنا". 􀁿 سهر ولم ت 􀀸 سة اأ 􀁿 ومرت إ الى الاآن خم
سار على 􀂁 سكي الانتهاك الذي وقع عليه جراء الح 􀂀 سية، مواليد عام 198٢ م، ي 􀁿 الطالب )ع.ح( قطري الجن 􀁴
سكواه: "اأنا طالب في 􀀸 في NHRC سان 􀁿 صر، قائلاً للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀂁 دولة قطر من قبل جمهورية م
سل على دولة قطر حيث لم 􀀹 سار الحا 􀂁 صرر من الح 􀂫 سنة رابعة، مت 􀀷 صر في كلية الحقوق 􀂁 جامعة القاهرة بم
ستي في جامعة القاهرة". 􀀷 سنى لي اإكمال درا 􀁿 يت
تاء: التوقف عن العمل:
سهر يونيو وحتى نوفمبر 2017 􀀸 لعمل من 􀀫 لانتهاكات في حق 􀀫 سائية 􀂁 ح􀀫 رتفاع 􀀫 سب 􀁿 سح ن 􀀺 سم بياني يو 􀀷 ر
سار بحق المواطنين القطريين أ او المقيمين 􀂁 سانية التي ترتكبها دول الح 􀁿 سات اللا إ ان 􀀷 لم تتوقف الانتهاكات والممار
سمنها الحق في العمل. 􀀺 سعدة ومن 􀀹 سها عند حد ما، بل امتدت لكافة المجالات وا أ لا 􀀺 على اأر
سادية، لاأنه ي ؤ ومن الفرد 􀂁 سادية والاجتماعية؛ فهو من الحقوق الاقت 􀂁 ويعد الحق في العمل من اأهم الحقوق الاقت
سته. وهو من الحقوق الاجتماعية لارتباطه الوثيق بالمجتمع. 􀂀 سادياً ويوفر له متطلبات معي 􀂁 مادياً واقت
نوفمبر
٠٢٠
٤٠
٦٠
􀂡٠
١٠٠
١٢٠
١٤٠
أغسطس يوليو يونيو
Annex 136
1٠
سالح التجارية والعمالة، كما ترتب على قرارات 􀂁 سابك الم 􀂀 سلباً على قطاع ا أ لاعمال، نظرا لت 􀀷 وهذا الانتهاك أ اثر
صرهم، ومازالت التداعيات 􀀷 سع اأ 􀀺 ستهم وعلى و 􀂀 ض لوظائفهم مما أ اثر على معي 􀀹 سخا 􀀸 سار فقدان مئات الاأ 􀂁 دول الح
صرر ممكن- 􀀺 ستمر، فقد أ اوقفت البلدان وعلى نحو مفاجئ؛ -بهدف اإحداث اأكبر 􀁿 سكل م 􀂀 على هذا القطاع تتوالى ب
جميع القوافل التجارية، لكن الاأخطر اأن هناك عائلات باأكملها تعتمد على مهنة النَّقل بين البلدان الخليجية، وقد
ض هوؤلاء أ او اإيجاد بدائل لهم. 􀂫 سها الوحيد، ولم تُبادر اأيٌّ من الدول الثلاث بتعوي 􀂀 سدر عي 􀂁 انقطع م
سة، اأو 􀀹 صركات عامة أ او خا 􀀸 سافة اإلى ذلك ف إ ان هناك عدداً كبيراً من المواطنين والمقيمين الموظفين في 􀀺 اإ
سبحوا عاطلين عن العمل، 􀀹 سدر دخلهم، و أ ا 􀂁 حكومية، كانوا يعملون ويتنقلون بحُريَّة بين تلك البلدان وقد قطع م
سار. 􀂁 سات من الدول الثلاث التي قامت بالح 􀂫 دون اأية تعوي
ض حُرموا من متابعة 􀀹 سخا 􀀸 ستمارة، لاأ 􀀷 ما لا يقل عن 1٠9 ا NHRC سان 􀁿 سجلت اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀀷 وقد
سعودية، و 6 في دولة الاإمارات، و 3٧ 􀁿 سفية. منهم 66 في المملكة العربية ال 􀁿 اأعمالهم جراء هذه القرارات التَّع
في مملكة البحرين.
ست لانتهاك حقها في العمل، ذكرت للجنة 􀀺 سية من مواليد عام 19٧٧ و تعر 􀁿 ض( اإماراتية الجن 􀀹 سيدة )ج. 􀁿 ال 􀁴
عند زيارتها قائلة: " اأنا مقيمة في الدوحة و أ اعمل فيها، واأبنائي من مواليد NHRC سان 􀁿 الوطنية لحقوق الاإن
سة 􀀺 سبب القرارات المفرو 􀁿 ستطيع العودة ب 􀁿 ساً. ولا ن 􀂫 سية ويعمل في قطر اأي 􀁿 دولة قطر، وزوجي بحريني الجن
سدر رزقنا هنا". 􀂁 سار على دولة قطر، ولان م 􀂁 علينا جراء الح
NHRC سان 􀁿 سية من مواليد عام 1986 تحدث للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 سيد )ي . أ ا( وهو بحريني الجن 􀁿 ال 􀁴
سنوات مع عائلتي 􀀷 صر 􀂀 ض له من انتهاك حيث قال: "اأنا مواطن بحريني مقيم في دولة قطر لمدة ع 􀀺 عن ما تعر
سادرة من دولتي 􀂁 سبب القرارات ال 􀁿 ستطيع ترك عملي وعائلتي ب 􀀷 وطفلتي حديثة الولادة، و أ اعمل هنا، ولا أ ا
سار دولة قطر". 􀂁 جراء ح
عن قلقه NHRC سان 􀁿 سية للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 سعودي الجن 􀀷 سيد )ف.ع( من مواليد 1996 ، 􀁿 اأعرب ال 􀁴
سية واأمي 􀁿 سعودي الجن 􀀷 سديدين من ما حدث له من انتهاك ذاكراً ا آ لاتي: " اأنا من مواليد دولة قطر و 􀂀 سفه ال 􀀷 واأ
ض 􀂀 سوف ت ؤ وثر على عملي و كوني اأعي 􀀷 قطرية، مقيم وموظف في دولة قطر، وقرارات دولتي بمغادرة قطر
مع والدتي ".
ثاء: انتهاك حرية الرأي والتعبير:
سجيل 􀁿 سها ت 􀀹 سا 􀂁 ض من اخت 􀁿 لي NHRC سان 􀁿 لابدَّ بداية من التاأكيد على أ ان اللجنة الوطنية القطرية لحقوق الاإن
ض له مواطنو تلك 􀀺 سجِّرل فقط ما تعرَّ 􀁿 صر، ونحن نُ 􀂁 سار الثلاث وم 􀂁 انتهاكات حرية الراأي والتعبير لدول الح
سل 􀀹 سائل التوا 􀀷 سبوقة كتجريم التعاطف عبر و 􀁿 سلت اإلى حدود غير م 􀀹 الدول من انتهاكات وعقوبات ، و
سية والتي بالتاأكيد 􀀺 سائل إ اعلام ممولة من دولة قطر، بما فيها القنوات الريا 􀀷 الاجتماعي، بل واإغلاق وحجب و
سقطت فيها حرية الر أ اي والتعبير 􀀷 صر عن الهاوية التي 􀀸 سية، وهذا موؤ 􀀷 سيا 􀀷 صرات أ او برامج اإخبارية أ او 􀂀 لا تبثُّ ن
صر. 􀂁 سار الثلاث وم 􀂁 لدول الح
سل اإلى 􀂁 15 عاماً وغرامة مالية ت - سجن ما بين 3 􀁿 سل إ الى ال 􀂁 سنَّت دولة الاإمارات العربية المتحدة عقوبات ت 􀀷 لقد
سل 􀀹 سفحات التوا 􀀹 5٠٠ األف درهم لمجرد التعاطف مع دولة قطر، ولو بالكلمة أ او الاإعجاب أ او التغريد على
ض 􀁿 سجن خم 􀁿 سبوق لحرية التعبير، تلتها وزارة الداخلية البحرينية حيث هدَّدت بال 􀁿 الاجتماعي، في تهديد غير م
سعودية فقد اعتبرت ذلك جريمة جنائية من جرائم الاإنترنت، وعاقبت عليها 􀁿 سنوات، أ اما المملكة العربية ال 􀀷
سعودي. 􀀷 سل اإلى 3 ملايين ريال 􀂁 سنوات وغرامة مالية ت 􀀷 سجن 5 􀁿 سل اإلى ال 􀂁 بعقوبة ت
سار من قبل تلك الدول 􀂁 صروعية قرار الح 􀂀 سعف حجة وم 􀀺 سير إ الى 􀂀 سوة تُ 􀁿 سدة والق 􀂀 اإنَّ هذه ا إ لاجراءات بالغة ال
سلطات تلك الدول من حرية المواطنين في التعبير عن ر أ اي يُخالف اإرادتها ، وهذا 􀀷 سية 􀂀 الثلاث، ويعبر عن خ
Annex 136
11سيف القانوني. 􀀹 سيرد في فقرة التو 􀀷 سارخ للعديد من الاإعلانات والمواثيق الدولية وا إ لاقليمية كما 􀀹 سكل 􀂀 مخالف ب
1٠3 حالات لاإعلاميين من NHRC سان 􀁿 سجلت اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀀷 وفي المجال ا إ لاعلامي وحده
سائل ا إ لاعلام المرئي الموجودة في دولة قطر، 􀀷 مواطني البلدان الثلاثة، والذين كانوا يعملون في عدد من و
ستقالتهم، 􀀷 سغط عليهم بهدف اإجبارهم على تقديم ا 􀂫 سوا جميعاً لاأنواع مختلفة من الانتهاكات، من بينها ال 􀀺 تعر
ستقالاتهم، وبالتالي فقدوا 􀀷 سوخ، وقدموا مجبرين ا 􀀺 سطر 1٠ إ اعلاميين منهم للر 􀀺 سغط ا 􀂫 وبناءً على هذا ال
ستقالته، وفي هذا 􀀷 ض على كل من لم يُقدم ا 􀀷 سغوطات كبيرة تمار 􀀺 سدر رزقهم، ومازالت هناك 􀂁 أ اعمالهم وم
سحافة، والعمل، والاإقامة، والر أ اي، في اآن واحد. 􀂁 سارخ لحرية ال 􀀹 صرف انتهاك 􀂁 الت
سة، 􀀹 سواءً كانت هذه القنوات حكومية أ او خا 􀀷 سار بحجب القنوات القطرية 􀂁 ساً قيام دول الح 􀂫 ومما يجب ذكره اأي
ض غرامة 􀀺 سار منوهةً الجميع إ الى حذف قنوات دولة قطر وفر 􀂁 وهذا ما اأتى في قرارات حكومات دول الح
ر:- 􀀫 لقر 􀀫 سملها 􀀸 لتي 􀀫 ت 􀀫 لقنو 􀀫 سمن 􀀺 مالية قدرها 1٠٠ األف ريال لمن يخالف هذه التوجيهات. ومن
قناة قطر التلفزيونية. 􀁴 قناة الريان. 􀁴ض. 􀀷 قناة الكاأ 􀁴سائية. 􀂫 سبكة الجزيرة الف 􀀸 􀁴سبورت 􀀷 قناة بي اإن 􀁴
قامة:  جيم: انتهاك الحق في التَّنقل وا
سهر يونيو 􀀸 لاإقامة من 􀀫 لتنقل و 􀀫 لحرمان من 􀀫 لانتهاكات في 􀀫 سائية 􀂁 ح􀀫 رتفاع 􀀫 سب 􀁿 سح ن 􀀺 سم بياني يو 􀀷 ر
وحتى نوفمبر 2017
سد بهذا الحق اأن يتمكن الفرد من التنقل في حدود اإقليم دولته اأو خارجها مع حرية العودة اإليها من دون 􀂁 يق
سارها الجائر على دولة قطر بمنع 􀂁 سار من خلال ح 􀂁 قيود أ او موانع، وهذا الحق قامت بانتهاكه دول الح
ض دولة قطر من التنقل والاإقامة في تلك الدول. 􀀺 الاأفراد القطريين اأو المقيمين على أ ار
حيث يقيم في دولة قطر 1138٧ مواطنا من الدول الخليجية الثلاث ، ويقيم نحو 19٢٧ قطرياً في تلك الدول،
صرروا في نواح مختلفة. 􀂫 صراً اإلى اأوطانهم ت 􀁿 ض عليهم العودة ق 􀀺 وجميع هوؤلاء ممن فر
نوفمبر
٠٢٠٠
٤٠٠
٦٠٠
􀂡٠٠
١٠٠٠
١٢٠٠٠
١٤٠٠٠
أغسطس يوليو يونيو
Annex 136
1٢
سبب في كثير من 􀁿 سار عقوبات وقرارات بمغادرة بلدانها وعدم العبور من منافذها، وهذا ما ت 􀂁 ست دول الح 􀀺 فر
والتي بلغت 1354 حالة انتهاك فيما يتعلق NHRC سان 􀁿 سجلتها اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀀷 الانتهاكات التي
فقط بهذا الحق تحديداً.
سة بدولة قطر في بلدانها بمجرد إ اعلان قرار 􀀹 ساً ب إ اغلاق كافة مكاتب الطيران الخا 􀂫 سار اأي 􀂁 كما قامت دول الح
سة بمكاتبهم. 􀀹 سابق إ انذار لمن يعملون في هذه المكاتب، من غير اأخذ اأي ممتلكات خا 􀀷 سار، ومن دون 􀂁 الح
سكل فردي على فترات اإلا اأنها عادت 􀂀 سلوى الحدودي جزئياً وب 􀀷 سعودية بفتح منفذ 􀁿 سلطات ال 􀁿 ورغم قيام ال
ض من 􀀹 سخا 􀀸 ستركة والاأ 􀂀 صر الم 􀀷 سى والاأ 􀀺 سانية بما فيها المر 􀁿 سكل كامل و تام حتى اأمام الحالات ا إ لان 􀂀 واأغلقته ب
سكل كامل حتى تاريخ إ اعداد هذا التقرير، مما يعد اإمعاناً من جانب 􀂀 ذوي الاإعاقة، ولايزال المعبر مغلقاً ب
سعودية في انتهاك هذا الحق . 􀁿 سلطات ال 􀁿 ال
سهادته: 􀂀 عندما اأدلى ب NHRC سان 􀁿 سية للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 صري الجن 􀂁 سيد )ع. ف( م 􀁿 سب ما ذكر ال 􀁿 وح 􀁴
صر بمبلغ ٧.4٠٠ ريال وفوجئت بعد ذلك 􀂁 ٢٠1٧ م قمت بحجز 5 تذاكر طيران إ الى م /11/ "اأنه في يوم 19
سبب 􀁿 صركة الطيران التي حجزت عليها قامت بوقف الحجوزات وارجاع كافة المبلغ المدفوع وذلك ب 􀀸 ب أ ان
سفر" . 􀁿 اإقامتي في دولة قطر، وهذا ما منعني و أ اولادي من ال
الحرمان من التنقل الذي NHRC سان 􀁿 سية للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 سيدة )اإ. ع( أ اردنية الجن 􀁿 كما ذكرت ال 􀁴
سدار الفيزا و 􀀹 سم اإ 􀀷 سة العمرة لي ولوالدتي على الرغم من دفع ر 􀂫 ست له: "عدم القدرة على اأداء فري 􀀺 تعر
سيارتي من الاأردن الى دولة قطر". 􀀷 سا عملية نقل 􀂫 سعودية توقفت اأي 􀁿 سبب اإغلاق المعبر البري بين قطر وال 􀁿 ب
NHRC سان 􀁿 سية من مواليد عام 1993 م زار مقر اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 سيد )ع.م( بحريني الجن 􀁿 ال 􀁴
ست إ الى الثانوية فيها، ووالدي رجل 􀀷 ض له: " أ انا من مواليد دولة قطر ودر 􀀺 سيل الانتهاك الذي تعر 􀀹 ذكر تفا
ض لدينا اأي عائلة في مملكة البحرين، ووالدتي اأهلها في قطر واأختي متزوجة من قطري فقرار 􀁿 اأعمال ولي
سبب كل هذه الارتباطات". 􀁿 سعباً علينا ب 􀀹 سار على دولة قطر والاأمر بالعودة اإلى مملكة البحرين يعد 􀂁 الح
حاء: انتهاك حق الملكية:
سهر يونيو وحتى نوفمبر 2017 􀀸 لملكية من 􀀫 لانتهاكات في حق 􀀫 سائية 􀂁 ح􀀫 رتفاع 􀀫 سب 􀁿 سح ن 􀀺 سم بياني يو 􀀷 ر
ستعمال اأو 􀀷 الحق في الملكيّة هو أ احد الحقوق التي يتمتّع بها الفرد المواطن في دولته أ او خارجها، ويحق له ا
سغط من اأي جانب. 􀀺 صرف بما يملكه دون اأيّ 􀂁 الت
صرات 􀂀 سائر فادحة في الاأموال والاأملاك لع 􀁿 ستها الدول الثلاث بخ 􀀺 سار المفاجئة التي فر 􀂁 سببَّت قوانين الح 􀁿 ت
020040060080010001200
Annex 136
13 سية 􀀷 سا 􀀷 سانع القرار في مراعاة الحقوق الاأ 􀀹 ستهتار كامل وعدم مبالاة لدى 􀀷 سير إ الى ا 􀂀 ض، وهذا يُ 􀀹 سخا 􀀸 آ الاف الاأ
سفر إ اليها، ولم يعد بمقدور 􀁿 سحابها من ال 􀀹 ُسلِبَت اأموال واأملاك نظراً لعدم تمكن اأ 􀀷 عند اتخاذ هذه القرارات، لقد
صرف بها. 􀂁 ستعمال اأملاكهم أ او التَّ 􀀷 سفر ا 􀁿 جميع من مُنعوا من ال
سابك الكبير في ا أ لاعمال بين دول الخليج -وهذا ا أ لامر قد لا يكون ملحوظاً لدى كثير من 􀂀 ونظراً للتداخل والتَّ
سعودية لم يعد 􀁿 صرون أ اعمالا في ال 􀀸 المنظمات والدول- هناك مئات العمال الذين يعملون لدى قطريين ويبا
سية دفعَ رواتبهم؛ نظراً لاإيقاف تحويل الاأموال، وبالتالي فقد توقف عملهم . 􀁿 بمقدور مدرائهم قطريي الجن
سقق، 􀀸 ٍض، اأو اأبنية اأو 􀀺 سيط، من اأرا 􀁿 صراوؤها بالتق 􀀸 سارة الممتلكات العقارية التي تم 􀁿 سارخ، وهو خ 􀀹 مثال اآخر
سحب 􀀷 سدة المواطنين القطريين في تلك البلدان، فقد توقفت عملية 􀀹 سة في إ امارة دبي، فنظراً لتجميد اأر 􀀹 وخا
ساحبه 􀂁 سارة العقار بالكامل، بل قد يوؤدي ب 􀁿 سبب ذلك في خ 􀁿 ستمرَّ الحال على ما هو عليه؛ فقد يت 􀀷 سيكات، و إ اذا ا 􀂀 ال
سهرية وذلك دون اأدنى ذنب منه. 􀀸 ساط 􀁿 سداد ما عليه من اأق 􀀷 سبح ملاحقاً قانونياً؛ نظراً لعدم 􀂁 إ الى اأن ي
سل بها الحد اإلى منع الحوالات المادية، والبريدية 􀀹 سبق فقد تمادت الدول الثلاث وو 􀀷 سافة اإلى كل ما 􀀺 اإ
سائر 􀁿 لاأيٍّ من المواطنين أ او المقيمين في دولة قطر، وذلك إ لاغلاق الباب اأمام أ اية حالة من حالات تدارك الخ
سار الثلاثة، لم تكن عفوية بل تعمَّدت انتهاك الحريات 􀂁 سير براأينا إ الى اأنَّ قرارات دول الح 􀂀 المادية، وكلُّ هذا يُ
سية، وهدفت إ الى ذلك منذ اللحظات الاأولى، ومما يعزز ذلك عدم اتخاذها اأية اإجراءات حتى ا آ لان لاإزالة 􀀷 سا 􀀷 الاأ
سات الخطيرة على مواطني الدول الثلاث ومواطني دولة قطر. 􀀷 الانعكا
صركات يمتلكها 􀀸 سجلت اللجنة الوطنية وجود عدد كبير من العمال الذين يحملون اإقامة قطرية ويعملون في 􀀷 كما
سار مُنع هوؤلاء العمال من العودة اإلى قطر، وقد 􀂁 ض اإجراءات الح 􀀺 مواطنون قطريون في تلك الدول، وبعد فر
سبيل 􀀷 سح حجم الانتهاكات، فعلى 􀂫 سا من النماذج ليت 􀂫 توقفوا عن العمل، ولا يوجد من يُنفق عليهم. ونورد بع
سكاوى: 􀂀 المثال ومما ورد اإلينا من ال
NHRC سان 􀁿 سية القطرية مواليد عام 19٧1 للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 سيدة )ن. ع( التي تحمل الجن 􀁿 ذكرت ال 􀁴
سكني في دبي و أ انا ا آ لان ممنوعة من دخول دبي 􀀷 صروع 􀂀 ستريت فيلا في م 􀀸 ست له من انتهاك: "ا 􀀺 سيل ما تعر 􀀹 تفا
سة بي، مع العلم باأني دفعت الدفعة ا أ لاولى من المبلغ واأطالب برد المبلغ لي كاملاً". 􀀹 والتمتع بالملكية الخا
صر 􀂫 سعودية ، ح 􀁿 سية، مواليد عام 196٠ م ولديه أ املاك في المملكة العربية ال 􀁿 سيد )ع. ه( وهو قطري الجن 􀁿 ال 􀁴
ض له: 􀀺 سيل الانتهاك الذي تعرَّ 􀀹 سهادته وذكر تفا 􀂀 واأدلى ب ،NHRC سان 􀁿 اإلى مقرِّر اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن
سار على دولة قطر لم اأتمكن من 􀂁 سبب الح 􀁿 ساً عمال انتهت اإقامتهم وب 􀂫 سيارات واأي 􀀷 سعودية و 􀁿 " لدي اإبل في ال
الذهاب".
وذكر NHRC سان 􀁿 سية، مقر اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 سيد )ن.ع( من مواليد 195٢ قطري الجن 􀁿 زارَ ال 􀁴
ض له: "يوجد لدي مبلغ وقدره ف ٢٠٠.٠٠٠ األف ريال في بنك 􀀺 سيل انتهاك حق الملكية الذي تعر 􀀹 تفا
سماح لنا بدخول مملكة البحرين بعد 􀁿 سبب عدم ال 􀁿 سحب المبلغ من البنك وذلك ب 􀀷 ستطع 􀀷 سلامي، ولم اأ 􀀷 البحرين الاإ
سار على دولة قطر". 􀂁 قرار الح
Annex 136
14خاء: الحرمان من تأدية الشعائر الدينية:
سهر يونيو وحتى نوفمبر 2017 􀀸 لملكية من 􀀫 لانتهاكات في حق 􀀫 سائية 􀂁 ح􀀫 رتفاع 􀀫 سب 􀁿 سح ن 􀀺 سم بياني يو 􀀷 ر
سلمين، 􀁿 سبة لعموم الم 􀁿 ستان بالن 􀀷 سعودية مدينتا مكة والمدينة المنورة، وهما مدينتان مقد 􀁿 تقع في المملكة العربية ال
سك الحج والعمرة. 􀀷 ستمر أ لاداء منا 􀁿 سكل م 􀂀 سدونهما ب 􀂁 ويق
سلم مقيم 􀁿 سعودية في حرمان قرابة 1.5 مليون م 􀁿 ساركت فيه المملكة العربية ال 􀀸 سار الذي 􀂁 سبَّب قرار الح 􀁿 وقد ت
سيماً للحق في العبادة. 􀁿 سعائرهم الدينية، بما يمثل انتهاكاً ج 􀀸 سة 􀀷 في دولة قطر من حقهم في ممار
سك الحج والعمرة من اإجراءات 􀀷 سة حقه في أ اداء منا 􀀷 ستثناء من يرغب في ممار 􀀷 سعودية با 􀁿 سلطات ال 􀁿 لم تقُم ال
ستعملتها كاأداة 􀀷 سية و ا 􀀷 سية والدبلوما 􀀷 سيا 􀁿 سعائر الدينية في الخلافات ال 􀂀 سار الجائر، بل قامت بالزج بال 􀂁 الح
سان. 􀁿 سارخ للاتفاقيات الدولية لحقوق الاإن 􀀹 سي في انتهاك 􀀷 سيا 􀁿 سغط ال 􀂫 لل
سفية التي تم 􀁿 سار والحظر الجوي واإغلاق الحدود البرية إ الى جانب الاإجراءات التع 􀂁 ستمرار الح 􀀷 وفي ظل ا
ية من قيامها : 􀀫 سعائر الدينية،بد 􀂀 سة ال 􀀷 ساأن الحق في حرية العبادة وممار 􀂀 سعودية ب 􀁿 سلطات ال 􀁿 اتخاذها من قبل ال
سك العمرة. 􀀷 سعودية لاأداء منا 􀁿 سي ال 􀀺 سي من دخول الاأرا 􀀺 سان الما 􀂫 سهر رم 􀀸 بمنع المعتمرين القطريين في 􀁴سعودية دون اإتمام تلك 􀁿 سي ال 􀀺 صرعة مغادرة الاأرا 􀀷 إ اجبار الموجودين منهم بالفعل داخل المملكة على 􀁴
سك. 􀀷 المنا
سحب الاآلي القطرية. 􀁿 وقف التعامل بالعملة القطرية وبطاقة ال 􀁴سعودية. 􀁿 سوء التعامل مع القطريين في منافذ الدخول والخروج البرية والجوية بالمملكة العربية ال 􀀷 􀁴سعودية، ما اأدى اإلى 􀁿 منع الطائرات التابعة للخطوط الجوية القطرية من النزول بمطارات المملكة العربية ال 􀁴
ستخدام خطوط بديلة 􀀷 سطرارهم للعودة با 􀀺 سعودية، وا 􀁿 سعوبة عودة المعتمرين القطريين إ الى الدوحة عبر ال 􀀹
ساء 􀁿 سى و الن 􀀺 سانية من المر 􀁿 سحاب الحالات الاإن 􀀹 سلطنة عُمان دون مراعاة أ لا 􀀷 عن طريق دولة الكويت و
ض ذوي الاإعاقة . 􀀹 سخا 􀀸 سن والاأ 􀁿 والاأطفال وكبار ال
سي اأدت إ الى تخوف المواطن 􀀺 سان الما 􀂫 سهر رم 􀀸 سفية التي تمت خلال 􀁿 يلاحظ اأن كل هذه الاإجراءات التع
سية تكرار ما حدث. 􀂀 ُسمح لهم بذلك خ 􀀷 سعائرهم الدينية إ اذا 􀀸 والمقيم من تاأدية
لحج للعام 2017 􀀫 سم 􀀷 سلطات في مو 􀁿 ل􀀫 بما قامت به تلك 􀀫 مرور ً 􀁴
نوفمبر
٠٢٠
٤٠
٦٠
􀂡٠
١٠٠
١٢٠
١٤٠
١٦٠
١􀂡٠
أغسطس يوليو يونيو
Annex 136
15 سعودية المعوقات والعراقيل اأمام الراغبين في اأداء 􀁿 سلطات ال 􀁿 سعت ال 􀀺 سم الحج للعام ٢٠1٧ و 􀀷 فمع قدوم مو
ض دولة قطر بما 􀀺 سلام" من المواطنين القطريين والمقيمين على اأر 􀀷 ض من اأركان الاإ 􀁿 سة الحج "الركن الخام 􀂫 فري
ارتقى
سلامية بدولة قطر من اأجل 􀀷 سئون الاإ 􀂀 سيق مع وزارة الاأوقاف وال 􀁿 ست التعامل أ او التن 􀂫 إ الى درجة المنع، حيث رف
سة . 􀂫 تمكين الراغبين في اأداء تلك الفري
سع المعوقات والعراقيل أ امام المواطنين القطريين والمقيمين بدولة 􀀺 لاآن في و 􀀫 إلى 􀀫 سلطات تتمادى 􀁿 ل􀀫 إن تلك 􀀫
سحاب حملات الحج والعمرة في دولة قطر 􀀹 سافة لما تقدم به أ ا 􀀺 سعائر الدينية، هذا بالاإ 􀂀 سك وال 􀀷 قطر لاأداء المنا
سك العمرة أ امام المقيمين بالدولة من:- 􀀷 سعوبات التي تعتري اأداء منا 􀂁 سايقات وال 􀂫 سكاوى حول الم 􀀸 من
سجيل فيه لكافة المعتمرين من 􀁿 سماح بالت 􀁿 سجيل الحج والعمرة وعدم ال 􀁿 ض بت 􀀹 سار الاإلكتروني الخا 􀁿 إ اغلاق الم 􀁴
دولة قطر.
سعودية بين الحملات القطرية 􀁿 سلطات في المملكة العربية ال 􀁿 اإلي جانب منع التحويلات المالية من قبل ال 􀁴
ساريح العمرة. 􀂁 سعوديين المخولين بمنح ت 􀁿 ووكلاء العمرة ال
سلامية بدولة 􀀷 سئون الاإ 􀂀 سيق مع وزارة الاأوقاف وال 􀁿 ض التعامل أ او التن 􀂫 سعودية في رف 􀁿 سلطات ال 􀁿 ستمرار ال 􀀷 ا 􀁴
قطر.
سعائر الدينية. وقد لحقت 􀂀 ض ال 􀁿 سيي 􀁿 سة ت 􀀷 سيا 􀀷 سعودية في 􀁿 سلطات ال 􀁿 ستمرار ال 􀀷 سكل قاطع على ا 􀂀 كل هذا يوؤكد ب
سك الحج والعمرة تمثلت في: 􀀷 سبب منع تاأدية منا 􀁿 سار ب 􀂁 سائر مالية كبيرة بدولة قطر منذ بداية الح 􀁿 صرار وخ 􀀺 اأ
سك الحج والعمرة بلغت ما يقارب 􀀷 سئون منا 􀂀 سلامية متعلقة ب 􀀷 سئون الاإ 􀂀 سة بوزارة الاأوقاف وال 􀀹 سائر خا 􀁿 خ 􀁴
سار على دولة قطر. 􀂁 ض الح 􀀺 سبب فر 􀁿 سائر اأخرى نتجت ب 􀁿 سعودي وخ 􀀷 4.5٠٠.٠٠٠ ريال
سيلة 􀂁 سلنا منهم على ح 􀂁 سعة حملات وح 􀁿 سلنا مع ت 􀀹􀀫 سيمة لحملات الحج والعمرة، وقد تو 􀁿 سائر مالية ج 􀁿 خ 􀁴
لعام: 􀀫 􀀫 سائرهم لهذ 􀁿 خ
سابت عموم 􀀹 سيمة اأ 􀁿 سية ومعنوية ج 􀁿 صرار نف 􀀺 صرار المادية، وهناك بالقطع اأ 􀀺 سائر والاأ 􀁿 هذا فيما يتعلق بالخ
ض دولة قطر، جراء حرمانهم من حقهم في العبادة 􀀺 سلمين من المواطنين القطريين والمقيمين على اأر 􀁿 الم
سوؤولية الدينية والاأخلاقية والحقوقية 􀁿 سعودية الم 􀁿 سعائرهم الدينية، وتتحمل المملكة العربية ال 􀀸 سة 􀀷 وممار
والقانونية كاملة جراء ذلك.
اسم الحملة الخسائر المالية
حملة الفرقان ٧ مليون حملة الركن الخامس ٤ مليون
حملة الحمادي ٢ مليون
حملة لبيك ٦ مليون
حملة الهدى ٢٫٧٠٠ مليون حملة التوبة ٢٫٧٠٠ مليون
حملة قطر ٤٠٠ الف ريال حملة حاتم ٢٫٧٠٠ مليون
حملة القدس ٣ مليون
جمالي ٣٠٫٥٠٠٫٠٠٠ مليون ريال قطري Œ ا
Annex 136
16 سار اإلى يومنا هذا 163 حالة انتهاك. 􀂁 منذ بداية الح NHRC سان 􀁿 سدت اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀀹 وقد ر
سوا لهذا الانتهاك:- 􀀺 سحايا الذين تعر 􀂫 سهادات ال 􀀸 ض 􀂫 وهنا بع
واأدلى NHRC سان 􀁿 سية مواليد عام 19٧8 م مقرَّ اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 ض ( قطري الجن 􀀸 سيد )ع . 􀁿 زارَ ال 􀁴
سعودية 􀁿 ض له: "حجزت في أ احد الفنادق في مدينة مكة المكرمة- ال 􀀺 سيل الانتهاك الذي تعرَّ 􀀹 سهادته وذكر تفا 􀂀 ب
سبب القرار منعت من 􀁿 سة العمرة ولكن ب 􀂫 سفر بمبلغ ٢٧.٠٠٠ الف ريال من اأجل اأداء فري 􀀷 ستريت تذاكر 􀀸 وا
ض بي". 􀀹 ض الفندق اإرجاع مبلغ الحجز الخا 􀂫 سعيرة الدينية ، كما رف 􀂀 اأداء هذه ال
سة 􀂫 سفها لعدم قدرتها على اداء فري 􀀷 سية، مواليد عام 195٠ م، عن اأ 􀁿 سطينية الجن 􀁿 سيدة )ف.ع( فل 􀁿 واأعربت ال 􀁴
ض 􀁿 بعد انتظاري خم " : NHRC سان 􀁿 سهادتها للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀂀 الحج لهذا العام ٢٠1٧ وادلت ب
سة في هذا العام حيث اأنني 􀂫 سة الحج، حُرِمت أ انا واأبنائي من تاأدية هذه الفري 􀂫 سنوات من اأجل اأداء فري 􀀷
سة ". 􀂫 سنة ومري 􀁿 امراأة اأرملة وم
سان 􀁿 سية القطرية، مواليد عام 1981 م، للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 سيد )ع.ع( الذي يحمل الجن 􀁿 ذكر ال 􀁴
سعودية- 􀁿 ض له: "قمت بعمل حجوزات في فندق بمكة المكرمة – ال 􀀺 سيل الانتهاك الذي تعر 􀀹 تفا NHRC
سفر للذهاب للعمرة 􀀷 ض بالحجوزات الفندقية وحجزت تذاكر 􀀹 ودفعت مبلغ وقدرة 1٠4.65٠ الف ريال خا
سار". 􀂁 سفر اإلى دول الح 􀁿 سار على دولة قطر ومنع مواطنيها من ال 􀂁 سبب قرار الح 􀁿 اإلا أ انني حرمت من ذلك ب
دال: التحريض على العنف والكراهية:
ض والدفع 􀂫 سها حدَّ التحري 􀂫 سلت في بع 􀀹 سان مئات حالات خطاب الكراهية و 􀁿 سدت اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀀹 ر
سلات التلفزيونية اإلى تلقين 􀁿 سل 􀁿 ض الم 􀂫 باتجاه القيام باأعمال إ ارهابية تفجيرية في دولة قطر، كما امتدَّت في بع
صري ينزع نحو احتقار المواطن 􀂁 سدنا خطاب تمييز عن 􀀹 سهم على دولة الجوار قطر، كما ر 􀂫 الاأطفال وتحري
ض 􀂫 سميين، وبع 􀀷 سارين الر 􀂀 ست 􀁿 ض الم 􀂫 سكل عنيف نظراً لانخراط بع 􀂀 ساعد هذا الخطاب ب 􀂁 القطري وتعييره، وقد ت
سان 􀀷 ض 􀁿 سلونة اأو باري 􀀸 ض نادي بر 􀂁 سافر، بل بلغ الاأمر اعتبار مجرد ارتداء قمي 􀀷 سكل 􀂀 الاإعلامين المعروفين فيه ب
سعاري الخطوط الجوية القطرية وبنك قطر الوطني على هذه 􀀸 سم و 􀀷 ساحبه لوجود ا 􀀹 جيرمان تعاطفاً، ويعاقب
سان. 􀂁 القم
ض على العنف بالتالي:- 􀂫 سار حالات خطاب الكراهية والتحري 􀂁 ستطيع اخت 􀁿 ون
سلات والاأفلام الوثائقية. 􀁿 سل 􀁿 ستخدام خطاب الكراهية عبر الاأغاني والم 􀀷 ا 􀁴سعباً ورموزاً. 􀀸 ساءة اإلى دولة قطر 􀀷 سيال ميديا للاإ 􀀸 سو 􀁿 ساهير ال 􀂀 ستخدام م 􀀷 ا 􀁴سار. 􀂁 سحف دول الح 􀀹 ساءة اإلى رموز عبر كاريكاتيرات في 􀀷 الاإ 􀁴صرب دولة قطر 􀀺 ض على 􀂫 ض على القيام ب أ اعمال تخريبية واإرهابية داخل دولة قطر، والتحري 􀂫 التحري 􀁴
سواريخ. 􀂁 سائل اإعلامها بال 􀀷 وو
صرائح 􀀸 سيولد لدى 􀀷 ض على الكراهية والعنف 􀂫 سخ الاإعلامي والفني للتحري 􀂫 ولا يخفى أ ان كل هذا الكم من ال
ضَ فقط بحق 􀁿 سل اإلى ارتكاب اأفعال إ اجرامية لي 􀂁 مختلفة داخل المجتمع من مثقفين واأُميِّرين ردود فعل متطرفة قد ت
المواطنين القطريين، بل قد تتولد ردود فعل من المجتمع القطري تجاه مجتمعات تلك الدول الثلاث و جمهورية
سان 􀁿 ستقرار في المنطقة باأكملها، ونحن في اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀀷 سلم وا أ لامن والا 􀁿 صر؛ وهذا ما يُهدد ال 􀂁 م
ض على العنف والكراهية ممن تمكن باحثونا من متابعتهم، 􀀺 سفات كل من حرَّ 􀀹 سماء و 􀀷 سجلنا اأ 􀀷 قد NHRC
سيب أ اي مواطن قطري، أ او اأياً من 􀂁 صري اإرهابي تُ 􀂁 سوؤولية القانونية عن اأية حادثة عنف عن 􀁿 ونُحمِّرلهم الم
صر. 􀂁 مواطني الدول الثلاث و م
ض 􀀹 سح خطاب الكراهية والعنف كما ورد في المادة ٢٠ من العهد الدولي الخا 􀀺 سكل وا 􀂀 يُجرِّرم القانون الدولي ب
Annex 136
1٧
صري، 􀂁 سكال التمييز العن 􀀸 ساء على جميع اأ 􀂫 ساً المادة 4 من الاتفاقية الدولية للق 􀂫 سية، واأي 􀀷 سيا 􀁿 بالحقوق المدنية وال
ساً على العداوة والعنف. 􀂫 صرية اأو الدينية، ويعتبرها تحري 􀂁 حيث يحظر اأية دعوة اإلى الكراهية القومية اأو العن
سويه 􀂀 سار لت 􀂁 ض قطريون من دول الح 􀀺 سار تعر 􀂁 ض على خطاب العنف والكراهية من قبل دول الح 􀂫 سبب التحري 􀁿 وب
سغينة والعداوة والتمييز للمواطن القطري من 􀂫 ض ذلك فقط بل نتجت عن ذلك ال 􀁿 سيارتهم وقذفهم بالحجارة، ولي 􀀷
سار. 􀂁 ض اأفراد دول الح 􀂫 قبل بع
طفال وذوي  ذال: انتهاك الحق في الصحة، خاصة النساء وا
عاقة:  ا
سهر يونيو وحتى 􀀸 سحة من 􀂁 ل􀀫 لحق في 􀀫 لانتهاكات في 􀀫 سائية 􀂁 ح􀀫 رتفاع 􀀫 سب 􀁿 سح ن 􀀺 سم بياني يو 􀀷 ر
نوفمبر 2017
سافي في دولة 􀂀 سار الثلاث ممَّن كانوا يتعالجون داخل الم 􀂁 سى من دول الح 􀀺 ض المر 􀀹 سخا 􀀸 صرَّر مئات الاأ 􀂫 ت
سافي تلك الدول، حيث طلبت مغادرة المواطنين 􀂀 قطر، بل ومن القطريين الذين كانوا يتلقَون العلاج داخل م
سع، اأو ذوي 􀀺 ساً الر 􀀹 سو 􀂁 ساء الحوامل، أ او الاأطفال وخ 􀁿 سية أ او فئة كالن 􀀺 ستثناء اأو تمييز لحالات مر 􀀷 دون اأي ا
سى، 􀀺 سار الثلاث بحقِّر مواطنيها المر 􀂁 سارخ لدول الح 􀂁 ستهتار ال 􀀷 سك مدى الا 􀀸 الاإعاقة، وذلك يُظهر دون أ ادنى
سحة هو عدم التمييز، فلا ينبغي 􀂁 سيات حق ال 􀀷 سا 􀀷 سان، فاأبرز اأ 􀁿 سيات حقوق الاإن 􀀷 سا 􀀷 سط اأ 􀁿 ستخفافها العميق باأب 􀀷 وا
ض عليه 􀀹 سو 􀂁 سحة من 􀂁 سي، فالحق في ال 􀀷 سيا 􀀷 سى القطريين، بناء على خلاف 􀀺 سار الثلاث اأن تطرد المر 􀂁 لدول الح
ض 􀀹 سان المادة ٢5 ، والعهد الدولي الخا 􀁿 في عدة مواثيق ومعاهدات دولية، كالاإعلان العالمي لحقوق الاإن
. سادية والاجتماعية والثقافية المادة 1٢ 􀂁 بالحقوق الاقت
ستطيع الذهاب 􀀷 سية القطرية: "لا اأ 􀁿 سية واأم لابن واحد ويحمل الجن 􀁿 سيدة ) ن . ع ( وهي اإمارتية الجن 􀁿 وادلت ال 􀁴
سفر 􀁿 ستطيع ال 􀀷 سهرين، ولا ا 􀀸 سينتهي بعد 􀀷 ض بي 􀀹 سار على دولة قطر، والجواز الخا 􀂁 سبب الح 􀁿 إ الى ا إ لامارات ب
سبب 􀁿 ض واأحتاج للعلاج بالخارج وب 􀀺 خوفاً من عدم تمكني من العودة اإلى قطر حيث اأنني اأعاني من المر
ستطع الذهاب للعلاج، أ لانني اأتلقى العلاج في الوقت الحالي في دولة قطر". 􀀷 سلاحية جوازي لم ا 􀀹 انتهاء
سان 􀁿 سية القطرية، مواليد عام 1994 م للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 ساب ) ر .م ( الذي يحمل الجن 􀂀 وذكر ال 􀁴
سنة والاآن اأعاني 􀁿 سهر يناير من هذه ال 􀀸 عملت عملية في قرنية العين اليمنى في مملكة البحرين في " :NHRC
سفيات في قطر، 􀂀 ست 􀁿 من ا آ لالام في العين إ اثر انفتاح في خياطة العين في مكان القرنية، وعند مراجعة اإحدى الم
نوفمبر
٠٥١٠
١٥
٢٠
٢٥
٣٠
٣٥
٤٠
أغسطس يوليو يونيو
Annex 136
18 سار على دولة 􀂁 سبب قرار الح 􀁿 صرورة مراجعة الدكتور الذي قام بالعملية في مملكة البحرين، وب 􀂫 اخبروني ب
ساعفة الالام والالتهابات". 􀂫 صرع وقت لم 􀀷 قطر لم أ اتمكن من ذلك و أ انا بحاجة لذلك في اأ
عن خوفها NHRC سان 􀁿 سية للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 سيدة )ر.ط( من مواليد 1986 م قطرية الجن 􀁿 اأعربت ال 􀁴
سبقة في يناير في مملكة البحرين واأنا بحاجة اإلى 􀁿 ستكمالها للعلاج في مملكة البحرين: "اأجريت عملية م 􀀷 لعدم ا
سبب قطع العلاقات مع دولة قطر". 􀁿 سفر ب 􀁿 ستطع ال 􀀷 سنة، لكنني لم ا 􀁿 ض ال 􀁿 ستكمال الجزء المتبقي في العملية في نف 􀀷 ا
راء: الحق في التقاضي:
سان 􀁿 صرعية والقانونية لحماية حقوق الاإن 􀂀 سيلة ال 􀀷 ساء هو الو 􀂫 سول إ الى الق 􀀹 سي والحق في الو 􀀺 سك أ ان التقا 􀀸 لا
ض 􀀹 سو 􀂁 صرر المن 􀂫 سحايا وفقاً لمبداأ جبر ال 􀂫 ساف ال 􀂁 والوقاية من الاإنتهاكات وعدم تكرارها ، اإلى جانب إ ان
سبل والاإجراءات 􀁿 سي، وتوفير كافة ال 􀀺 سان وذلك من خلال حق اللجوء اإلى التقا 􀁿 عليه في اتفاقيات حقوق الاإن
ستطع المواطنون والمقيمون في دولة قطر اللجوء اإلى محاكم 􀁿 سار على دولة قطر لم ي 􀂁 لذلك. ونظراً لتبعات الح
سار. 􀂁 دول الح
لتي 􀀫 لمخالفات 􀀫 لانتهاكات و 􀀫 لكثير من 􀀫 سبب 􀀷 قع على دولة قطر 􀀫 لو 􀀫 سار 􀂁 لح􀀫 ء 􀀫 إن ما حدث جر 􀀫
لدول لمعالجتها و نذكر منها:- 􀀫 لمحلي لتلك 􀀫 ساء 􀂬 لق 􀀫 إلى 􀀫 للجوء 􀀫 ستوجب 􀁿 ت
سبب أ اعمالهم 􀁿 سي لاأن لهم اأملاكا واأعمالا تجارية ب 􀀺 1. انتهاك الحق في الملكية: ه ؤ ولاء لديهم الحق في التقا
سابقة التي كانت 􀁿 سايا ال 􀂫 ستكمال مجريات الق 􀀷 سي، أ او ا 􀀺 سابقة اأو الميراث، ومنعوا من اإتمام اإجراءات التقا 􀁿 ال
مرفوعة.
سوم البقاء في 􀀷 سة ور 􀀷 سوم الدرا 􀀷 سار فمنهم من دفع ر 􀂁 سون في دول الح 􀀷 ٢. الحق في التعليم: هوؤلاء كانوا يدر
سترد حقوقه . 􀁿 هذه الدول ولم ت
سترداد حقوقهم. 􀀷 سحايا من ا 􀂫 سابقاً ولم يتمكن ال 􀀷 3. حجوزات الفنادق والطيران التي تمت
سي، ومن اأبرز اأوجه 􀀺 سمية للحق في التقا 􀁿 انتهاكات ج NHRC سان 􀁿 سدت اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀀹 وقد ر
هذا الانتهاك:-
سار 􀂁 سي أ امام محاكم دول الح 􀀺 سة حقهم في التقا 􀀷 إ اعاقة المواطنين القطريين والمقيمين في دولة قطر من ممار 􀁴
سعودية. 􀁿 وتحديداً بدولتي الاإمارات وال
سار 􀂁 سور اأمام المحاكم نتيجة منعهم من دخول دول الح 􀂫 سماح للمواطنين القطريين والمقيمين من الح 􀁿 عدم ال 􀁴
سي وما يرتبط به من حقوق كالحق في الدفاع. 􀀺 بما يمثل انتهاكاً لحقهم في التقا
صرة الدعاوى نيابة عنهم. 􀀸 سعوبات اأمامهم لمبا 􀂁 سع ال 􀀺 اإعاقة وكلائهم القانونيين وو 􀁴سها عن 􀁿 سيين القطريين والمقيمين لهم، و تقاع 􀀺 سار في توكيل المتقا 􀂁 ض مكاتب المحاماة في دول الح 􀂫 رف 􀁴
سايا الموكلة بها بالفعل. 􀂫 متابعة الق
سالح المواطنين القطريين. 􀂁 سادرة ل 􀂁 عدم تنفيذ الاأحكام ال 􀁴صرة دعاويهم 􀀸 سالح المواطنين القطريين والمقيمين نتيجة عدم تمكنهم من مبا 􀂁 سادرة ل 􀂁 اإلغاء الاأحكام ال 􀁴
سي وفي الدفاع. 􀀺 سة حقهم في التقا 􀀷 وممار
:NHRC سان 􀁿 سية القطرية، مواليد عام 1964 للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 سيد ) إ ا .ع ( الذي يحمل الجن 􀁿 ذكر ال 􀁴
صرورة متابعة 􀀺 سة بي في دولة ا إ لامارات، ويترتب علي 􀀹 سيارات خا 􀀷 ض وعقارات و 􀀺 " لدي أ املاك من أ ارا
سة بالعقارات، ولكن 􀀹 سول على عوائد مالية ومتابعة اللجان والتنظيمات الاإدارية الخا 􀂁 هذه الاأملاك والح
Annex 136
19 صرار التالية: غرامات وتاأخر 􀀺 سبب لي الاأ 􀀷 سار 􀂁 سار ومنع مواطني دولة قطر من دخول دول الح 􀂁 سبب الح 􀁿 ب
سهرية بما يقارب 4٠ الف 􀀸 سارة 􀁿 صرار مالية كبيرة، خ 􀀺 سبب اأ 􀁿 الانتفاع بالمرافق، تجميد العقارات مما ي
سارة تجارية وتفوق 16 مليون درهم اإماراتي". 􀁿 ريال، خ
ورثنا من " ،NHRC سان 􀁿 سكواهم للجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀂀 سية، تقدموا ب 􀁿 سيد )ب .ث .اأ.م( قطريي الجن 􀁿 ال 􀁴
سم والدنا 􀀷 سارقة( ومازالت العقارات با 􀂀 والدنا المتوفى عدة عقارات في دولة الاإمارات العربية المتحدة )ال
ساً مبالغ قرابة 133 مليون 􀂫 المتوفى ولم تنتقل الملكية إ الى الاآن، وتوجد دعوى تنفيذية، كما توجد اأي
سها موؤجرة". 􀂫 سناعية وبع 􀂁 درهم، علماً باأن العقارات في منطقة ال
: الاستنتاجات والتوصيف القانوني:  خامس
سفية واإجراءاتها غير القانونية عدة قواعد 􀁿 سار – ولاتزال - عبر قراراتها التع 􀂁 انتهكت حكومات دول الح
سح عدة مواد 􀀺 سان، ، حيث انتهكت على نحو وا 􀁿 سية في القانون الدولي لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 وقوانين ومبادئ رئي
سادية 􀂁 ض بالحقوق الاقت 􀀹 سان، ومواد أ اخرى في كل من العهد الدولي الخا 􀁿 في ا إ لاعلان العالمي لحقوق الاإن
سكوك 􀀹 سافة إ الى مواد في 􀀺 سية، اإ 􀀷 سيا 􀁿 ض بالحقوق المدنية وال 􀀹 والاجتماعية والثقافية، والعهد الدولي الخا
اأخرى اأبرزها :
لعربية، 􀀫 لخليج 􀀫 لتعاون لدول 􀀫 ص 􀁿 سان لمجل 􀁿 لاإن 􀀫 إعلان حقوق 􀀫 سان، و 􀁿 لاإن 􀀫 لعربي لحقوق 􀀫 لميثاق 􀀫
لخليجي. 􀀫 لتعاون 􀀫 ص 􀁿 سادية بين دول مجل 􀂁 لاقت 􀀫 لاتفاقية 􀀫 و
سوغ 􀁿 سيكاغو بحظر حركة الطيران المدني القطري فوق اقاليمها دون اأي م 􀀸 سار اتفاقية 􀂁 كما انتهكت دول الح
سباب تتعلق بالاأمن العام. 􀀷 صرورة حربية أ او اأ 􀀺 اأو
لثلاث بانتهاكها: 􀀫 لخليجية 􀀫 لدول 􀀫 لتي قامت 􀀫 د 􀀫 لمو 􀀫
سان: 􀁿 لاإن 􀀫 لعالمي لحقوق 􀀫 لاإعلان 􀀫 أولاً: 􀀫
، لمادة 19 􀀫 لمادة 13 ، 􀀫 لمادة 12 ، 􀀫 لمادة 10 ، 􀀫 لمادة 9، 􀀫 لمادة 8، 􀀫 لمادة 7، 􀀫 لمادة 5، 􀀫 لمادة 2، 􀀫 )
.) لمادة 26 􀀫 لمادة 25 ، 􀀫 لمادة 23 ، 􀀫
سية: 􀀷 سيا 􀁿 ل􀀫 لمدنية و 􀀫 ص بالحقوق 􀀹 لخا 􀀫 لدولي 􀀫 لعهد 􀀫 ثانياً:
، لمادة 20 􀀫 لمادة 14 ، 􀀫 لمادة 13 ، 􀀫 لمادة 12 ، 􀀫 لمادة 9، 􀀫 لثالث ) 􀀫 لجزء 􀀫 لمادة 2(، 􀀫 لثاني ) 􀀫 لجزء 􀀫
) لمادة 24 􀀫 لمادة 23 ، 􀀫
لاجتماعية: 􀀫 سادية و 􀂁 لاقت 􀀫 ص بالحقوق 􀀹 لخا 􀀫 لدولي 􀀫 لعهد 􀀫 ثالثاً:
.) لمادة 13 􀀫 لمادة 12 ، 􀀫 لمادة 10 ، 􀀫 لمادة 6، 􀀫 لثالث ) 􀀫 لجزء 􀀫
سري: 􀂁 لعن 􀀫 لتمييز 􀀫 سكال 􀀸أ􀀫 ساء على جميع 􀂬 لدولية للق 􀀫 لاتفاقية 􀀫 بعاً: 􀀫 ر
) لمادة 4 􀀫 )
سان: 􀁿 لاإن 􀀫 لعربي لحقوق 􀀫 لميثاق 􀀫 ساً: 􀁿 خام
) لمادة ) 3 􀀫
Annex 136
سع لولايتها حقَّ التمتع بالحقوق والحريات 􀀺 ض خا 􀂁 سخ 􀀸 1. تتعهد كل دولة طرف في هذا الميثاق ب أ ان تكفل لكل
ض أ او اللغة أ او المعتقد الديني أ او 􀁿 سبب العرق أ او اللون أ او الجن 􀁿 ض عليها في هذا الميثاق من دون تمييز ب 􀀹 سو 􀂁 المن
سل الوطني أ او الاجتماعي أ او الثروة اأو الميلاد أ او الاإعاقة البدنية اأو العقلية. 􀀹 الر أ اي اأو الفكر أ او ا أ لا
) لمادة ) 8 􀀫
سية أ او مُهينة أ او حاطة بالكرامة أ او غير 􀀷 سياً اأو معاملته معاملة قا 􀁿 ض بدنياً أ او نف 􀂁 سخ 􀀸 1. يحظر تعذيب أ اي
سانية. 􀁿 اإن
) لمادة ) 11 􀀫
ساوون أ امام القانون ولهم الحق في التمتع بحمايته دون تمييز 􀁿 ض مت 􀀹 سخا 􀀸 جميع الاأ
) لمادة ) 12 􀀫
ساة من اأي 􀂫 ساء وحماية الق 􀂫 ستقلال الق 􀀷 سمن الدول الاأطراف ا 􀂫 ساء. وت 􀂫 ساوون أ امام الق 􀁿 ض مت 􀀹 سخا 􀀸 جميع الاأ
سع لولايتها. 􀀺 ض خا 􀂁 سخ 􀀸 سي بدرجاته لكل 􀀺 سمن حق التقا 􀂫 سغوط اأو تهديدات. كما ت 􀀺 تدخل اأو
) لمادة ) 13 􀀫
ستقلة ونزيهة 􀁿 سة وم 􀂁 سمانات كافية وتجريها محكمة مخت 􀀺 ض الحق في محاكمة عادلة تتوفر فيها 􀂁 سخ 􀀸 1. لكل
سابقاً بحكم القانون، وذلك في مواجهة أ اية تهمة جزائية توجه إ الية أ او للبت في حقوقه أ او التزاماته، 􀀷 ساة 􀂀 ومن
وتكفل كل دولة طرف لغير القادرين مالياً الاإعانة العدلية للدفاع عن حقوقهم.
سلحة العدالة في مجتمع يحترم الحريات وحقوق 􀂁 سيها م 􀂫 ستثنائية تقت 􀀷 ٢. تكون المحاكمة علنية إ الا في حالات ا
سان. 􀁿 الاإن
) لمادة ) 26 􀀫
سكل قانوني على إ اقليم دولة طرف حرية التنقل واختيار مكان الاإقامة في اأية جهة من 􀂀 ض يوجد ب 􀂁 سخ 􀀸 1. لكل
صريعات النافذة. 􀂀 هذا الاإقليم في حدود الت
) لمادة ) 32 􀀫
ستقاء الاأنباء والاأفكار وتلقيها 􀀷 سمن هذا الميثاق الحق في الاإعلام وحرية الر أ اي والتعبير وكذلك الحق في ا 􀂫 1. ي
سيلة ودونما اعتبار للحدود الجغرافية. 􀀷 ونقلها إ الى الاآخرين ب أ اي و
سها 􀀺 سع اإلا للقيود التي يفر 􀂫 سية للمجتمع ولا تخ 􀀷 سا 􀀷 ض هذه الحقوق والحريات في إ اطار المقومات الاأ 􀀷 ٢. تُمارَ
سحة العامة أ او الاآداب العامة. 􀂁 سمعتهم اأو حماية الاأمن الوطني اأو النظام العام أ او ال 􀀷 احترام حقوق الاآخرين اأو
) لمادة ) 33 􀀫
ض تكوينها وللرجل 􀀷 سا 􀀷 سية للمجتمع. والزواج بين الرجل والمر أ اة اأ 􀀷 سا 􀀷 صرة هي الوحدة الطبيعية وا أ لا 􀀷 1. الاأ
صروط واأركان الزواج، ولا ينعقد 􀀸 صرة وفق 􀀷 ض اأُ 􀁿 سي 􀀷 سن الزواج حق التزوج وتاأ 􀀷 والمراأة ابتداء من بلوغ
صريع النافذ حقوق وواجبات الرجل والمر أ اة عند 􀂀 ساً كاملاً لا إ اكراه فيه وينظم الت 􀀺 سا الطرفين ر 􀀺 الزواج اإلا بر
انعقاد الزواج وخلال قيامه ولدى انحلاله.
سكال 􀀸 صرها وحماية الاأفراد داخلها وحظر مختلف اأ 􀀹 صرة وتقوية اأوا 􀀷 ٢. تكفل الدولة والمجتمع حماية الاأ
سيخوخة 􀂀 سد المراأة والطفل. كما تكفل للاأمومة والطفولة وال 􀀺 ساً 􀀹 سو 􀂁 سائها وخ 􀂫 ساءة المعاملة بين اأع 􀀷 العنف و إ ا
ض التنمية 􀀹 سباب اأكبر فر 􀂀 سئين وال 􀀸 ساً للنا 􀂫 سة الحماية والرعاية اللازمتين وتكفل اأي 􀀹 وذوي الاحتياجات الخا
البدنية والعقلية.
٢٠
Annex 136
سمان حماية الطفل وبقائه ونمائه 􀂫 سائية ل 􀂫 صريعية والاإدارية والق 􀂀 3. تتخذ الدول الاأطراف كل التدابير الت
ساأنه 􀂀 سي لكل التدابير المتخذة ب 􀀷 سا 􀀷 سلى المعيار ا أ لا 􀂫 سلحته الفُ 􀂁 ورفاهيته في جو من الحرية والكرامة واعتبار م
ساً للانحراف اأو جانحاً. 􀀺 سواء كان معر 􀀷 في جميع الاأحوال و
نسان لمجلس التعاون لدول الخليج
: إعلان حقوق ا  سادس
العربية:
) لمادة ) 6 􀀫
سان وفقاً للنظام)القانون( بما لا يخل بالنظام العام والاآداب 􀁿 سعائر الدينية حق لكل اإن 􀂀 سة ال 􀀷 حُرية المعتقد وممار
العامة.
) لمادة ) 9 􀀫
سلامية والنظام العام 􀀷 صريعة الاإ 􀂀 ستها مكفولة بما يتوافق مع ال 􀀷 سان وممار 􀁿 حرية الراأي والتعبير عنه حق لكل اإن
ساأن. 􀂀 وا أ لانظمة )القوانين( المنظمة لهذا ال
) لمادة ) 14 􀀫
سية في المجتمع قوامها الرجل والمراأة ويحكمها الدين وا أ لاخلاق وحب 􀀷 سا 􀀷 صرة هي الوحدة الطبيعية والاأ 􀀷 الاأ
سكال 􀀸 صرة من جميع اأ 􀀷 صرها ويحمي الاأمومة والطفولة و أ افراد الاأ 􀀹 الوطن، ويحفظ الدين كيانها، ويقوي اأوا
صري وتكفلُ الدولة والمجتمع حمايتها. 􀀷 ساءة والعنف الاأ 􀀷 الاإ
) لمادة ) 24 􀀫
سلحة العامة، مع 􀂁 سيات الكرامة والم 􀂫 سان قادر عليه، وله حرية اختيار نوعه، وفق مقت 􀁿 العمل حق لكل إ ان
سحاب العمل. 􀀹 صروط العمل وحقوق العمال و أ ا 􀀸 سمان عدالة 􀀺
) لمادة ) 27 􀀫
صرف في مُلكه إ الاّ في حدود النظام )القانون(، ولا يُنزع من اأحد 􀂁 سونة، فلا يُمنع أ احد من الت 􀂁 سة م 􀀹 الملكية الخا
ض عادل. 􀂫 سبب المنفعة العامة مقابل تعوي 􀁿 مُلكه اإلا ب
) لمادة ) 32 􀀫
ساء. 􀂫 ستقلالية كاملة للق 􀀷 سان في ظل ا 􀁿 سي مكفول لكل إ ان 􀀺 ساء وحق التقا 􀂫 سية أ امام الق 􀀷 سوا 􀀷 ض 􀀷 النا
٢1
Annex 136
نسان:  : توصيات اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق ا  سادس
سان وفقاً للنظام)القانون( بما لا يخل بالنظام العام والاآداب 􀁿 سعائر الدينية حق لكل اإن 􀂀 سة ال 􀀷 حُرية المعتقد وممار
لدولي: 􀀫 لمجتمع 􀀫 إلى 􀀫
سكان دولة قطر، و مواطني 􀀷 سار، وبذل كل الجهود الممكنة لتخفيف تداعياته على 􀂁 التحرًّك العاجل لرفع الح
سار. 􀂁 دول الح
سان: 􀁿 لاإن 􀀫 سامية لحقوق 􀁿 ل􀀫 سية 􀀺 لمفو 􀀫 لمتحدة و 􀀫 لاأمم 􀀫 إلى 􀀫
سال بعثة فنية الى الدوحة خلال 􀀷 ساء و اإر 􀂀 سان بالاأمم المتحدة باإن 􀁿 سامية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 سوية ال 􀂫 لقد قامت المف
سان 􀁿 ساع حقوق الاإن 􀀺 سار على أ او 􀂁 الفترة من 18 الى ٢3 نوفمبر ٢٠1٧ م للوقوف عن قرب على تداعيات الح
ض التعاون الخليجي و عليه نطالب: 􀁿 ض مواطني مجل 􀂫 للمواطنيين و المقيمين في دولة قطر و بع
سفية الاأحادية 􀁿 سببتها القرارات و الاإجراءات التع 􀀷 سار للكف ومعالجة الانتهاكات التي 􀂁 أولا: مخاطبة دول الح 􀀫
سية التي لحقت بهم . 􀁿 صرار المادية والنف 􀀺 سهم عن الاأ 􀂫 سحايا وتعوي 􀂫 ساف ال 􀂁 الجانب التي اإتخذوها وان
ض فيما 􀀹 سكل خا 􀂀 ض تقارير وبيانات توثِّرق مختلف اأنواع الانتهاكات التي طالت أ اعداداً هائلة، وب 􀀺 ثانيا: عر
صر، ومطالبة الدول 􀀷 ساء والاأطفال إ اثر تفكك الاأُ 􀁿 صرُّد العائلات، بما في ذلك تداعياتها المرعبة على الن 􀂀 يتعلق بت
سيها. 􀀺 سية للقائمين على اأرا 􀀷 سا 􀀷 باحترام الحريات الاأ
ض الدول 􀀹 سان والمقررين الخوا 􀁿 ض حقوق الاإن 􀁿 سان اإلى مجل 􀁿 سل عن انتهاكات حقوق الاإن 􀂁 ثالثا: رفع تقرير مف
سمان عدم تكرارها. 􀀺 والاآليات التعاقدية لمعالجة الانتهاكات و
سان: 􀁿 لاإن 􀀫 ص حقوق 􀁿 إلى مجل 􀀫
سار، وما نجم عنه من انتهاكات، 􀂁 سبيل رفع الح 􀀷 سدار قرار و اتخاذ جميع الاإجراءات الممكنة في 􀂁 ست 􀀷 اإ 􀁴
صرار التي لحقت بجميع الاأفراد. 􀀺 ض كافة الاأ 􀂫 والمطالبة بتعوي
صر. 􀀸 سكل مبا 􀂀 سحايا ب 􀂫 سي الحقائق، ومقابلة ال 􀂁 ساء لجنة لتق 􀂀 المطالبة باإن 􀁴
سان: 􀁿 لاإن 􀀫 ص حقوق 􀁿 ص في مجل 􀀹􀀫 لخو 􀀫 لمقررين 􀀫 إلى 􀀫
سدار 􀂁 ست 􀀷 سحايا، وا 􀂫 وخطابات ال NHRC سان 􀁿 صريع مع تقارير اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن 􀁿 أولا: التجاوب ال 􀀫
ساأن. 􀂀 ستركة في هذا ال 􀂀 نداءات عاجلة و نداءات م
سحايا 􀂫 ساف ال 􀂁 سار لرفع الاإنتهاكات و اإن 􀂁 ثانيا: مخاطبة حكومات دول الح
سان من جراء 􀁿 سار للوقوف على اإنتهاكات حقوق الاإن 􀂁 ثالثا: القيام بزيارات ميدانية لدولة قطر و دول الح
سار 􀂁 الح
سان 􀁿 ض حقوق الاإن 􀁿 سار في التقارير الدورية التي ترفع لمجل 􀂁 بعا: تدوين اإنتهاكات دول الح 􀀫 ر
لعربية : 􀀫 لخليج 􀀫 لتعاون لدول 􀀫 ص 􀁿 لعامة لمجل 􀀫 لاأمانة 􀀫 إلى 􀀫
سة مكتب حقوق 􀀹 ض التعاون لدول الخليج العربية و بخا 􀁿 س ؤ وون القانونية في ا أ لامانة العامة لمجل 􀂀 دعوة قطاع ال
سفية 􀁿 سحايا و الكف عن إ اية اإجراءات تع 􀂫 ساف ال 􀂁 سار لرفع الاإنتهاكات و اإن 􀂁 سان بالقطاع، مخاطبة دول الح 􀁿 الاإن
جديدة.
٢٢
Annex 136
سار: 􀂁 لح􀀫 إلى دول 􀀫
سمت اإليها 􀂫 سادقت و اإن 􀀹 سان التي 􀁿 أولاً: الاإلتزام ب إ احترام التعهدات الواردة في اإتفاقيات حقوق الاإن 􀀫
سحايا . 􀂫 ساف ال 􀂁 ثانيا: الكف عن تلك الانتهاكات ووقفها ومعالجتها واإن
والتقارير الدولية. NHRC سان 􀁿 ثالثا: التجاوب مع تقارير اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الاإن
سانية عن قرب 􀁿 سماح للمنظمات الدولية والبعثات الدولية بزيارات ميدانية للاطلاع على الحالات الاإن 􀁿 بعا: ال 􀀫 ر
سحايا. 􀂫 ساف ال 􀂁 سئوليات واإن 􀁿 وتحديد الم
سغط 􀀺 ستعماله كورقة 􀀷 سانية والاجتماعية، وعدم ا 􀁿 ساع الاإن 􀀺 سي عن التاأثير على الاأو 􀀷 سيا 􀁿 سا: تحييد الملف ال 􀁿 خام
سان. 􀁿 وذلك لمخالفته القانون الدولي، والقانون الدولي لحقوق الاإن
لقطرية: 􀀫 لحكومة 􀀫 إلى 􀀫
ض ا أ لامن، والمحاكم الدولية ولجان 􀁿 سعيد مجل 􀀹 ستوى الدولي، وعلى 􀁿 أولاً: اتخاذ جميع الخطوات الممكنة على الم 􀀫
سحايا. 􀂫 ساف ال 􀂁 سار عن المواطنين والمقيمين في دولة قطر و اإن 􀂁 التحكيم، لرفع الح
سحايا. 􀂫 ساف ال 􀂁 سي لاإن 􀀺 صريع إ اجراءات التقا 􀁿 سات في ت 􀂫 ثانياً: دعوة لجنة المطالبة بالتعوي
سانية 􀁿 سهيل اإجراءات اإدماج الطلبة في الجامعات و المنظومة التعليمية القطرية ومعالجة الحالات الاإن 􀁿 ثالثاً: ت
صررين. 􀂫 ض المت 􀂫 لبع
٢3
Annex 136
٢4
Annex 136
Annex 136

Annex 137
Human Rights Watch, World Report 2018 Country Summary: United Arab Emirates (January 2018),
available at https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/united-arab-emir…

JANUARY 2018 COUNTRY SUMMARY United Arab Emirates The United Arab Emirates’ intolerance of criticism continued in 2017 with the detention of prominent Emirati rights defender Ahmed Mansoor for exercising his right to free expression. The government arbitrarily detains and forcibly disappears individuals who criticize authorities. The UAE continued to play a leading role in the Saudi-led coalition, which has conducted scores of unlawful attacks in Yemen. The UAE was implicated in detainee abuse at home and abroad. Labor abuses persist. Migrant construction workers face serious exploitation. The UAE introduced a domestic workers law providing them labor rights for the first time, but some provisions are weaker than those accorded to other workers under the labor law. The UAE continued to ban representatives of international human rights organizations from visiting. Freedom of Expression UAE authorities have launched a sustained assault on freedom of expression and association since 2011. UAE residents who have spoken about human rights issues are at serious risk of arbitrary detention, imprisonment, and torture. Many are serving long prison terms or have left the country under pressure. The UAE’s 2014 counterterrorism law provides for the death penalty for people whose activities “undermine national unity or social peace,” neither of which the law defines. In March, the UAE detained Ahmed Mansoor, an award-winning human rights defender, who is facing speech-related charges that include using social media websites to “publish
Annex 137
2 false information that harms national unity.” Before his arrest, Mansoor had called for the release of Osama al-Najjar, who remains in prison despite having completed a three-year prison sentence on charges related to his peaceful activities on Twitter. In March, the UAE imposed a 10-year prison sentence on prominent academic Nasser bin-Ghaith, whom authorities forcibly disappeared in August 2015, for charges that included peaceful criticism of the UAE and Egyptian authorities. Authorities imposed a three-year prison sentence on UAE-based Jordanian journalist Tayseer al-Najjar related to his online criticism of Israeli and Egyptian military actions in and near the Gaza Strip. Yemen Airstrikes and Detainee Abuse The UAE is a leading member of the Saudi-led coalition operating in Yemen. Human Rights Watch has documented 87 apparently unlawful coalition attacks, some likely war crimes, that have killed nearly 1,000 civilians since March 2015. Coalition members have provided insufficient information about the role their forces are playing in the campaign to determine which are responsible for unlawful attacks. In March 2015, the Emirati State news agency reported that the UAE had deployed 30 aircraft to take part in coalition operations. In March 2017, after a helicopter attacked a boat carrying Somali migrants and refugees off Yemen’s coast, killing and wounding dozens, a member of the UAE armed forces said UAE forces were operating in the area but denied carrying out the attack. The UAE leads counterterror efforts, including by supporting Yemeni forces carrying out security campaigns, in southern Yemen. Human Rights Watch has documented abuses by these forces, including excessive force during arrests, detaining family members of wanted suspects to pressure them to “voluntarily” turn themselves in, arbitrarily detaining men and boys, detaining children with adults, and forcibly disappearing dozens. The UAE runs at least two informal detention facilities in Yemen and its officials appear to have ordered the continued detention of people despite release orders, forcibly
Annex 137
3 disappeared people, and reportedly moved high-profile detainees outside the country. Former detainees and family members reported abuse or torture inside facilities run by the UAE and UAE-backed forces. Yemeni activists who have criticized these abuses have been threatened, harassed, detained, and disappeared. Arbitrary Detention, Torture, and Mistreatment of Detainees The UAE arbitrarily detains and forcibly disappears individuals who criticize authorities within the UAE’s borders. In February, a group of United Nations human rights experts criticized the UAE’s treatment of five Libyan nationals who had been arbitrarily detained since 2014. The special rapporteur on torture said he received credible information that authorities subjected the men to torture. In May 2016, the Federal Supreme Court acquitted the men of having links to armed groups in Libya. Migrant Workers Foreign nationals account for more than 88.5 percent of the UAE’s population, according to 2011 government statistics. Many low-paid migrant workers remain acutely vulnerable to forced labor, despite some reforms. The kafala (visa-sponsorship) system continues to tie migrant workers to their employers. Those who leave their employers can face punishment for “absconding,” including fines, prison, and deportation. The UAE’s labor law excludes domestic workers, who face a range of abuses, from unpaid wages, confinement to the house, workdays up to 21 hours with no breaks, to physical or sexual assault by employers, from its protections. Domestic workers face legal and practical obstacles to redress. The UAE has made some reforms to increase domestic worker protection. In September, the president signed a bill on domestic workers that guarantees domestic workers labor rights for the first time including a weekly rest day, 30 days of paid annual leave, sick leave, and 12 hours of rest a day. In some cases, the law allows for inspections of recruitment agency offices, workplaces, and residences, and sets out penalties for
Annex 137
4 violations. But, the 2017 law does not prohibit employers from charging reimbursement for recruitment expenses and requires that workers who terminate employment without a breach of contract compensate their employers with one month’s salary and pay for their own tickets home. Women’s Rights Discrimination on the basis of sex and gender is not included in the definition of discrimination in the UAE’s 2015 anti-discrimination law. Federal Law No. 28 of 2005 regulates personal status matters. Some of its provisions discriminate against women. For a woman to marry, her male guardian must conclude her marriage contract; men have the right to unilaterally divorce their wives, whereas a woman must apply for a court order to obtain a divorce; a woman can lose her right to maintenance if, for example, she refuses to have sexual relations with her husband without a lawful excuse; and women are required to “obey” their husbands. A woman may be considered disobedient, with few exceptions, if she decides to work without her husband’s consent. UAE law permits domestic violence. Article 53 of the penal code allows the imposition of “chastisement by a husband to his wife and the chastisement of minor children” so long as the assault does not exceed the limits of Islamic law. Marital rape is not a crime. In 2010, the Federal Supreme Court issued a ruling, citing the penal code, that sanctions husbands’ beating and infliction of other forms of punishment or coercion on their wives, provided they do not leave physical marks. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Article 356 of the penal code criminalizes (but does not define) “indecency” and provides for a minimum sentence of one year in prison. UAE courts use this article to convict and sentence people for zina offenses, which include same-sex relations as well as consensual heterosexual relations outside marriage. Annex 137
5 Different emirates within the UAE’s federal system have laws that criminalize same-sex sexual relations, including Abu Dhabi, where “unnatural sex with another person” can be punished with up to 14 years in prison. In August, the UAE sentenced two Singaporean nationals who had been arrested in an Abu Dhabi shopping mall to one year in prison "for attempting to resemble women." An appeals court converted their sentence to a fine and deportation. Annex 137

Annex 138
Human Rights Watch, UAE Award-Winning Activist Jailed for 10 Years (1 June 2018), available at
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/01/uae-award-winning-activist-jailed-1…

AhmedMansoorspeakstoReutersinDubai,UnitedArabEmirates,November30,2011.©2011ReutersJUNE1,201812:00AMEDTUAE:Award-WinningActivistJailedFor10YearsAhmedMansoorSentencedforSocialMediaPosts(Beirut)–TheUAEshouldimmediatelyreleaseAhmedMansoor,anaward-winninghumanrightsactivist,andvacatethe10-yearprisonsentenceissuedagainsthimforcrimesthatappeartoviolatehisrighttofreeexpression.AuthoritiesarrestedMansoor,whowontheprestigiousMartinEnnalsAwardin2015andisamemberofHumanRightsWatch’sMiddleEastadvisorycommittee,onMarch20,2017.HewasheldinanunknownlocationformorethanayearwithnoaccesstoalawyerandonlyverylimitedfamilyvisitsandwassentencedonMay29,2018.“TheUAEhasexposeditselfasabrutallyrepressiveplacemoreinterestedinsendingrightsdefenderstorotinjailthaninanyrealreform,”SarahLeahWhitson,MiddleEastdirectoratHumanRightsWatchsaid.“SolongasMansoorremainsinprison,noamountofmoneynorarmyofpublicrelationsfirmswillbeabletowashawaythisstainontheUAE’sreputation.”Untilhisarrestin2017,MansoorhadbeenoneofthelastremainingpublichumanrightsdefendersintheUAEabletocriticizetheauthoritiespublicly.UnitedNationshumanrightsexpertshaveechoedthecallsPage1of6UAE:Award-WinningActivistJailedFor10Years4/6/2019https://www.hrw.org/print/318613
Annex 138
tofreeMansoor,describinghisarrestas“adirectattackonthelegitimateworkofhumanrightsdefendersintheUAE.”OnMay30,theUAE-basednewspaperTheNationalreportedthatacourthadsentencedAhmedMansoorto10yearsinprison,afineof1,000,000UAEDirhams(US$272,000),threeyearsofprobationaftercompletionofhissentence,andconfiscationofhiselectronicdevices.ThecourtconvictedMansoorforinsultingthe“statusandprestigeoftheUAEanditssymbols,”includingitsleaders,andseekingtodamagetheUAE’srelationshipwithitsneighborsbypublishingfalsereportsandinformationonsocialmedia,thepaperreported.ThereportingechoedthatoftheUAE’sofficialnewsagency,WAM,onMarch20,afterMansoor’sarrest.WAMreportedthatauthoritieshadarrestedMansoorontheordersofthePublicProsecutionforCybercrimesforusingsocialmediawebsitesto“publishfalseinformationandrumors,”“promote[a]sectarianandhate-incitedagenda,”and“publishfalseandmisleadinginformationthatharmnationalunityandsocialharmonyanddamagethecountry’sreputation.”Thatreportclassifiedtheseas“cybercrimes,”indicatingthatthechargesmaybebasedonallegedviolationsoftheUAE’srepressive2012cybercrimelaw,whichauthoritieshaveusedtoimprisonnumerousactivists.Itprovidesforlongprisonsentencesandseverefinancialpenalties.InFebruary2018,agroupofinternationalhumanrightsgroupscommissionedtwolawyersfromIrelandtotraveltotheUAEcapital,AbuDhabi,toseekaccesstoMansoorduringhispretrialdetention.UAEauthoritiesgavethelawyersconflictinginformationaboutMansoor’swhereaboutsanddeniedthemaccesstohim.AccordingtotheGulfNews,Mansoortoldthecourtduringhisfirsthearingthathehadbeenunabletoretainalawyer,sothecourtappointedoneforhim.PeopleintheUAEwhospeakoutabouthumanrightsabusesareatseriousriskofarbitrarydetention,imprisonment,andtorture,andmanyareservinglongprisontermsorhavefeltcompelledtoleavethecountry.Intheweeksleadinguptohismostrecentarrest,MansoorhadcriticizedtheUAE’sprosecutionsforspeech-relatedoffenses.MansoorhadalsousedhisTwitteraccounttodrawattentiontohumanrightsviolationsacrosstheregion,includinginEgyptandYemen.HealsosignedajointletterwithotheractivistsintheregioncallingonleadersattheArabLeaguesummitinJordaninMarch2017toreleasepoliticalprisonersintheircountries.Page2of6UAE:Award-WinningActivistJailedFor10Years4/6/2019https://www.hrw.org/print/318613
Annex 138
InApril2011,UAEauthoritiesdetainedMansooroverhispeacefulcallsforreformandinNovember,theFederalSupremeCourtinAbuDhabisentencedhimtothreeyearsinprisonforinsultingthecountry’stopofficialsafteratrialdeemedunfair.AlthoughtheUAEpresident,SheikhKhalifabinZayedAlNahyan,pardonedMansoor,authoritiesneverreturnedhispassport,subjectinghimtoadefactotravelban.Hehasalsofacedphysicalassaults,deaththreats,governmentsurveillance,andasophisticatedspywareattack.InAugust2016,theToronto-basedresearchgroupCitizenLabreportedthatMansoorreceivedsuspicioustextmessagesonhisiPhonepromisinginformationaboutdetaineestorturedinUAEjailsandurginghimtoclickonalink.CitizenLabdiscoveredthatclickingonthelinkwouldhaveinstalledsophisticatedspywareonhisiPhonethatallowsanoutsideoperatortocontrolthetargetediPhone’stelephoneandcamera,monitorchatapplications,andtracktheuser’smovements.SimilarmethodsforbreakingintoiPhoneshavebeenvaluedatUS$1million,leadingCitizenLabtocallMansoor“themillion-dollardissident.”WhileMansoorcanappealhisrecentconviction,trialsintheUAE,includingMansoor’sownin2018andin2011,areoftenmarredbylegalandproceduralflaws.Article32oftheArabCharteronHumanRights,towhichtheUAEisaparty,guaranteestherighttofreedomofopinionandexpressionandtoimpartnewstoothersbyanymeans.Restrictionsareonlyallowedonthepracticeofthisrightto“respectfortherightsofothers,theirreputation,ortheprotectionofnationalsecurity,publicorder,publichealth,orpublicmorals.”Article13(2)ofthecharteralsorequiresthatjudicialhearingsbe“publicotherthaninexceptionalcaseswheretheinterestsofjusticesorequireinademocraticsocietywhichrespectsfreedomandhumanrights.”“Mansoor’ssentenceisacruelreminderoftheUAE’srelentlessdeterminationtoquashanysemblanceofcriticismoranyconversationaboutrights,”Whitsonsaid.“TheUAE’ssupposedallies–includinginWashingtonandLondon–shouldstandupforMansooranddemandthatheisfreed.”Yourtaxdeductiblegiftcanhelpstophumanrightsviolationsandsavelivesaroundtheworld.$50$100Page3of6UAE:Award-WinningActivistJailedFor10Years4/6/2019https://www.hrw.org/print/318613
Annex 138
$250$500$1,000OtherDonateNowRegion/Country•MiddleEast/NorthAfrica•UnitedArabEmiratesTopic•FreeSpeechMoreReading•May5,2018NewsReleaseUAE:RevealStatusofDubaiRuler’sDaughter•April19,2018DispatchesPage4of6UAE:Award-WinningActivistJailedFor10Years4/6/2019https://www.hrw.org/print/318613
Annex 138
CanAJailedUAEActivistBecomeaMascotforManchester?SourceURL:https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/01/uae-award-winning-activist-jailed-1…
Annex 138
[23]https://telegram.me/share/url?url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/01/u…
Annex 138
Annex 139
Human Rights Watch, UAE Continues to Flout International Law (29 June 2018), available at
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/29/uae-continues-
flout-international-law

JUNE29,20186:24AMEDTUAEContinuesToFloutInternationalLawItem6UPRAdoptionStateafterstatecalledupontheUAEtobetterprotecttherighttofreeexpressionandtoensurethattorturestoppedduringthisyear’sUPRreview,yettheUAEcontinueditssustainedassaultonexpression,speechandassociation,anddirectedproxyforcesthathavearbitrarilydetained,disappearedandtorturedmenandboysinYemen.TheUAE’streatmentofAhmedMansoorisastarkreminderthattheUAEremainsmorecommittedtorepressionthanreform.Justamonthago,Mansoor,anaward-winningEmiratirightsdefender,wassentencedto10yearsinprisonforchargesrelatedtohisactivism.UnitedNationsSpecialProceduresdescribed,Mansoor’sarrestas“adirectattackonthelegitimateworkofhumanrightsdefendersintheUAE.”OthersintheUAEwhospeakoutabouthumanrightsabusesremainatseriousriskofarbitrarydetention,imprisonment,andtorture,andmanyareservinglongprisontermsorhavefeltcompelledtoleavethecountry.TheUAE’srepressivecybercrimelawremainsonthebooks,despitenumerousUPRrecommendationscallingforitsamendment.DuringtheUPRreview,theUAEemphasizedeffortsmadetoprovide“humanitarianassistance”and“protectcivilians.”Yet,since2015,theUAEhasplayedaleadingroleintheSaudi-ledcoalitionthathasindiscriminatelybombedschools,homesandmarketsinYemen,blockedaid,andusedwidelybannedweaponslikeclustermunitions.TheUAEfunds,trainsanddirectsproxyforceswhichhavearbitrarilydetained,disappearedandbrutallymistreatedmenandboysinYemen.Theyrunprisonswheremanyhavebeendisappearedandreportedhorrificabuse.Now,asthisCouncilmeets,theUAEispushingforwardthecoalition’soffensiveonHodeida,Yemen’skeyport,withreportsofcivilianskilledjustthisPage1of4UAEContinuesToFloutInternationalLaw4/7/2019https://www.hrw.org/print/319776
Annex 139
weekinadditionalcoalitionairstrikes.ActivistsinYemenwhohavecriticizedtheUAE’sactionsintheircountryhavebeensubjecttoslandercampaigns,threatened,harassedanddetained.TheUAEhasnotonlyfailedtoimplementstates’recommendations,butcontinuestobrazenlyfloutinternationalrules,andtodetain,threaten,harassandcondemnthoseactivists—athomeandabroad—whocallforrealreformandrightsprotection.Yourtaxdeductiblegiftcanhelpstophumanrightsviolationsandsavelivesaroundtheworld.$50$100$250$500$1,000OtherDonateNowRegion/Country•MiddleEast/NorthAfrica•UnitedArabEmiratesTopic•UnitedNations•HumanRightsCouncilMoreReadingPage2of4UAEContinuesToFloutInternationalLaw4/7/2019https://www.hrw.org/print/319776
Annex 139
•April5,2019NewsReleaseEgypt:MakePublicNewDraftNGOLaw•April6,2019NewsReleaseLibya:ThreatofTripoliFightingRaisesAtrocityConcernsSourceURL:https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/29/uae-continues-flout-international-l…
Annex 139
law&title=UAEContinuesToFloutInternationalLaw[12]https://telegram.me/share/url?url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/29/u…
Annex 139
Annex 140
National Human Rights Committee, Fifth General Report, Continuation of human rights violations: A year of the blockade imposed on Qatar (June 2018)

Doha - Qatar, June 2018A year of the blockade imposed on Qatar Fifth General ReportContinuation of human rights violations
Annex 140
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations3Fifth General ReportContinuation of human rights violationsA year of the blockade imposed on Qatar Doha - Qatar 2018
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations4IndexFirst: The NHRC, An Overview Second: IntroductionThird: Executive SummaryFourth: The most serious violations 􀀤􀀝􀀃􀀹􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁐􀁌􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁘􀁑􀁌􀂿􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑 B: Violation of the right to education C: Violation of the right to work D: Violation of the right to property C: Violation of the right to perform religious rituals H: Violation of freedom of opinion and expression G: Incitement of violence and hatred H: Violation of the right to movement and residence I: Violation of the right to health J: Violation of the right to litigationFifth: Legal descriptionSixth: Conclusions Seventh: Recommendations to the Competent Authorities5691314182124283240455153546265
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations5The National Human Rights Committee (NHRC) in Qatar is one of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) established in accordance with the Paris Principles adopted by the UN General Assembly. These institutions become members of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) after being accredited by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) of the GANHRI, under the supervision of the National Institutions, Regional Mechanisms and Civil Society 􀀧􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀀋􀀱􀀵􀀦􀀶􀀌􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀲􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The NHRC was established in 2002 and was 􀁐􀁄􀁑􀁇􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁗􀁈􀁆􀁗􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁐􀁒􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁋􀁘􀁐􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁇􀁈􀂿􀁑􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀳􀁄􀁕􀁌􀁖􀀃􀀳􀁕􀁌􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁓􀁏􀁈􀁖􀀑􀀃The Committee has held status (A) accreditation since 2010, which is the top rating accredited to a national institution, demonstrating a high level of credibility, independence and compliance with the Paris Principles.First: The NHRC, An Overview
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations6On June 5th, 2017, three Gulf countries - Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the Kingdom of Bahrain - in addition to the Arab Republic of Egypt cut diplomatic relations with the State of Qatar. Their joint action occurred without any legal or 􀁉􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁘􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁍􀁘􀁖􀁗􀁌􀂿􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁘􀁗􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁇􀁘􀁆􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁈􀁙􀁌􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁌􀁕􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁏􀁈􀁊􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁊􀁄􀁌􀁑􀁖􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀶􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀀑􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁈􀁌􀁕􀀃􀁇􀁈􀁆􀁌􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁋􀁒􀁚􀁈􀁙􀁈􀁕􀀏􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁇􀀃􀁑􀁒􀁗􀀃􀁖􀁘􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁓􀁒􀁏􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁓􀁏􀁒􀁐􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁆􀀃level, but rather continued to adopt a series of arbitrary measures by the three Gulf States (hereafter referred to as blockading countries). Their decisions included the closure of sea, land and air routes to trade and residents of Qatar. Moreover, they demanded Qatari citizens and residents leave their territories within fourteen days, and for their citizens to leave Qatar within the same deadline. That decision was undertaken with complete disregard of all the repercussions and legal, human rights and humanitarian consequences, constituting a series of grave violations to human rights. In its turn, the Government of Qatar has not taken any reciprocal measures against citizens of KSA, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt working in Qatar. These violations have continued for the entirety of the year, and have advanced into arbitrary detention and forced disappearances of some Qataris.This report includes cases of violations received by the NHRC, and those documented by the Committee, bringing the total number of documented violations to the tens of thousands, and increasing. To date, complaints are still being received by the NHRC and the Compensation Claims Committee (CCC). 􀀷􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁐􀁄􀁕􀁎􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁉􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀀃􀁌􀁖􀁖􀁘􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃NHRC to document these violations on the occasion of the passage of a full year of the blockade. As per its mandate, the NHRC prepared routine reports on violations to human rights in Qatar as a result of the blockade, which are as follows:After a year of the blockade, the NHRC reported4105 violationsSecond: Introduction
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations713th of June1st of July30th of August5th of December􀀷􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁕􀁖􀁗􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀀃on human rights violations resulting from the blockade imposed on the State of Qatar The third report on human rights violations resulting from the blockade imposed on the State of Qatar The second report on human rights violations resulting from the blockade imposed on the State of Qatar The fourth report on human rights violations resulting from the Blockade on the State of Qatar (six months of violations, what’s next?)Other special reports20175th of September, 2017Report on violation of the right to education 24th of August, 2017Report on violation of the right to perform religious 30th of August, 2017Report on violation of the right to private property 3rd of September, 2017Report on violation of the right to have access to food and medicine
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations8(1) Mr. Felipe González Morales. The Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Mr. David Kay - the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and e􀁛pression, Dainius 􀀳􀀀ras. The Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the en􀁍oyment of the highest attaina􀁅le standard of physical and mental health. M. Mutuma Ruteree, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, 􀁛enopho􀁅ia and related intolerance. Ms. Fionnuala 􀀱􀁴 􀀤oláin, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights 􀁚hile countering terrorism, Mme Koum􀁅ou 􀀥oly 􀀥arry, Special Rapporteur on the right to education. Mr. 􀀤hmed Shahid, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or 􀁅elief.The Committee has worked since the beginning of the blockade to counter the violations to the rights of individuals, reduce their negative impact on human rights, and seek redress and compensation for victims of these violations. We have both hosted and been received by several international organizations and human rights bodies such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and UN missions, as well as parliamentary delegations - including the Greek, British, Italian, Canadian, German and European parliament, and the Tom Lantos Committee in the U.S. Congress.The report addresses testimonies made by victims whose basic rights have been violated by the authorities of the three Blockading countries, and includes outlines and details of the violations to which they are exposed to. We also refer to urgent appeals from six United Nations Special Rapporteurs to the KSA, the UAE and Bahrain regarding the human rights violations towards Qatari nationals in the blockading countries as well as the citizens of these States residing in Qatar, that have resulted from the severing of diplomatic ties with 􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀀃􀀐􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁓􀁄􀁕􀁗􀁌􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁄􀁕􀀏􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁐􀁌􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁘􀁑􀁌􀂿􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀏􀀃􀁈􀁇􀁘􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀏􀀃􀁈􀁐􀁓􀁏􀁒􀁜􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀏􀀃􀁐􀁒􀁙􀁈􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃and residence, private property, freedom of expression and health care. This is in addition to the urgent appeal by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief directed at the KSA to ensure Qatari citizens and residents are able exercise their right to religious practice without discrimination (1). The NHRC will continue to update this basic report as long as the blockade continues, and 􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀃀􀁒􀁚􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁓􀁏􀁄􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁐􀁖􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁘􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁅􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁘􀁅􀁐􀁌􀁗􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀑
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations9􀀷􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀀃􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁖􀁖􀁘􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁆􀁆􀁄􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁕􀁖􀁗􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁑􀁌􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁖􀁄􀁕􀁜􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁅􀁏􀁒􀁆􀁎􀁄􀁇􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀶􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃of Qatar. It documents the human rights violations that have been committed following the decision of the three Gulf States of Saudi Arabia, the Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Egypt, to sever diplomatic ties with the State of Qatar on the 5th of June 2017. The report describes the relevant legal aspects, conclusions and recommendations to all parties concerned.Thousands of families have been exposed to dispersal due to the closure of crossings and 􀁅􀁒􀁕􀁇􀁈􀁕􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁅􀁄􀁑􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁕􀁈􀁆􀁗􀀃􀃀􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁈􀁙􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃their citizens from entering Qatar. Part IV of the present report includes violations relating to dispersion of families, especially women, children and persons with disabilities. This is in addition to violations of the right to education, work, health and property, movement, and litigation and the right to perform religious rites, and incitement to violence, hatred and violation of freedom of opinion and expression.These arbitrary decisions soon resulted in the denial of students from completing their education from universities in the blockading countries, preventing individuals from completing and receiving their treatment in hospitals there, in addition to material losses incurred by owners of property, which resulted from their inability to access and dispose of their property. This is in addition to the use of religious and media discourse to disseminate a culture of hatred and violence, which led to that Qatari citizens being assaulted. They have been subjected to cruel and degrading treatment by authorities in the blockading countries, and recently these violations have escalated into arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances since Saudi authorities arrested Qataris in violation of all international covenants and norms of international human rights instruments.Third: Executive Summary
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations10This report documents information referred to in testimonies of victims and those affected by the blockade. It further points to recognition by the blockading countries of the occurrence of these violations through the formation of committees to address the humanitarian cases of mixed families and other statements - however according to international organisations and reports despite the formation of these alleged committees and the allocation of telephone numbers to receive communications, this procedure has been deemed highly ineffective.The report of the technical mission of the OHCHR on the impact of the current Gulf crisis on human rights concludes that the unilateral measures, consisting of severe restrictions of 􀁐􀁒􀁙􀁈􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀏􀀃􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁐􀁌􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁕􀁘􀁓􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁇􀁈􀀏􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁙􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀃀􀁒􀁚􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁈􀁏􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃suspension of social and cultural exchanges imposed on the State of Qatar, immediately translated into actions applying to nationals and residents of Qatar, including citizens of KSA, UAE and Bahrain. Their report also examines the considerable economic impact of the crisis deeming it equitable to that of economic warfare with the erosion of investor 􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁖􀁌􀁊􀁑􀁌􀂿􀁆􀁄􀁑􀁗􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁏􀁒􀁖􀁖􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀶􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀏􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁓􀁄􀁑􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁇􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁇􀁘􀁄􀁏􀁖􀀑􀀃􀀃Several reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have highlighted the negative effects on families, the right to education, the right to health care, the right to freedom of worship and exercising of religious rites, and the impact of the blockade on non-Gulf migrant workers, particularly those coming from South Asia. Amnesty International describes the conditions imposed on people as in total disregard for human dignity.Part V of the present report constitutes the legal description of the violations committed in accordance to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as well as the Arab Charter on Human Rights Human rights, the Declaration on the Human Rights of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the economic agreement amongst GCC countries and other international human rights conventions. This is in addition to the violation of the Chicago Convention of Qatari civil aviation without any military necessity or reasons related to public security.􀀳􀁄􀁕􀁗􀀃􀀹􀀬􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁉􀁈􀁕􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀀏􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁐􀁒􀁖􀁗􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁐􀁌􀁑􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁚􀁋􀁌􀁆􀁋􀀃􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁘􀁈􀁇􀀃suffering of individuals, that the measures taken constitute as discriminatory collective punishment against individuals, and describes the failure of the blockading countries to stop violations and damages suffered by those affected.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations11 The technical mission report of the OHCHR reveals the volume of violations of human rights caused by the blockade, as well as the necessity of the responsiveness of international mechanisms and organizations and their engagement to protect and promote human rights.This is while noting the disappointing failure of all regional mechanisms meant to protect human rights, including the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf and the Arab Parliament from carrying out their role in lifting violations.The report concludes in Part VII with recommendations to all parties concerned, primarily to the International Community, demanding urgent action to lift the blockade and exert all possible efforts to mitigate its repercussions on the people of Qatar, citizens of the blockading countries and all those impacted. It demands that the Kuwaiti mediation works to alleviate the suffering of the victims and resolve the human rights situation, and from the civil society organizations in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries to intensify efforts and joint cooperation to resolve the repercussions of the crisis on the humanitarian situation. Eight recommendations are presented to the United Nations to take serious steps that would obligate the blockading countries to reverse their arbitrary decisions. Furthermore, four recommendations are outlined for the Human Rights Council, including the establishment of 􀁄􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁆􀁗􀀐􀂿􀁑􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁐􀁌􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀏􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁕􀁈􀁆􀁗􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁙􀁌􀁈􀁚􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁐􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁆􀁋􀁄􀁑􀁌􀁖􀁐􀀃􀁉􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁓􀁈􀁑􀁖􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀑􀀃In the same context, the report presents recommendations to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the blockading countries urging that they stop leveraging the humanitarian and social situation to advance their political objectives, in violation of international human rights law. This is in addition to allowing access to the technical mission of the OHCHR and visits by special rapporteurs and international human rights organizations, to examine the effects of the measures taken on the citizens of those States and on the citizens and residents Qatar.The last recommendations in this report are made to the Qatari government, including continuing to call for recourse to the International Court of Justice, arbitration committees and national and international specialized courts, and the need to bring to justice some of the perpetrators of incitement, hate speech and calls for violence and racial discrimination. In addition to inviting the Compensation Claims Committee to continue litigation and international arbitration procedures in order to redress, compensate and indemnify victims.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations12Qatar has not reciprocated with any measures or actions against the countries of the blockade
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations13Total Enforced disappearanceThe extractionof of􀂿cial documentsarbitrary arrest, detentionDegrading /Derogatory treatmentResidenceWorkThe practice of religiousritesHealth CareMovementFamily reunionPropertyEducationViolatingStateTotal21941411576716519770346697661052--2-46-434882458148514-1--3237-141292185528337--------41-242719--------9---diverse41051531931101653712976461234513TotalFourth: The most serious violationsThe following table shows the violations reported by the National Human Rights Committee, amounting to (4105) cases, distributed according to violating country and type of violation. The table includes violations against the citizens of the blockading countries in addition to the Qatari citizens and residents:Violations reported by the National Human Rights Committee, amounting to (4105) cases Table (1) All Violations Table number (1) shows the latest statistics for violations made against the State of Qatar since the beginning of the blockade, on the 5th of June 2017 until 23 May 2018. The violations include 513 cases of violation of the right to education, 1234 cases violation of the right to 􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁓􀁈􀁕􀁗􀁜􀀏􀀃􀀙􀀗􀀙􀀃􀁆􀁄􀁖􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁐􀁌􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁘􀁑􀁌􀂿􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀏􀀃􀀔􀀕􀀜􀀚􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃movement. This is in addition to 37 violations of the right to health care, 165 violations of the right to practice religious rites, 110 violations of the right to work, 93 violations of the right to residence, 1 case of degrading treatment, 3 violations of arbitrary detention, 5 violations of 􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁒􀁅􀁗􀁄􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁇􀁒􀁆􀁘􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁖􀀏􀀃􀀔􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀨􀁑􀁉􀁒􀁕􀁆􀁈􀁇􀀃􀀧􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁓􀁓􀁈􀁄􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁈􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁚􀁋􀁌􀁆􀁋􀀃􀁗􀁒􀁗􀁄􀁏􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃(4105) violations.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations14􀀤􀀝􀀃􀀹􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁐􀁌􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁘􀁑􀁌􀂿􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀷􀁄􀁅􀁏􀁈􀀃􀀋􀀕􀀌􀀃􀁖􀁋􀁒􀁚􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁑􀁘􀁐􀁅􀁈􀁕􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁐􀁌􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁘􀁑􀁌􀂿􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁖􀁌􀁑􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁅􀁈􀁊􀁌􀁑􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃of the blockade, 5th of June 2017 until 23rd of May 2018, stands at 646 violations (346 from the KSA, 82 from the UAE, 218 from Bahrain).􀀰􀁈􀁄􀁖􀁘􀁕􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁄􀁎􀁈􀁑􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁅􀁏􀁒􀁆􀁎􀁄􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁙􀁈􀀃􀁑􀁒􀁗􀀃􀁅􀁈􀁈􀁑􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁑􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁓􀁏􀁒􀁐􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁆􀀏􀀃􀁏􀁈􀁊􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃economic levels, but rather gone beyond that to the severing of relations by preventing the movement of mixed families through placing obstacles to the citizens and residents of the State of Qatar. The demand by the blockading countries that Qatari citizens leave their territories, as 􀁚􀁈􀁏􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁌􀁕􀀃􀁆􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁝􀁈􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁏􀁈􀁄􀁙􀁈􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀀃􀁆􀁕􀁈􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁋􀁘􀁐􀁄􀁑􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁇􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀃀􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏􀀃human rights conventions. This occurred through the forced deportation of families and their dispersion, not stopping at separating children from their parents. The violation of this right has upset the lives of thousands of family members, especially women, children, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and the denial of mothers and fathers to stay with their children.This violation is one of the most atrocious because it affects and threatens the family unit, disperses it, and threatens the most vulnerable groups in society (women, children, persons with disabilities and the elderly) in a alarming manner, causing serious psychological and social implications on broad segments of society.The formation of committees to handle the humanitarian situations of the mixed families, is in itself a recognition by the authorities of the blocking countries that there are violations that have already affected these families. Despite the formation of these alleged committees and allocation of phone numbers to receive communications, according to the many complaints of the victims and of the statement of the OHCHR on 14 June 2017, this procedure has not been effective enough to deal with all cases.TotalStateViolationStatisticsDate646---21882346The right to familyreuni􀂿cationMay 23,2018􀀷􀁄􀁅􀁏􀁈􀀃􀀋􀀕􀀌􀀃􀀹􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀵􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀀩􀁄􀁐􀁌􀁏􀁜􀀃􀀵􀁈􀁘􀁑􀁌􀂿􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations15ation hrights violaThe high commissioner, prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein, commenting on the impact of the current Gulf crisis on Human Rights on the 14th of June 2017 assured that, «The majority of the measures were broad and non-targeted, making no distinction between the Government of Qatar and its population,” and that the directives issued to address the humanitarian 􀁑􀁈􀁈􀁇􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁐􀁌􀁏􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁍􀁒􀁌􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁄􀁓􀁓􀁈􀁄􀁕􀀃􀂳􀁑􀁒􀁗􀀃􀁖􀁘􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁌􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁈􀁉􀁉􀁈􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁄􀁇􀁇􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁏􀀃􀁆􀁄􀁖􀁈􀁖􀀑􀂴􀀃Pursuantly the OHCHR technical mission on the Gulf Crisis’ report on January 8th 2018, noted that according to information received by the team, individuals from Qatar working in KSA, UAE and Bahrain, and / or with business interests in these countries, were forced to return to Qatar, reportedly with no access to their companies and other sources of activity and income since the outbreak of the crisis (2) . On June 9, 2017, Amnesty International condemned the violations resulting from the Blockade imposed on the State of Qatar, and stated that The organization’s researchers have interviewed dozens of people whose human rights have been affected by a series of sweeping measures imposed in an arbitrary manner by the three Gulf countries in their dispute with Qatar”, and that “For potentially thousands of people across the Gulf, the effect of the steps imposed in the wake of this political dispute is suffering, heartbreak and fear,” Stressing that the conditions imposed on people across the Gulf reveal an absolute contempt for human dignity. The Organization described these states as manipulating the lives of thousands of residents in the Gulf, dispersing families, destroying the livelihood of the people and their educational future. Moreover, the effects of the steps which are imposed in the wake of the outbreak of the 􀁓􀁒􀁏􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀃀􀁌􀁆􀁗􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁙􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁄􀁆􀁋􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁋􀁈􀁄􀁕􀁗􀀐􀁕􀁈􀁑􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁖􀁋􀁒􀁆􀁎􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁏􀁌􀁐􀁌􀁗􀁖􀀃(3). 􀀬􀁑􀀃􀀭􀁘􀁑􀁈􀀃􀀔􀀕􀀏􀀃􀀕􀀓􀀔􀀚􀀏􀀃􀀤􀁐􀁑􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁜􀀃􀀬􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁄􀁖􀁘􀁕􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁄􀁎􀁈􀁑􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁕􀁈􀁈􀀃countries (Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain) were vague, inadequate, lacked mechanisms and did not address the human rights situation.􀀰􀁒􀁕􀁈􀁒􀁙􀁈􀁕􀀏􀀃􀀤􀁐􀁑􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁜􀀃􀀬􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀀭􀁘􀁑􀁈􀀃􀀔􀀜􀀏􀀃􀀕􀀓􀀔􀀚􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀂳􀀤􀁐􀁑􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁜􀀃􀀬􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁖􀀃spoken to a number of people who tried to call these hot lines. Their experiences raise serious questions about whether these hot lines are providing effective advice or information. Several people said they had tried in vain for hours or days to get through to the hot lines. Those who 􀁊􀁒􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁕􀁒􀁘􀁊􀁋􀀃􀁖􀁄􀁌􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁖􀁎􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁐􀀃􀁉􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁐􀁌􀁑􀁌􀁐􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁇􀁈􀁗􀁄􀁌􀁏􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁅􀁒􀁘􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁌􀁕􀀃􀁆􀁄􀁖􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁒􀁏􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁐􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁜􀀃would receive a call back, but there had been no follow-up. Amnesty International has rung the hot lines and asked how cases registered were being dealt with, (2) http􀀝//􀁚􀁚􀁚.ohchr.org/􀀤R/􀀱e􀁚sEvents/Pages/Display􀀱e􀁚s.aspx􀀢􀀱e􀁚s􀀬D􀀠21􀀚3􀀜􀀉􀀯ang􀀬D􀀠􀀤(3) https􀀝//􀁚􀁚􀁚.amnesty.org/ar/latest/ne􀁚s/201􀀚/06/families-ripped-apart-freedom-of-expression-under-attack-amid-political-dispute-in-gulf
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations16􀁅􀁘􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁈􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁑􀁒􀁗􀀃􀁄􀁅􀁏􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁙􀁌􀁇􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁜􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁉􀁒􀁕􀁐􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀑􀀃􀀶􀁒􀁐􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁉􀁉􀁈􀁆􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁐􀁌􀁏􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁙􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀁏􀁇􀀃Amnesty International that they are too scared to call hot lines and register their presence, or their family’s presence, in a “rival” country for fear of reprisal (4). In July 13, 2017, Human Rights Watch reported that “in response to reports of family separations, the countries of the blockade, including Bahrain announced that they would grant exceptions for “humanitarian cases of mixed families” for travel back and forth from Qatar and each country established hotlines. Yet, of the 12 Gulf nationals who said they tried to contact these hotlines, only two managed to get permission to go back and forth. Others said that they did not call because they worried that the three countries would use the hotlines to discover the identities of citizens who remained in Qatar (5). Saudi authorities have opened the border crossing between the State of Qatar at the beginning of the crisis in a narrow and limited manner to humanitarian situations, and without clear criteria. Saudi authorities, however, have later closed the crossing completely as of 19/12/2017 until now, and have not allowed any entry or exit of humanitarian cases. It should be noted that road travel is of priority for low-income families and the elderly who constitute the most affected categories by the closure of the crossing.(4) https􀀝//􀁚􀁚􀁚.amnesty.org/ar/latest/ne􀁚s/201􀀚/06/gulf-􀁔atar-dispute-human-dignity-trampled-and-families-facing-uncertainty-as-sinister-deadline-passes(􀀘) https􀀝//􀁚􀁚􀁚.hr􀁚.org/ar/ne􀁚s/201􀀚/0􀀚/13/306􀀘􀀜􀀘
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations17In the same context, the report of the technical mission of the OHCHR in Qatar (17-24 November 􀀕􀀓􀀔􀀚􀀌􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁄􀁆􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁘􀁕􀁕􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀀪􀁘􀁏􀁉􀀃􀁆􀁕􀁌􀁖􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁋􀁘􀁐􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁖􀁖􀁘􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀀛􀀒􀀔􀀒􀀕􀀓􀀔􀀛􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁖􀀃the gross violations towards mixed families and that most of the cases affected by the current situation remain unresolved. it is likely that the impact of the current crisis will continue for those victims, in particular those who suffer from the family separation and division. The AFD International Organization has considered that the blockade violates international law and regional and international conventions, charters and the Charter of the United Nations. The report issued on July 25 by the organization pointed out that the step of the blockade is not devoid of humanitarian consequences in the region that is characterized by historical, 􀁊􀁈􀁒􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁓􀁋􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁏􀀏􀀃􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁗􀁘􀁕􀁄􀁏􀀏􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁐􀁌􀁏􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁏􀁌􀁑􀁎􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁚􀁋􀁌􀁆􀁋􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁙􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁈􀃀􀁈􀁆􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁑􀁈􀁊􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁈􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁝􀁈􀁑􀁖􀀑􀀃The organization emphasized its concern about those practices in reports condemning what citizens and residents of Qatar have been exposed to whether physically or psychologically, which have affected all the citizens of the countries of the Blockade.The NHRC has documented complaints of violations of the right to family reunification, and the prohibition of their reunification. These include:Ms. (T. A.), a Qatari:Divorced from a citizen of Saudi nationality and have children of Saudi nationality in her custody. He is a resident of the State of Qatar, and since the beginning of the blockade and the closure of the land border by Saudi authorities, the father visits have been cut off to his sons living with their mother. This is in addition to the psychological effects of depriving the children from their father.Ms. (R. K.), a Qatari:Married to a citizen of the UAE nationality (R. M.) and have an Emirati daughter born in the State of Qatar. She resides permanently in Qatar while her husband works in the UAE. Since the beginning of the blockade, the father has been prevented from visiting his family. She added that she has not been able to send her daughter to see her father in the UAE because she cannot guarantee her return to the State of Qatar. Ms. (D. S.), a Qatari:Is married to a Bahraini citizen (S. A,) and has 3 children. Since the start of the blockade on the state of Qatar, the father’s visits to his sons have ceased as well 􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁏􀀃􀁚􀁄􀁜􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁐􀁘􀁑􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁋􀁌􀁐􀀑􀀃􀀶􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁇􀁇􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁖􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁗􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃renew her children’s travel documents after the closure of the Bahraini Embassy in the State of Qatar. Furthermore, she has been banned from entering the Kingdom of Bahrain by the Bahraini authorities which hinders her children from continuing their education as well as exposed them to psychological effects due to depriving them of their father.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations18B: Violation of the right to educationTable (3) shows the number of violations of the right to education since the beginning of the blockade on the 5th of June 2017 until 23rd of May 2018. 513 violations have occurred (66 by the KSA, 148 by the UAE, 28 by the Kingdom of Bahrain, 271 by the Arab Republic of Egypt).The NHRC received complaints from Qatari students studying in the blockading countries. Following the imposition of the Blockade on the state of Qatar, authorities in these states forced the students to leave their territories and they found themselves suddenly deprived 􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁌􀁕􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁘􀁇􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀑􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁈􀁜􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁙􀁈􀀃􀁅􀁈􀁈􀁑􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁈􀁙􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁄􀁗􀁗􀁈􀁑􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁌􀁕􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁈􀁛􀁄􀁐􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁘􀁊􀁋􀀃􀁖􀁒􀁐􀁈􀀃of them have only one month remaining until graduation. Moreover, the blockading countries forced their students who are studying in Qatar University to return to their country within 14 days from the date of the announcement of the severing of relations. They also prevented these students from the completion of their studies. Universities in the blockading countries also refused to cooperate with expelled Qatari students according to testimonies documented by the NHRC. There have been no response to any requirement that would facilitate for Qatari students to complete their studies or to even be reimbursed the fees they have paid or to recover their academic documents and transcripts. 􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀁌􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁘􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁘􀁇􀁜􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀤􀁕􀁄􀁅􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁘􀁅􀁏􀁌􀁆􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀨􀁊􀁜􀁓􀁗􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁆􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁅􀁈􀁊􀁌􀁑􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃school year 2017/2018 in obtaining the necessary security clearance to obtain the necessary visa to complete their studies. This resulted in their failure to attend regularly and as such those constraints caused these students to miss the term’s examination during the months of September and October 2017. Building on the efforts of the NHRC, through its communication with the head of the Egyptian National Council for Human Rights in this regard, it has urged the Egyptian authorities to lift the procedures that hindered the regularity of students attending their classes. The Egyptian authorities have issued new instructions to grant Qatari students a visa and cancel the previously requested security clearance.TotalStateViolationStatisticsDate5132712814866The right toeducationMay 23,2018Table (3) Violation of the Right to Education
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations19The report of the Technical Mission of the OHCHR issued on 8/1/2018 states that the expulsion of Qatari students studying in the UAE, KSA, Bahrain and Egypt have a negative effect on their right to education as Qatari students who are prevented from continuing their studies or passing their examinations.􀀤􀁐􀁑􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁜􀀃􀀬􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁌􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁈􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁘􀁖􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁌􀁗􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁗􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁖􀁈􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁄􀁏􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀁌􀀃students who are concerned that they will not be able to complete their education in the blockading countries. In the same context, Human Rights Watch’s report mentions the violations to the right to education as a result of the blockade imposed on the State of Qatar by the countries of the Blockade.Orders have been issued to Qatari students in the blockading countries to return immediately to the State of Qatar. The report of the technical mission of the OHCHR states that in most cases these orders have been issued by the university administration. The report of the technical mission reviewed the efforts of Qatar University and the Ministry of Education and Higher Education in seeking quick and proper solutions by providing alternatives to the affected students in order to ensure their future.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations20The NHRC has documented complaints of violations of the rightto education by the countries of the Blockade, including:Ms. (B. M.), a Qatari:Receives her education at King Faisal University in Al Ahsa in the KSA. She has successfully passed 85 out of 132 credit hours earned according to the study plan approved by the University according to specialization. She has also paid the outstanding tuition fees. Only 47 credit hours are remaining for graduation, After the Saudi authorities have cut ties with the State of Qatar and closed the land port, she has been unable to complete her education. Mr. (G. H), a Qatari:Expressed his disappointment to the NHRC for the violation to which he was subjected: «I receive education at my own expenses at the University of Al-Jazira in the UAE in law. I have passed 99 credit hours of study, equivalent to three university years. At the beginning of the blockade, I have been able to return to Qatar and only one year is left for me to complete my studies. I have not been able to accredit the list of subjects that have been received from the university due to the prohibition of dealing with Qataris because of the Blockade and preventing them from entering the UAE. I have also sent an e-mail on 9/8/2017 to the university about the possibility of completing my studies and requesting solutions so that I can continue to receive my education but without a response, which caused me psychological and material damage».Mr. (H. P.), a Qatari:Is an M.A. student at the University of Applied Sciences in the Kingdom of Bahrain and has only two subjects left to graduate and submit a research message. Following the Bahraini authorities’ decision to sever relations with the State of Qatar, he was unable to complete the exams and attend lectures scheduled for the remaining subjects, which badly affected his educational process.violations20
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations21C: Violation of the right to workTable (4) shows the number of violations of the right to education since the beginning of the blockade on the 5th of June 2017 until 23rd of May 2018. 110 violations have been reported (67 by KSA, 6 by the UAE and 37 by Bahrain).The violations committed by the countries of the Blockade have further extended to deprivation of the right to work, which is one of the most important and fundamental economic and social rights. The business sector has been badly affected by the intertwining of commercial interests and employment. Arbitrary decisions made by the blockading countries resulted in hundreds of unemployed people losing their jobs and businesses. The damage to their livelihoods and their families has been alarming, and the repercussions on the sector continue to fall. There has been serious disruption to the lives of those living off the transport profession between the Gulf 􀀶􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁖􀁌􀁑􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁑􀁒􀁑􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁅􀁏􀁒􀁆􀁎􀁄􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁗􀁗􀁈􀁐􀁓􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁓􀁈􀁑􀁖􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁕􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁈􀁖􀀃for them.􀀤􀁇􀁇􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏􀁏􀁜􀀏􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁖􀁌􀁊􀁑􀁌􀂿􀁆􀁄􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁑􀁘􀁐􀁅􀁈􀁕􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁆􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁝􀁈􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁈􀁐􀁓􀁏􀁒􀁜􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁓􀁘􀁅􀁏􀁌􀁆􀀏􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁌􀁙􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁊􀁒􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃companies in the blockading countries were cut off their source of income, rendering many unemployed without any compensation. Furthermore, a large number of citizens of the blockading countries, the owners of companies in Qatar as well as Qatari investors in the Blockading countries has been forced to close their companies and return to their homeland due to the fear of arbitrary punitive measures imposed by the authorities of the blockading countries against everyone. This caused these investors, traders and businessmen immense losses and physical and psychological damage, and the displacement of labor that has been working in their companies and cutting off of their livelihoods.The report of the Technical Mission of the OHCHR in the State of Qatar (17-24 November 2017) on the impact of the current Gulf crisis on human rights issued on 8/1/2018 indicates that the measures and restrictions imposed by the authorities of the blockading countries constitutes collective punishment against Qatari nationals and residents of the State of Qatar or the countries of the blockade and have permanent effects and consequences of denial of the right to work and to those who have business interests.TotalStateViolationStatisticsDate110---37667Right to WorkMay 23,2018Table (4) Violation of the Right to Work
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations22􀀤ccording to Human Rights Watch Hundreds of Saudis, Bahrainis, and Emiratis have been forced into the impossible situation of either disregarding their countries' orders or leaving behind their families and jobs 􀀷􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁖􀁒􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁐􀁒􀁖􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁄􀁖􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁉􀁉􀁈􀁆􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁘􀁕􀁕􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁖􀁌􀁗􀁘􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁐􀁄􀁌􀁑􀀃unresolved. The impact of the current crisis is likely to continue for these victims, in particular those who have suffered loss of their jobs, family separation or those who cannot have access to their assets and property.Since the beginning of the Gulf crisis, authorities of the blockading countries have issued explicit instructions to their nationals, residents in the State of Qatar to leave their jobs and return to their countries, or be subjected to arbitrary punitive measures, which led many of them to submit to the NHRC of Qatar petitions requesting assistance.Human Rights Watch pointed out in its previous report that «Hundreds of Saudis, Bahrainis, and Emiratis have been forced into the impossible situation of either disregarding their countries’ orders or leaving behind their families and jobs.»In the same context, the report of Amnesty International on its second visit to the State of Qatar on 28 November 2017, stresses that the sudden restrictions imposed by the countries of the Blockade on the State of Qatar since 5 June 2017 led to serious negative effects on human rights, including the threat directed to maintaining jobs.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations23Ms. (F. A.), a Saudi:Residing and working in the State of Qatar since 2007 as an assistant football coach of Qatari Womens Sport Committee. She received instructions from the Saudi authorities to leave her job and return to the KSA or otherwise be exposed to punitive procedures. Mr. (Y. A.), a Bahraini:Residing in the State of Qatar for 10 years with his family and his wife, who works in the Ministry of Health in Qatar. He has a daughter who was born in Qatar and he 􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁘􀁑􀁄􀁅􀁏􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁊􀁈􀁗􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁉􀂿􀁆􀀃􀁗􀁌􀁆􀁎􀁈􀁗􀀃􀁇􀁘􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁆􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀥􀁄􀁋􀁕􀁄􀁌􀁑􀁌􀀃􀁈􀁐􀁅􀁄􀁖􀁖􀁜􀀃􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁆􀁏􀁒􀁖􀁈􀁇􀀃in Doha and he cannot return to Bahrain because of the Gulf crisis and decisions issued from his country leaving his family, wife and job. Ms. (H. A.) an Emirati:Resident of the State of Qatar and her mother and father are of Qatari and Emirati nationalities respectively. She is studying in Qatar and due to the Gulf crisis a decision was taken to instruct all UAE citizens to return to their country. She however, have not done so which would cause her and her mother much harm. The NHRC documented complaints of violations of the right to work committed by the countries of the Blockade. These include:
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations24D: the violation of the right to propertyTable (5) shows the number of violations of the right to property since the beginning of the blockade on the 5th of June 2017 until 23rd of May 2018. There have been 1234 violations (697 violations by KSA, 458 by UAE, 55 by Bahrain and 24 by Egypt).It is well known that there is a great deal of overlapping and intertwining between the Gulf States because of tribal and familial ties between, and the many reciprocal concessions granted to the 􀁆􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁝􀁈􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁖􀁈􀀃􀀶􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁈􀁏􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁌􀁙􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁓􀁈􀁕􀁗􀁜􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁐􀁈􀁕􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁈􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁒􀁐􀁌􀁆􀀃􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃within the framework of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Thousands of citizens of Gulf States have homes, factories, commercial companies and other properties in each other’s countries. 􀀷􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁈􀁛􀁗􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁇􀁄􀁐􀁄􀁊􀁈􀀃􀁌􀁑􀃀􀁌􀁆􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕􀀃􀁆􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁝􀁈􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀪􀁘􀁏􀁉􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁘􀁏􀁗􀀃of arbitrary measures and decisions that violated all human rights norms and charters.The sudden blockade resulted in heavy losses of property for thousands of people. Their livelihoods were cut off, destroyed, and their money/property lost because they were unable to travel to them. All those who have been prevented from traveling have been unable to use or dispose of their property. For example, according to the NHRC complaints:Hundreds of Qataris have been prevented from traveling to the KSA to retrieve their camels and livestock, many of which have been lost or passed away.Another example, especially from the UAE, is the loss of real-estate property purchased by instalments in the form of land, buildings or apartments, because Qataris have been prevented from traveling to the territory of the blockading countries or from transferring money. This is in addition to freezing their assets which have led to the cessation of the process of withdrawal of cheques. If this continues, it may cause the loss of the property in full, and the loss of money paid, and may lead to legal proceeding being brought against the owner for failure to pay the monthly instalments. TotalStateViolationStatisticsDate12342455458697Right to PropertyMay 23,2018 Table (5) Violation of the Right to Property
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations25􀀬􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁇􀁇􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁅􀁒􀁙􀁈􀀏􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁓􀁒􀁖􀁗􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁐􀁌􀁗􀁗􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁜􀀃􀁆􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁝􀁈􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁌􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃Qatar have been blocked, closing the door on cases of recovery of material losses.Moreover, forcing the citizens of the blockading countries to leave the State of Qatar - or else they would be subjected to harsh punitive measures from their countries – caused many to close their companies and leave their private property in the State of Qatar, exposing them and 􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁌􀁕􀀃􀁚􀁒􀁕􀁎􀁈􀁕􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁆􀁏􀁌􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁏􀁒􀁖􀁖􀁈􀁖􀀑All these violations indicate that the blockading countries deliberately violated fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to private property, and intended to do so since the 􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁜􀀃􀂿􀁕􀁖􀁗􀀃􀁐􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀑􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁘􀁕􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁌􀁑􀁉􀁒􀁕􀁆􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁆􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁑􀁒􀀃􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁅􀁈􀁈􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁄􀁎􀁈􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁏􀁈􀁙􀁌􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃those grave consequences to which its citizens, and the citizens and residents of the State of Qatar are exposed.Furthermore, the right to litigation has also been violated through denying Qataris access to 􀁏􀁈􀁊􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁕􀁄􀁐􀁌􀂿􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁄􀁆􀁆􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁈􀁑􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁌􀁕􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁓􀁈􀁕􀁗􀁜􀀑􀀃􀀤􀁏􀁏􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁚􀁋􀁒􀀃own property and businesses because of their previous businesses or inheritance have been prevented from completing litigation proceedings or completing the proceedings of previous cases that were raised.In a comment made by the high commissioner on the impact of the blockade on human rights 􀁒􀁑􀀃􀀔􀀗􀀃􀀭􀁘􀁑􀁈􀀃􀀕􀀓􀀔􀀚􀀏􀀃􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁄􀁖􀁘􀁕􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁄􀁎􀁈􀁑􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁔􀁘􀁄􀁕􀁗􀁈􀁗􀀃􀁄􀁊􀁄􀁌􀁑􀁖􀁗􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀀃􀁄􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀁒􀀃broad in its scale. He also noted that the OHCHR received reports that individuals have already received brief instructions to leave the country in which they reside or their governments have directed orders to them to return to their homeland. Among those affected are persons who have businesses or companies based in countries different from those they come from (6). (6) http􀀝//􀁚􀁚􀁚.ohchr.org/􀀤R/􀀱e􀁚sEvents/Pages/Display􀀱e􀁚s.aspx􀀢􀀱e􀁚s􀀬D􀀠21739􀀉􀀯ang􀀬D􀀠􀀤
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations26The report of the Technical Mission of the OHCHR in the State of Qatar 17-24 November 􀀕􀀓􀀔􀀚􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁄􀁆􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁘􀁕􀁕􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀀪􀁘􀁏􀁉􀀃􀁆􀁕􀁌􀁖􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁋􀁘􀁐􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁖􀁖􀁘􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀀛􀀒􀀔􀀒􀀕􀀓􀀔􀀛􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁖􀀃that the blockade imposed on the State of Qatar by the Saudi and other authorities has a negative impact on economic rights and the right to property. It also mentions that Qataris who have commercial interests in the blockading countries have been forced to return to Qatar and have reportedly not been able to have access to their companies and activities since the start of the current Gulf crisis. Furthermore, the suspension of remittances between the State of Qatar and the countries of the Blockade has prevented the transfer of salaries, rents and the amounts resulting from outstanding invoices. This is as well as the absence of any formal mechanism available to move forward to claim their entitlements or their money and managing their assets. As a logical consequence of what has happened all means of legal cooperation has been suspended such as, for example, concluding and executing 􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁊􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀑􀀷􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁈􀁄􀁐􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁇􀁘􀁆􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁙􀁌􀁈􀁚􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁖􀁒􀁐􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃claimants, mostly Qatari nationals who have property in the countries of the blockade, 􀁓􀁄􀁕􀁗􀁌􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁄􀁕􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁐􀁈􀁕􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀑􀀃􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁈􀁜􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇􀀃􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀀃􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁖􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀀃􀁅􀁈􀁗􀁚􀁈􀁈􀁑􀀃􀀃Qatar and the countries of the blockade, had been suspended. They also highlighted the absence of any formal and available litigation mechanism to claim and/or manage their assets. Indeed, legal cooperation has been suspended, including power of attorney. The report also concluded that the team found that the unilateral measures, consisting 􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁖􀁈􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁈􀀃􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁐􀁒􀁙􀁈􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀏􀀃􀀃􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁐􀁌􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁕􀁘􀁓􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀃􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁇􀁈􀀏􀀃􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁙􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀀃􀃀􀁒􀁚􀁖􀀏􀀃􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀀃􀁚􀁈􀁏􀁏􀀃􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁖􀁘􀁖􀁓􀁈􀁑􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁖􀁒􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁗􀁘􀁕􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁈􀁛􀁆􀁋􀁄􀁑􀁊􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁒􀁖􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃the State of Qatar, had immediately translated into actions applying to nationals and residents of Qatar, including citizens of the countries of the blockade. Many of these measures have a potentially durable effect on the enjoyment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of those affected. As there is no evidence of any legal decisions motivating these various measures and due to the lack of any legal recourse for most individuals concerned, these measures can be considered as arbitrary, and stating that the economic impact of the current crisis is similar to that of economic wars.Report of the substantive mission of the 􀀸nited 􀀱ations High Commissioner for Human RightsThe considerable economic impact of the crisis takes over the dimension of an economic warfare
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations27Mr. (F. S), a Qatari:Has a license from the KSA to import 16 horses exported from Doha from the Qatari Equestrian Club. He accompanied these horses to the stable set in the area of Al Ahsa. He was, blindsided by the blockade and closure or transport via all venues - land, air and sea. This led to the loss of his horses amounting to the value of approximately 28,000,000 (Twenty eight million Qatari riyals) due to his failure to secure their needs.Mr. (S. M.) a Qatari:Has 3 commercial companies with their branches in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Due to the Gulf crisis and the political situation between both States he was prevented from entering the Kingdom of Bahrain in order to dispose of his property due to his Qatari Nationality which he retrieved since the 2013. This caused him 􀁖􀁌􀁊􀁑􀁌􀂿􀁆􀁄􀁑􀁗􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁏􀁒􀁖􀁖􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁇􀁘􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁑􀁒􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁈􀁑􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁓􀁈􀁕􀁗􀁜􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀀥􀁄􀁋􀁕􀁄􀁌􀁑􀀏􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁋􀁈􀀃is still suffering from those losses because of the arbitrariness of the Bahraini government towards him.Ms. (F. Z), a Qatari:Has purchased 2 apartments in Dubai in the UAE, in instalments for each apartment. Due to the Gulf crisis and the blockade on the State of Qatar however, the companies have demanded from her to waiver the amounts paid to retrieve the apartments in order to be able to sell them again.The NHRC has documented complaints of violations of the right to property by the countries of the Blockade, including:
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations2812345C: Violation of the right to perform religious ritualsTable (6) shows the number of violations of the right to practice religious rituals since the beginning of the blockade, from 5 June 2017 to 23 May 2018. They amount to 165 violations (all by Saudi Arabia).Indeed, the arbitrary decisions and measures taken by the Saudi authorities, resulted in the deprivation of the right to worship by some 1.5 million Muslims residing in the State of Qatar, in gross violation of the right to worship. The Saudi authorities have not exempted those who wish to practice their right to perform the rituals of Hajj and Umrah from the measures of the unjust blockade on the State of Qatar. Instead, they have involved religious rituals in political and diplomatic differences and manipulated these rituals as a tool for political pressure in 􀃀􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁙􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁋􀁘􀁐􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀁖􀀑􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁇􀁒􀁑􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁕􀁒􀁘􀁊􀁋􀀝Preventing Qatari pilgrims in Ramadan last month from entering Saudi territory to perform Umrah.Forcing those in the Kingdom to leave Saudi Arabia without completing the rituals, and expelling some of them from the hotels where they have been staying from the moment the blockade was imposed.Suspension of dealing in Qatari currency and debit cards.Degrading and humiliating treatment to Qataris at land and air entry and exit points.Preventing Qatar Airways from landing at Saudi airports, making it impossible for Qatari pilgrims to return to Doha directly. They have been forced instead to return using alternative routes through the State of Kuwait and the Sultanate of Oman without regard to humanitarian cases of patients, women, children, the elderly and persons with disabilities.TotalStateViolationStatisticsDate165---------165Right to Engagein ReligiousRitualsMay 23,2018Table (6) Violation of Right to Engage in Religious Rituals
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations29With the beginning of the pilgrimage season in 2017, the Saudi authorities put obstacles and 􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁈􀁇􀁌􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁚􀁋􀁒􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁖􀁋􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁓􀁈􀁕􀁉􀁒􀁕􀁐􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂩􀂿􀁉􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁓􀁌􀁏􀁏􀁄􀁕􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀬􀁖􀁏􀁄􀁐􀂪􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀁌􀀃􀁆􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁝􀁈􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃residents, up to the point of prevention. The authorities refused to deal or coordinate with the Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs in Qatar in order to enable those wishing to perform this duty. While Saudi authorities that they would open the land port and the direct air route to the 􀁓􀁌􀁏􀁊􀁕􀁌􀁐􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀀃􀁌􀁗􀀃􀁖􀁒􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁅􀁈􀁆􀁄􀁐􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁏􀁈􀁄􀁕􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁚􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁖􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁇􀁈􀃀􀁈􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁆􀁋􀁄􀁑􀁌􀁖􀁐􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁍􀁘􀁖􀁗􀀃a manoeuvre.In light of the continued blockade, air embargo and closure of land borders, as well as the arbitrary measures taken by the Saudi authorities on the right to freedom of worship and religious practice, the Saudi authorities continue to put more obstacles and impediments to the organizers and service providers of Hajj and Umrah campaigns. With the arrival of the Umrah season for the month of Ramadan 2018 and the Hajj season of 2018, and complaints have been submitted by Hajj and Umrah campaigners in the State of Qatar about the harassment 􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁓􀁈􀁕􀁉􀁒􀁕􀁐􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀀸􀁐􀁕􀁄􀁋􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁗􀁘􀁄􀁏􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁆􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁌􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀀑􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁈􀁖􀁈􀀃include:• Closure of the electronic registration for Hajj and Umrah to all pilgrims from the State of Qatar.• 􀀳􀁕􀁈􀁙􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁖􀁉􀁈􀁕􀁖􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀀶􀁄􀁘􀁇􀁌􀀃􀁄􀁘􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁕􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁅􀁈􀁗􀁚􀁈􀁈􀁑􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀁌􀀃􀁆􀁄􀁐􀁓􀁄􀁌􀁊􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀀸􀁐􀁕􀁄􀁋􀀃agents authorized to grant Saudi Umrah permits.• Saudi authorities continued refusal to deal or coordinate with the Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs in Qatar.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations30􀀤􀁏􀁏􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁖􀀃􀁘􀁑􀁈􀁔􀁘􀁌􀁙􀁒􀁆􀁄􀁏􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁘􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀶􀁄􀁘􀁇􀁌􀀃􀁄􀁘􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁕􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁓􀁒􀁏􀁌􀁆􀁜􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃politicizing religious rites. A delegation from the Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs in Qatar visited the KSA to attend the annual meeting to discuss arrangements for the 2018 Hajj season on Thursday 22 March 2018. The delegation discussed during the meetings obstacles and impediments imposed on Qatari pilgrims and those who are residents in Qatar, including the problem of obtaining the visa required for the performance of Umrah and pilgrimage through the electronic portal which is currently blocked for the State of Qatar. This is in addition to ignorance of the vulnerable groups, especially the elderly and persons with disabilities who wish to perform Hajj and Umrah. However, the Qatar delegation 􀁇􀁌􀁇􀀃􀁑􀁒􀁗􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁜􀀃􀁖􀁒􀁏􀁘􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁅􀁖􀁗􀁄􀁆􀁏􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁈􀁇􀁌􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁆􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁈􀁇􀀃􀀶􀁄􀁘􀁇􀁌􀀃authorities. They merely responded to the Qatari delegation by saying that the Ministry 􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀤􀁚􀁔􀁄􀁉􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀀬􀁖􀁏􀁄􀁐􀁌􀁆􀀃􀀤􀁉􀁉􀁄􀁌􀁕􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀀃􀁖􀁋􀁒􀁘􀁏􀁇􀀃􀁖􀁈􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁐􀁘􀁑􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁕􀁒􀁘􀁊􀁋􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃Sultanate of Oman’s embassy to the higher authorities in the KSA to decide whether or not to respond.Therefore, the NHRC remains deeply concerned at the continued obstacles and impediments, considering that the Saudi authorities have not taken positive steps to enable Qataris and residents of the State of Qatar to exercise their right to perform their religious rituals by 􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁘􀁒􀁘􀁖􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁅􀁄􀁑􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁕􀁈􀁆􀁗􀀃􀃀􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀀶􀁄􀁘􀁇􀁌􀀃􀀤􀁕􀁄􀁅􀁌􀁄􀀑􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁇􀁇􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃continued closure of the land border crossing point between the two countries and the non-admission of pilgrims and the closure of the electronic portal for registration. This is as well as the prevention of remittances by the Saudi authorities between the campaigns and agents of Hajj and Umrah and the prohibition of circulation of the Qatari currency. This 􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁅􀁈􀁖􀁌􀁇􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁌􀁏􀁘􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀶􀁄􀁘􀁇􀁌􀀃􀁄􀁘􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁕􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁄􀁎􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁆􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁇􀁄􀁐􀁄􀁊􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃losses suffered by the Qatari Hajj and Umrah campaigns as a result of the aforementioned arbitrary measures in 2017.The NHRC considers the concerns related to Umrah and Hajj as procrastination and an attempt by the Saudi authorities to stop any actions that can be taken by the OHCHR or the UN Special Procedures mechanism.The report of the Technical Mission of the OHCHR in Qatar (17-24 November 2017) on the impact of the current Gulf crisis on human rights issued on 8/1/2018 states that measures and restrictions taken by Saudi authorities led to the infringement of the freedom of exercise of religious practice.The Amnesty International report on its second visit to the State of Qatar on 28 November 2017 also points to the violation of the right to freedom of worship and practice of religious rituals by the Saudi authorities. They call on the Saudi authorities to ensure transparent and operational mechanisms to enable Qataris and residents in the State of Qatar to have access to the holy sites in Saudi Arabia (7). (7) https􀀝//􀁚􀁚􀁚.amnesty.org/ar/documents/document/􀀢index􀀱umber􀀠mde22􀀈2f7604􀀈2f2017􀀉language􀀠en
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations31man rFifth ReThe NHRC documented complaints of violations of the right to freedom of worship and practice of religious rites, including:violations31Mr. (J.P), a Qatari:Went, accompanied by his colleagues on 27/12/2017, to the KSA to perform Umrah via air through the State of Kuwait. However, on their arrival to Jeddah airport, they were harassed by security personnel working in the passports department there for being Qataris. They were seized at the airport’s lounge and not allowed to enter Saudi territories for a full day until the night of 12/28/2017. They were then forced to go back from the Jeddah airport to the Kuwait international airport despite the fact that all the requirements claimed by the authorities in Saudi Arabia have been met. Two days after their return, they were contacted by telephone and informed of the possibility of entering the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which resulted in physical 􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁓􀁖􀁜􀁆􀁋􀁒􀁏􀁒􀁊􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁏􀁒􀁖􀁖􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁇􀁘􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀃀􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀀃􀁅􀁒􀁒􀁎􀁌􀁑􀁊􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁑􀁒􀁑􀀐􀁕􀁈􀁉􀁘􀁑􀁇􀁄􀁅􀁏􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁌􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃well as the violation of their right to worship and practice their religious rituals.Mr. (M. M.), a Qatari:Made reservation at Hilton Sweet Mecca in the city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia to perform Umrah. However, following the decision taken by the Saudi authorities to cut ties with the State of Qatar and the closure of the land crossing point he was not able to go to Mecca for Umrah nor recover the value of the ticket nor the accommodation fees, which were paid. An apology was directed to him and he was informed that in case of cancellation of the reservation the amount 􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁓􀁄􀁌􀁇􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁏􀁏􀀃􀁅􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁖􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀑􀀃Mr. (F. P.), a Qatari:Was in Mecca in Saudi Arabia to perform Umrah when the Saudi authorities issued a decision obliging Qataris to leave the country due to the Blockade on the State of Qatar. He was expelled arbitrarily from the hotel in which he was staying, on the instructions he had received. Mr. (A. H.), a Qatari:Accompanied by his wife, made reservation at The Fairmont Hotel in the city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia and booked Umrah travelling tickets. Yet following the decision taken by the Saudi authorities to cut ties with the State of Qatar and the closure of the land crossing point, they were not able to go to Mecca for Umrah. He has not been able to refund the ticket despite his repeated communication with the hotel.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations32H: Violation of freedom of opinion and expressionCitizens of the countries of the Blockade have been exposed to violations of laws and punitive measures on the background of severing of the political relations and imposing blockade on the State of Qatar. This has reached unprecedented limits even for merely showing sympathy towards Qatar through the social media. It has gone beyond blocking and banning Qatari media, including sports channels which certainly do not broadcast news bulletins or programs of political nature. This is an indicator of the extent of deterioration of the freedom of opinion and expression.􀀶􀁄􀁘􀁇􀁌􀀃􀁄􀁘􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁕􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁙􀁈􀀃􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁒􀁖􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁓􀁈􀁑􀁄􀁏􀁗􀁜􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁕􀁌􀁖􀁒􀁑􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁘􀁓􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀂿􀁙􀁈􀀃􀁜􀁈􀁄􀁕􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁘􀁓􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁕􀁈􀁈􀀃􀁐􀁌􀁏􀁏􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀀶􀁄􀁘􀁇􀁌􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁜􀁄􀁏􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁚􀁋􀁌􀁏􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀸􀀤􀀨􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁙􀁈􀀃􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁒􀁖􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁓􀁈􀁑􀁄􀁏􀁗􀁜􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁕􀁈􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀂿􀁙􀁈􀀃􀁜􀁈􀁄􀁕􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁄􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁘􀁓􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀀘􀀓􀀓􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁘􀁖􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁕􀁋􀁄􀁐􀁖􀀃􀁖􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁉􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁖􀁋􀁒􀁚􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁖􀁜􀁐􀁓􀁄􀁗􀁋􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁒􀁚􀁄􀁕􀁇􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀶􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀀑􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀱􀀫􀀵􀀦􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁈􀁏􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁇􀁌􀁄􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁒􀁑􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁑􀁈􀁄􀁕􀁏􀁜􀀃􀀔􀀓􀀖􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁇􀁌􀁄􀀃􀁓􀁈􀁕􀁖􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃citizens of the countries of the Blockade, who were working in a number of visual media in the State of Qatar, have all been subjected to different types of violations, including putting pressure on them to resign. Many eventually did thus losing their source of livelihood.Moreover, pressures are still exercised on all who have not yet submitted their resignations. 􀀶􀁘􀁆􀁋􀀃􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁆􀁗􀀃􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁄􀀃􀃀􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁈􀁈􀁇􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁚􀁒􀁕􀁎􀀏􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁌􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁓􀁌􀁑􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀑Amnesty International in its report published on June 9, 2017 stated that “The statements from governments of the countries of the blockade with a record of repressing peaceful expression 􀁄􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁄􀀃􀃀􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁄􀁗􀁗􀁈􀁐􀁓􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁖􀁌􀁏􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁕􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁆􀁌􀁖􀁐􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁕􀁅􀁌􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁕􀁜􀀃􀁓􀁒􀁏􀁌􀁆􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀑􀀃􀀳􀁕􀁒􀁖􀁈􀁆􀁘􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁜􀁒􀁑􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃this basis would be a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression. No one should be punished for peacefully expressing their views or criticizing a government decision.” Furthermore, Amnesty International in its report published on June 19, 2017, stated that “It is unthinkable that states can so blatantly infringe on the right to freedom of expression. Citizens have the right to express views and concerns about their governments, as well as feelings of sympathy towards others.”
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations33A report prepared by the Doha Center for Media Freedom entitled «Media of the Gulf Crisis - Violation of Freedom of Opinion and Expression and International Covenants covering the period from 23rd to 25th August 2017 « on the indicators of the media discourse of the Gulf crisis States (media offensive practices towards freedom of opinion and expression), outline the following cases have been documented as non-exclusive samples:First case: The criminalization of showing sympathy towards the State of Qatar (As for the Saudi Arabia) non-exclusive samplesAmnesty International - as indicated in its previous report on 9 June, 2017-has denounced the acts done and measures taken by the Blockading countries , including the KSA, that seriously violate the freedom of opinion and expression emphasizing the fact that these declarations 􀁌􀁖􀁖􀁘􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁊􀁒􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁓􀁈􀁄􀁆􀁈􀁉􀁘􀁏􀀃􀁈􀁛􀁓􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁑􀁒􀁗􀀃􀁐􀁒􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁄􀀃􀃀􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁄􀁗􀁗􀁈􀁐􀁓􀁗􀀃to silence critical voices on these arbitrary policies. If anyone is prosecuted on this basis, it would constitute a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression; as no one should be sanctioned for peacefully expressing his points of view or for criticizing a government decision.It also mentions in its report issued on 19 June, 2017 that it is not possible to believe that these 􀀶􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁏􀁇􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁄􀁆􀁋􀀃􀁖􀁘􀁆􀁋􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁏􀁈􀁙􀁈􀁏􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀃀􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁈􀁈􀁇􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁈􀁛􀁓􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀑Furthermore, the Saudi authorities have already applied the punitive measures following their arrest of a group of Saudi citizens, among them: the famous Islamic preacher “Salman Al-Ouda” upon posting a Tweet on «Twitter». (As for the United Arab Emirates) as non-exclusive samples:In the UAE, on 7 June 2017, the UAE Attorney General banned the expression of sympathy towards Qatar, according to the declaration of Counselor/ Hamad Saif Al-Shamsi, in which he warns that any contravention of the laws in force shall be met with the imposition of prison 􀁖􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁓􀁈􀁆􀁘􀁑􀁌􀁄􀁕􀁜􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁈􀁖􀀑The declaration also includes a warning by the Attorney General «of any participation in speech or in writing on social media or any other form of sympathy with the State of Qatar or 􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁅􀁍􀁈􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀸􀀤􀀨􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀁒􀁎􀀃􀂿􀁕􀁐􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁊􀁄􀁌􀁑􀁖􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃Government of Qatar». Violators of these warnings «may be subjected to imprisonment for a 􀁓􀁈􀁕􀁌􀁒􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀖􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀀔􀀘􀀃􀁜􀁈􀁄􀁕􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁄􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁑􀁒􀁗􀀃􀁏􀁈􀁖􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁑􀀃􀀘􀀓􀀓􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁘􀁖􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁕􀁋􀁄􀁐􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁈􀁔􀁘􀁌􀁙􀁄􀁏􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀀔􀀖􀀚􀀃thousand dollars”. Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations34In addition to that, the mentioned report issued by Human Rights Watch on July 13, 2017, also highlights that the United Arab Emirates has threatened to impose sanctions on their citizens in case they «have sympathy» towards Qatar on the Internet.The UAE authorities has also dismissed Mr. Youssef Al-Sarkal, Chairman of the UAE General Authority for Sports, by reason of shaking hands with the President of the Qatar Football Association, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa bin Ahmed Al-Thani, on the sidelines of the Asian Football Confederation’s (AFC) meetings in Bangkok, Thailand. The UAE and the countries of the Blockade ‘s media have 􀁏􀁄􀁘􀁑􀁆􀁋􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁐􀁄􀁍􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁒􀁉􀁉􀁈􀁑􀁖􀁌􀁙􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁐􀁒􀁘􀁖􀀃􀂿􀁊􀁘􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀪􀁘􀁏􀁉􀀃sport world, which led to that he has been relieved of his duties being the head of the authority after about a month of his appointment. Furthermore, it was expressed in the UAE newspapers that Al-􀀶􀁄􀁕􀁎􀁄􀁏􀀃􀂩􀁖􀁘􀁉􀁉􀁈􀁕􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁄􀁕􀁐􀀃􀁈􀁐􀁅􀁕􀁄􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀁌􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀂪􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁌􀁕􀀃􀂿􀁕􀁖􀁗􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁈􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁖􀁌􀁑􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁈􀁕􀁘􀁓􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀪􀁘􀁏􀁉􀀃􀁆􀁕􀁌􀁖􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀀘􀀃June, 2017. It also described what Al-Sarkal had done as a «sin» according to the website of Al-Bayan newspaper (8). In implementation of these threats, UAE authorities has arrested Mr./ Ghanem Abdullah Matar, a UAE citizen, upon publishing a series of videos on social media in the month of June, 2017 expressing his sympathy towards Qatar. Therefore, Amnesty International has asked for the immediate release of the citizen as a prisoner of opinion.(8) https􀀝//􀁚􀁚􀁚.albayan.ae/across-the-uae/ne􀁚s-and-reports/2017-11-30-1.3115850
Annex 140
[…]Amnesty International OrganizationFollowIf the arrest of Ghanim Matar in #UAE is due to his peaceful comments about the crisis with #Qatar, then he is a prisoner of opinion and we demand his immediate release.Dr. Waseem Yousef @waseem_yousefFollow􀀃The decision to #cut_relations_with_Qataris a decision that benefits the Qatari people first, then the Arab Nation, so Qatar does not come under Iranian, Muslim Brotherhood, or ISIL sovereignty…Translate Tweet 2:54p.m.June 5, 20172:14 a.m. –July 10, 20172,062 Retweets1,678 Likes216 2.1 k1.7 kHamad Al-Mazroui@uae_3GFollowWhere is our sports media to respond to this lowlife, dirty Al-Serkal, who does not respect the UAE or care about it?Translate the Tweet10:50 a.m. –Nov. 28, 2017231Retweets 253 LikesSharjah SportsUrgent: Private sources: H.E. Yousuf Al Serkal, Head of the Sports Authority, is relieved from his post[illegible][…]Sharjah Sports [Translation]
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations35f rig (As for Kingdom of Bahrain) non-exclusive Samples:On June 11 2017, the Bahraini international lawyer, Issa Faraj 􀀤􀁕􀁋􀁄􀁐􀁄􀁋􀀃􀀤􀁏􀀐􀀥􀁘􀁕􀁖􀁋􀁌􀁇􀀏􀀃􀂿􀁏􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁏􀁄􀁚􀁖􀁘􀁌􀁗􀀃􀁄􀁊􀁄􀁌􀁑􀁖􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁊􀁒􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃of Bahrain and demanded lifting the blockade on Qatar. 􀀷􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁆􀁄􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁕􀁖􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁌􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁎􀁌􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁚􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁕􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁇􀁘􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃showing sympathy towards the state of Qatar. The case was mentioned in Amnesty International’s report of 19 June 2017.The decision by the Bahraini authorities to block Qatari newspaper websites followed the fabricated statements published on the website of Qatar News Agency and attributed to the Emir of the State of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim 􀁅􀁌􀁑􀀃􀀫􀁄􀁐􀁄􀁇􀀃􀀤􀁏􀀐􀀷􀁋􀁄􀁑􀁌􀀏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁘􀁑􀁍􀁘􀁖􀁗􀁌􀂿􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁈􀁓􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁄􀀃􀃀􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁗􀀃violation of freedom of opinion and expression.􀀫􀁘􀁐􀁄􀁑􀀃􀀵􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀁖􀀃􀀺􀁄􀁗􀁆􀁋􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁌􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀀃􀁓􀁘􀁅􀁏􀁌􀁖􀁋􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀀭􀁘􀁏􀁜􀀃􀀔􀀖􀀏􀀃􀀕􀀓􀀔􀀚􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁖􀁒􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀀥􀁄􀁋􀁕􀁄􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁇􀀃threatened to punish their citizens if they show «sympathy» with Qatar on the Internet.On June 9, 2017, the Tourism and Exhibition Authority of the Kingdom of Bahrain issued a formal circular warning all the tourist facilities and hotels in the Kingdom about the operation of Al Jazeera Media Channel. The Authority stressed the necessity of deleting all the channels 􀁕􀁈􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀀤􀁏􀀃􀀭􀁄􀁝􀁈􀁈􀁕􀁄􀀃􀀱􀁈􀁗􀁚􀁒􀁕􀁎􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁄􀁙􀁒􀁌􀁇􀀃􀁓􀁈􀁑􀁄􀁏􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁕􀁌􀁖􀁒􀁑􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁈􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁈􀁏􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃cancellation of tourist licenses.The Bahraini authorities have explicitly demanded the closure of Al-Jazeera, and this demand contradicts Article 1 and Article 3 of the Journalism Code of Ethics of the Bahrain Journalists Association, as well the Code of Principles of the International Federation of journalists in its 􀂿􀁕􀁖􀁗􀀃􀁆􀁏􀁄􀁘􀁖􀁈􀀃􀀑􀀃􀀋􀀦􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁖􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀏􀀃􀁌􀁇􀁏􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁙􀁒􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁏􀁌􀁆􀁈􀁑􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁋􀁄􀁏􀁏􀀃􀁅􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁏􀁒􀁚􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁑􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁕􀁘􀁏􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃the court. Free and responsible journalism is the very essence of sound and democratic society and an integral and indivisible part of basic human rights and freedoms. It targets illumination of the public opinion, realization of the interests of the nation, defense of the nation’s unity, security and stability and avoidance of secular division or prejudice to the established Islamic Shariah dictates. The right to get the correct and true information, including statements, images and documents through legitimate means in order to unearth the truth without infringement or violation of intellectual property rights. Respect for truth and for the right of the public to truth 􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁕􀁖􀁗􀀃􀁇􀁘􀁗􀁜􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁍􀁒􀁘􀁕􀁑􀁄􀁏􀁌􀁖􀁗􀀌􀀑There is also a stark violation of the text of article III of the Charter of the Bahraini Journalists’ Association, which provides for «the right to obtain information from the data, photographs and documents by legitimate means to reach the truth and without infringement of intellectual property».violations35
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations36Second Case: Warning of the General Commission for Tourism and National Heritage in Saudi Arabia and kingdom of Bahrain against watching Al-Jazeera channel in hotels and resorts􀀃􀀃􀀃􀀃􀀃􀀃􀀃􀀃􀀃􀀃􀀬􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁆􀁌􀁕􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁄􀁕􀀃􀁌􀁖􀁖􀁘􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀜􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀭􀁘􀁑􀁈􀀃􀀕􀀓􀀔􀀚􀀏􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀪􀁈􀁑􀁈􀁕􀁄􀁏􀀃􀀦􀁒􀁐􀁐􀁌􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁉􀁒􀁕􀀃􀀷􀁒􀁘􀁕􀁌􀁖􀁐􀀃and National Heritage in Saudi Arabia warned against broadcasting Al-Jazeera channels in hotels and resorts. It further banned watching Al-Jazeera network channels in tourist facilities. The Commission also accentuated on deleting all channels of Al-Jazeera network from the list of satellite broadcasts in rooms and all tourist accommodation facilities, in order to avoid 􀁄􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁐􀁄􀁜􀀃􀁄􀁐􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀀔􀀓􀀓􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁘􀁖􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀀶􀁄􀁘􀁇􀁌􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁜􀁄􀁏􀁖􀀃􀀋􀁄􀁅􀁒􀁘􀁗􀀃􀀕􀀚􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁘􀁖􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁇􀁒􀁏􀁏􀁄􀁕􀁖􀀌􀀏􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁇􀁇􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁈􀁏􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁏􀁌􀁆􀁈􀁑􀁖􀁈􀀑􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁅􀁈􀁈􀁑􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁆􀁌􀁕􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁄􀁕􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀷􀁒􀁘􀁕􀁌􀁖􀁐􀀃Authority to owners and operators of tourist facilities. This circular emphasized as well «the 􀁒􀁅􀁏􀁌􀁊􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁓􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁆􀁋􀁒􀁒􀁖􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁓􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁓􀁕􀁌􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁋􀁄􀁑􀁑􀁈􀁏􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁒􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀀶􀁄􀁘􀁇􀁌􀀃channels”. Furthermore, the Commission demanded «not to place receivers inside rooms and residential units and that receivers should be centralized and supervised by the management of the facility».􀀤􀁖􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁘􀁏􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁅􀁄􀁑􀀏􀀃􀁌􀁗􀀃􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁆􀁏􀁈􀁄􀁕􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁌􀁕􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁄􀁕􀁖􀀃􀀐􀀃􀁌􀁖􀁖􀁘􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀀶􀁄􀁘􀁇􀁌􀀃􀀤􀁕􀁄􀁅􀁌􀁄􀀃􀁄􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁏􀁄􀁖􀁖􀁌􀂿􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃practices that restrict the freedom of opinion and expression and are contrary to the general principles of freedoms set forth in various international covenants, which constitutes a blatant violation of the citizens’ right to know and access information.It is also worth mentioning that the issuance of a circular prohibiting watching Al-Jazeera channel and setting all receivers for the deletion of satellite channels of Al-Jazeera network is groundless and contrary to the provisions of the international covenants on rights to freedom of expression and information, which is considered as a restriction on the freedoms.The circulars issued by the General Commission for Tourism does not provide any legal basis to support its request for the ban. On the other hand, they have not reinforced their circulars with 􀁍􀁘􀁇􀁌􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁔􀁘􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁕􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁕􀁇􀁈􀁕􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁋􀁌􀁆􀁋􀀃􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁌􀁄􀁏􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁈􀁛􀁄􀁐􀁌􀁑􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁉􀁘􀁏􀂿􀁏􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁄􀁌􀁇􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁔􀁘􀁈􀁖􀁗􀀑In accordance with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the above-mentioned circulars are contrary to the most fundamental principles of individual freedoms and the right to access information. The Bahrain Tourism and Exhibitions AuthorityThe circular stated that: «The Bahrain Tourism and Exhibitions Authority mandates that all television receivers available in tourism facilities must be reprogrammed to remove all channels related to Al Jazeera Network. Facilities include hotels, restaurants or other tourist 􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁄􀁅􀁏􀁌􀁖􀁋􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁖􀀑􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁆􀁌􀁕􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁄􀁕􀀃􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁓􀁘􀁑􀁌􀁖􀁋􀁄􀁅􀁏􀁈􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁏􀁄􀁚􀀃􀁈􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁕􀁌􀁖􀁒􀁑􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀏􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁈􀀃or both. Facilities who fail to comply with the circular will face closure and their tourism license will be revoked immediately.According to article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as Article 3 of the Journalism Code of Ethics of the Bahrain Journalists Association, the aforementioned prohibitions are contrary to the most basic principles of individual freedoms, and access to information. The decision to block Qatari websites contradicts Article 2 of the Journalism Code of Ethics of the Bahrain Journalists Association. (Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.“The right to get the correct and true information, including statements, images and documents through legitimate means in order to unearth the truth without infringement or violation of intellectual property rights”.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations37Third concern: blocking Qatari newspaper websites by the countries of the blockade: The UAE, KSA and Bahrain, announced on 24 May 2017, blocking the site of «Al-Jazeera» 􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁑􀁘􀁐􀁅􀁈􀁕􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀁌􀀃􀁑􀁈􀁚􀁖􀁓􀁄􀁓􀁈􀁕􀁖􀀑􀀃􀀬􀁗􀀃􀁚􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂩􀀤􀁏􀀐􀀭􀁄􀁝􀁈􀁈􀁕􀁄􀂪􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁕􀁒􀁘􀁊􀁋􀀃􀁌􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁚􀁈􀁅􀁖􀁌􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁅􀁄􀁑􀁑􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁕􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁚􀁈􀁅􀁖􀁌􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀤􀁏􀀐􀀭􀁄􀁝􀁈􀁈􀁕􀁄􀀃􀀷􀀹􀀑Saudi, UAE and Bahrain authorities’ decision to block Qatari web sites and newspapers following the fabricated statements attributed to the Emir of the State of Qatar, which was published on the website of the Qatar News Agency (QNA), has raised wide reactions among 􀁄􀁑􀁄􀁏􀁜􀁖􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁇􀁌􀁄􀀃􀁚􀁒􀁕􀁎􀁈􀁕􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀤􀁕􀁄􀁅􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀀪􀁘􀁏􀁉􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁖􀀑􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁈􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁖􀁌􀁇􀁈􀁕􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁘􀁑􀁍􀁘􀁖􀁗􀁌􀂿􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁈􀁓􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁄􀀃􀃀􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁈􀁈􀁇􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁒􀁓􀁌􀁑􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁈􀁛􀁓􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁇􀁈􀁏􀁌􀁅􀁈􀁕􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁋􀁒􀁏􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁕􀁘􀁗􀁋􀀃the expression of others of their opinions.Fourth concern: Demand of the countries of the blockade to close of Al-Jazeera􀀬􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁄􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁒􀁕􀁎􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁆􀁏􀁈􀁄􀁕􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁈􀁈􀁇􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁖􀁓􀁈􀁈􀁆􀁋􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁖􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁒􀁓􀁌􀁑􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀏􀀃the countries of the Blockade has requested from Qatar the closure of Aljazeera Channel.The requirement of the closure of Al-Jazeera satellite Channel and other media constitutes a violation of the sovereignty of the State. It further constitutes a serious violation of the fundamental right to freedom of expression and freedom of opinion provided for in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is a total disregard of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations38This requirement has been met with strong denunciation by international bodies and organizations. The countries of the Blockade ‘s demand to close Al-Jazeera Channel had wide repercussions and was received with criticism from human rights organizations and the competent United 􀀱􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁈􀁖􀀑􀀃􀀰􀁕􀀑􀀃􀀧􀁄􀁙􀁌􀁇􀀃􀀮􀁄􀁜􀀏􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀸􀁑􀁌􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀀱􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁖􀁓􀁈􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁕􀁄􀁓􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀁈􀁘􀁕􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁈􀁈􀁇􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁒􀁓􀁌􀁑􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃expression, has described demands for the closure of Al-Jazeera channel as «a strong blow to the pluralism of the media and that this request represents a serious threat to the freedom of the media.» The Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression mentioned that reports that a number of governments submitted demands to Qatar to close Al-Jazeera media network in exchange for the lifting of the sanctions would be a major blow against the pluralism of the media in a region that suffers severe constraints in the preparation of reports and media of all kinds. Mr. Kay added «This demand constitutes a serious threat to the freedom of media if the States, under the pretext of a diplomatic crisis, take measures to compel Qatar to close Al-Jazeera.» Mr. Kay said «Every person is now seriously threatened in relation to his right to have access to information when the guarantee of safety and freedom of the media has been compromised.» He added that «I call upon the international community to urge those Governments not to insist on their demand against Qatar and resist taking steps to control the media in their territory and in the region and encourage support for independent media in the Middle East» (9). In the same context, the OHCHR has expressed its deep concern about the demand made to close Al Jazeera Network, and other media. The Organization emphasized that the demand is an unacceptable attack on the right to freedom of expression and opinion, and if such a demand were put into effect, it would open the way for individual States or groups of powerful states to seriously undermine the right to freedom of opinion and expression within its borders and in other countries (10). 􀀩􀁘􀁕􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕􀁐􀁒􀁕􀁈􀀏􀀃􀀃􀀫􀁘􀁐􀁄􀁑􀀃􀀵􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀁖􀀃􀀺􀁄􀁗􀁆􀁋􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀀪􀁒􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁙􀁈􀀃􀁑􀁒􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁆􀁏􀁒􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁇􀁌􀁄􀀃outlets and criminalization of expression in order to extinguish the criticisms that it considers 􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁘􀁅􀁏􀁌􀁑􀁊􀂪􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁆􀁄􀁏􀁏􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁗􀁈􀁆􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁇􀁌􀁄􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁓􀁒􀁏􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁉􀁈􀁕􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁈􀀑􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀲􀁕􀁊􀁄􀁑􀁌􀁝􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁉􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇􀀃that, «The offending Governments have to show respect to and understanding of the role of the media, even if it disagrees with them». The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) stated that “journalist is being used as a pawn in a dangerous political game in the crisis in Qatar, where hundreds of media workers face expulsion, and television channels, newspapers and websites are at risk of closure”. The National Union of Journalists has called for an end to the attack on Al Jazeera, hundreds of jobs are at risk. Furthermore, the National Union of Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists called on the countries of the blockade to withdraw its demand to the Qatari authorities to close the channel.Representatives of international, regional and national organizations for journalists and human rights and freedom of expression who attended the international conference on “Freedom of 􀀨􀁛􀁓􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀝􀀃􀀩􀁄􀁆􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀀸􀁓􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁕􀁈􀁄􀁗􀂴􀀏􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁌􀁗􀁖􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁐􀁘􀁑􀁌􀁔􀁘􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁇􀁈􀁐􀁑􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁘􀁑􀁈􀁔􀁘􀁌􀁙􀁒􀁆􀁄􀁏􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃threats by the governments of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Kingdom of Bahrain and the Republic of Yemen demanding the closing down of Al Jazeera and other media outlets and expressed our total solidarity with journalists and other media and ancillary workers at Al Jazeera and other targeted media. It is worth mentioning that this demand is contrary to international norms and charters, yet the KSA and other States of the Blockade still insist on demanding it to date.violations38(9) http􀀝//ohchr.org/ar/􀀱e􀁚sEvents/Pages/Display􀀱e􀁚s.aspx􀀢􀀱e􀁚s􀀬D􀀠21808􀀉􀀯ang􀀬D􀀠􀀤(10) http􀀝//􀁚􀁚􀁚.ohchr.org/en/􀀱e􀁚sEvents/Pages/Display􀀱e􀁚s.aspx􀀢􀀱e􀁚s􀀬D􀀠21818􀀉􀀯ang􀀬D􀀠E
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations39Fifth: Banning «beIN Sports» channels and imposed a penalty of imprisonment for anyone wearing Barcelona shirt􀀷􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁉􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁆􀁄􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁅􀁄􀁑􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁅􀁈􀀬􀀱􀀃􀀶􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀁖􀀃􀀦􀁋􀁄􀁑􀁑􀁈􀁏􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁕􀁌􀁐􀁌􀁑􀁄􀁏􀁌􀁝􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁚􀁈􀁄􀁕􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃Barcelona football shirt having Qatar Airways’ logo is one of the strangest and most controversial matters in the current crisis. The current Gulf crisis has cast a political shadow over sport after the three Blockading countries (KSA, UAE and Bahrain) prohibited wearing Barcelona`s shirt on its territory, due to the contract that was concluded between the aforementioned club and Qatar Airways.􀀶􀁌􀁛􀁗􀁋􀀝􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁇􀁕􀁄􀁚􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁏􀁌􀁆􀁈􀁑􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀂩􀀤􀁏􀀃􀀭􀁄􀁝􀁈􀁈􀁕􀁄􀂪􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁆􀁏􀁒􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁌􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁖􀁗􀁌􀁗􀁘􀁗􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁕􀁅􀁌􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁕􀁜􀀃political decision, rather than proper judiciary procedures.Since the beginning of the crisis, on 5 June 2017, the Blockading countries hastened to close 􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀂩􀀤􀁏􀀃􀀭􀁄􀁝􀁈􀁈􀁕􀁄􀂪􀀃􀀦􀁋􀁄􀁑􀁑􀁈􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁓􀁄􀁕􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁌􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁈􀁓􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁖􀁈􀁙􀁈􀁕􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁓􀁏􀁒􀁐􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁆􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀀑These resolutions indicate that the Blockading countries do not discriminate between the political issues and the press work guaranteed by the basic principles of human rights and the rules that guarantee freedom of information dissemination and reception within the framework of the law. The decision to withdraw the license of «Al Jazeera» and to close its 􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁖􀁗􀁌􀁗􀁘􀁗􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁕􀁅􀁌􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁕􀁜􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁕􀁅􀁌􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁕􀁜􀀃􀁓􀁒􀁏􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁇􀁈􀁆􀁌􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀏􀀃􀁚􀁋􀁌􀁏􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁍􀁘􀁇􀁌􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁕􀁜􀀃􀁌􀁖􀀃the competent authority in such cases.In addition, the NHRC has documented hundreds of hate and racism speeches through the media and social networking sites, some of which amounted to incitement to terrorist acts in the State of Qatar, such as bombing the media facilities and using songs, serials and documentaries in this incitement. The committee also noted a speech of racial discrimination aimed at disrespecting and insulting the Qatari citizen, insulting the Qatari people and circumventing the symbols of the State of Qatar. 􀀷􀁋􀁈􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁓􀁈􀁈􀁆􀁋􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁈􀁖􀁆􀁄􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁅􀁈􀁆􀁄􀁘􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁙􀁒􀁏􀁙􀁈􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁖􀁒􀁐􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃Blockading countries and some celebrities of the media and famous social media persons are known openly.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations40G: Incitement of violence and hatredIn a report prepared by the Doha Center for Media Freedom entitled «Gulf Crisis Media - Hate 􀀶􀁓􀁈􀁈􀁆􀁋􀂪􀀏􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀀃􀁋􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁏􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁌􀁖􀁖􀁘􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁚􀁈􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁈􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁇􀁌􀁄􀀃􀁇􀁘􀁕􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁕􀁖􀁗􀀃􀁐􀁒􀁑􀁗􀁋􀁖􀀃of the crisis in six key issues:1. Indictment of treason and treachery: Where most of the media of the Blockading countries, whether print, electronic or audiovisual, have devoted a considerable space to place the indictment of treason and treachery to Qatar since the beginning of the crisis.2. Instigating the overthrow of the regime in Qatar: This incitement against the regime in Qatar is a violation of the ethics of press work and international conventions, especially Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and it is contrary to Article 10 of the Charter of Honor of Arab Media and Article 8 of the same Charter. 3. The demonization of the State of Qatar locally and regionally: The accusations which the media of the blockading countries have not found any evidence for it and which seek to demonize Qatar and portray it as a rogue and aggressive state, are in conformity with article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as well as the provisions of Article 10 of the Charter of Honor of Arab Media.4. Incitement to Gulf fabric differentiation: The ongoing Gulf crisis has affected the demographic fabric of this region, in which the social relations between the different tribes living in the Arabian 􀀳􀁈􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁖􀁘􀁏􀁄􀀃􀁄􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁗􀁚􀁌􀁑􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁏􀁄􀁓􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁎􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁚􀁄􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁐􀁄􀁎􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁗􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁖􀁈􀁓􀁄􀁕􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁕􀀃discriminate.The crisis has shown the desire of some Gulf governments to disrupt this fabric, and to create a division among the members of one tribe, which extends in more than one country, through the use of populist rhetoric and hate speech, and to break up a centuries-long relations.Several websites, either by writing or analyzing, dealt with the campaign launched by the Gulf crisis countries on Qatar, which concluded that there is a rising trend towards the demonization of the State of Qatar, and abuse in various forms and ways. 5. The indictment of terrorism: The decision to criminalize sympathy with Qatar was included in other measures taken by Gulf states, preceded by indictment of terrorism, along with making a terrorism list that includes Qatari personalities and charitable and media organizations.There is no doubt that such a media discourse would inculcate the hate speech among broad segments of the public, away from the distances that would end the crisis and achieve reconciliation. 􀀶􀁌􀁑􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁕􀁖􀁗􀀃􀁇􀁄􀁜􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁕􀁌􀁖􀁌􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁇􀁌􀁄􀀃􀁐􀁄􀁆􀁋􀁌􀁑􀁈􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁒􀁕􀁎􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁅􀁏􀁒􀁆􀁎􀁄􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃order to paint a distorted image of the State of Qatar and its role in the international arena. The media of the countries of the Gulf crisis have also united their discourse on Qatar’s accusation of harboring terrorist individuals and entities. This was rejected by Doha and rejected by international 􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁒􀁕􀁊􀁄􀁑􀁌􀁝􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀀺􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁋􀁄􀁕􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁆􀁏􀁄􀁖􀁖􀁌􀂿􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀪􀁘􀁏􀁉􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀂩􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁕􀁒􀁕􀁌􀁖􀁗􀂪􀀑A number of media channels in the blockading countries have broadcasted programs and coverings 􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁑􀁈􀁚􀁖􀀃􀁅􀁘􀁏􀁏􀁈􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁈􀁛􀁓􀁒􀁖􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁚􀁈􀁏􀁏􀀐􀁎􀁑􀁒􀁚􀁑􀀃􀂿􀁊􀁘􀁕􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀤􀁕􀁄􀁅􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀀬􀁖􀁏􀁄􀁐􀁌􀁆􀀃􀁄􀁕􀁈􀁑􀁄􀀏􀀃􀁈􀁛􀁆􀁈􀁈􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁏􀁌􀁐􀁌􀁗􀁖􀀃of linguistic and moral decency, and labeling them with descriptions that the law criminalizes.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations416. Using religious discourse to spread hate speech.The religious discourse of the Blockading countries was used during the Gulf crisis as a platform to justify some of the political decisions of the blockading countries. A number of fatwas were issued by major bodies and scholars in order to justify the blockade of Qatar and to reverse the facts and repercussions of the crisis.The media, as well as the social media, have been instrumental in promoting these fatwas and expanding their circulation in order to give the decisions of the political actor acceptable to the public opinion. Moreover, the press did not stand neutral in this crisis through the transfer of different views, but it used all its efforts to promote these fatwas in a manner contrary to the values of the profession of journalism.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations42It is no secret that all this media and technical pumping to incite hatred and violence will 􀁅􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁈􀃀􀁈􀁆􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁙􀁄􀁕􀁌􀁒􀁘􀁖􀀃􀁖􀁈􀁊􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁒􀁆􀁌􀁈􀁗􀁜􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁏􀁏􀁈􀁆􀁗􀁘􀁄􀁏􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁏􀁏􀁌􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁈􀁛􀁗􀁕􀁈􀁐􀁌􀁖􀁗􀀃reactions may reach the commission of criminal acts against the Qataris.Qatari citizens have already been exposed to the destruction of their cars, and they were treated harshly and humiliatingly by some of the authorities of the Blockading countries. It does not 􀁖􀁘􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕􀁈􀀏􀀃􀁅􀁘􀁗􀀃􀁇􀁈􀁙􀁈􀁏􀁒􀁓􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁗􀁕􀁈􀁇􀀏􀀃hostility and discrimination against the Qatari citizens from some citizens of the blockading countries. We fear that such reactions would threaten peace, security and stability in the entire region.The report of the technical mission of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human 􀀵􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁇􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀀓􀀛􀀃􀀭􀁄􀁑􀁘􀁄􀁕􀁜􀀃􀀕􀀓􀀔􀀛􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁑􀁘􀁐􀁈􀁕􀁒􀁘􀁖􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁈􀁈􀁇􀁒􀁐􀀃of opinion and expression as well as the various forms of media defamation and hate campaigns against the State of Qatar and its leaders and people. Further, it calls for an overthrow of a regime and the removal of symbols of leadership in Qatar, in addition to incitement to attack or kill the Qataris. 􀀷􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁇􀁌􀁄􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁅􀁏􀁒􀁆􀁎􀁄􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁏􀁄􀁘􀁑􀁆􀁋􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁆􀁄􀁐􀁓􀁄􀁌􀁊􀁑􀀃of hatred and widespread distortion, including through social networking sites and the decision of the blockading countries’ governments to impose sanctions on anyone who sympathizes with Qatar.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations43The report of the technical mission of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights indicated that between June and October 2017, media workers and the NHRC in Qatar documented more than 1,120 articles and nearly 600 caricature of the State of Qatar in KSA, the UAE and Bahrain. The media included explicit accusations of Qatar’s involvement in 􀁖􀁘􀁓􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁕􀁒􀁕􀁌􀁖􀁐􀀏􀀃􀁆􀁄􀁏􀁏􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁗􀁋􀁕􀁒􀁚􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁊􀁌􀁐􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁐􀁒􀁙􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁏􀁈􀁄􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀂿􀁊􀁘􀁕􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃Qatar, as well as incitement to attack or kill Qataris. For example, the Saudi singer followed by a million and a half followers on Twitter has made a post that includes fatwa to kill the Emir of Qatar, while another Saudi tweet warned of the possibility of sending a million Yemeni suicide bombers to Qatar.Entertainment programmes have also been used to air anti- Qatar messages. For example, Rotana media company produced songs by popular artists stigmatizing Qatar (“Qulo la Qatar”-“Tell Qatar”, and “Sanoalem Qatar”-“We will teach Qatar”) and well-known television series on 􀀰􀀥􀀦􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀀵􀁒􀁗􀁄􀁑􀁄􀀃􀁆􀁋􀁄􀁑􀁑􀁈􀁏􀁖􀀃􀀋􀂳􀀶􀁈􀁏􀂿􀁈􀂴􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀂳􀀪􀁄􀁕􀁄􀁅􀁈􀁅􀀃􀀶􀁒􀁒􀁇􀂴􀀌􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁙􀁈􀁜􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁑􀁈􀁊􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁈􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃Qatar, which have been regularly and widely broadcast. The report of the technical mission of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) also noted that the KSA, UAE and Bahraini governments have sought to stop broadcasting all Qatari media or the other media related to Qatar. Since satellite broadcasting cannot be controlled, these countries have prevented businesses entities (such as hotels) from displaying the Qatari media (especially the Al Jazeera, beIN-Sports and other channels).
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations44The report also points out that all these campaigns cast a shadow to the extent of incitement and contributed to creating a general feeling of concern among people in KSA, UAE and Bahrain of those who have family, fraternal or commercial ties with Qatari citizens. Most of the journalists interviewed with the mission noted that their friends and associates in KSA, UAE and Bahrain were deeply fearful. Many have also noted that they cannot communicate with their families and friends in the blockading countries except through numbers other than the numbers of the Blockading countries as they fear to be tracked.The report issued by the US Department of State on Human Rights in 2017 indicated that the governments of the blockading countries have blocked Qatari websites such as Al-Jazeera because of a dispute between them and Qatar, and that Al-Jazeera remained closed.􀀬􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁇􀁇􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀱􀀫􀀵􀀦􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁇􀁒􀁆􀁘􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁉􀁘􀁏􀁏􀀃􀂿􀁏􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁗􀁄􀁌􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀁓􀁈􀁆􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃manifestations of violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression as well as the discourse of hatred, discrimination and racism, the Doha Center for Media Freedom documented several reports of violations by the Blockading countries through incitement, racism, incitement and hate speech.Report of the substantive mission of the 􀀸nited 􀀱ations High Commissioner for Human RightsEntertainment programmes have also been used to air anti-Qatar messages. For example, Rotana media company produced songs by popular artists stigmatizing Qatar (“Qulo la Qatar”-“Tell Qatar”, and “Sanoalem Qatar”-“We will teach Qatar”) and well-known television 􀁖􀁈􀁕􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀀰􀀥􀀦􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀀵􀁒􀁗􀁄􀁑􀁄􀀃􀁆􀁋􀁄􀁑􀁑􀁈􀁏􀁖􀀃􀀋􀂳􀀶􀁈􀁏􀂿􀁈􀂴􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃“Garabeb Sood”) conveyed negative messages on Qatar, which have been regularly and widely broadcast
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations45H: Violation of the right to movement and residenceTable (7) shows the number of violations of the right to movement and thus residence since the beginning of the blockade, corresponding to June 5, 2017 and until May 23, 2018. There were 1297 violations (770 violations from KSA, 348 violations from UAE, 129 violations from Kingdom of Bahrain, 41 violations from the Arab Republic of Egypt and 9 different violations from other states).Table (7) Violation of the right to movement and residenceAll citizens and residents of the State of Qatar and the Blockading countries have been affected by the violation of this right since the beginning of the blockade crisis on the State of Qatar, as the blockading countries have adopted arbitrary measures and decisions in contravention of all international and regional instruments, the Arab Charter on Human Rights and the Declaration on the Human Rights of the Gulf Cooperation Council concerning the right to freedom of movement and residence; these measures were represented in the fact that the authorities of the blockading countries prevented Qatari people from entering their territories and deporting those who are there. Moreover, residents of Qatar were forced to leave Qatar within 14 days or they were going to be subjected to arbitrary punishment. All those forced to return to their homes were affected in various ways.􀀷􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁅􀁏􀁒􀁆􀁎􀁄􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁖􀁒􀀃􀁆􀁏􀁒􀁖􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁏􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁌􀁕􀁏􀁌􀁑􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀶􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀀏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁖􀁒􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁅􀁏􀁒􀁆􀁎􀁄􀁇􀁈􀀃􀁚􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁑􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁆􀁈􀁇􀀏􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁘􀁗􀀃􀁚􀁄􀁕􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁚􀁒􀁕􀁎􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁈􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁘􀁗􀀃􀁈􀁑􀁄􀁅􀁏􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁜􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁐􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁄􀁎􀁈􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁌􀁙􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁓􀁈􀁕􀁗􀁜􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁌􀁕􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁈􀁖􀀑Salwa land port located on the Saudi-Qatari border was closed, and sea and air ports were closed to Qatari shipping and goods from Qatar. Although the Saudi authorities have opened Salwa border crossing in part and individually at intervals, they have returned and closed it completely even in the face of humanitarian cases, including patients, mixed families, persons with disabilities and the elderly. The crossing remains closed until the date of this report.The Bahraini Minister of the Interior issued a ministerial decree No. (88) for the year 2017 in which Article 1 states that: a visa to the Kingdom of Bahrain shall be imposed on citizens of Qatar and its residents.TotalStateViolationStatisticsDateOther1297941129348770The right ofmovement andthus residenceMay 23,2018
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations46And in article 2 that: The Undersecretary of the Ministry of the Interior for Nationality, Passports and Residency Affairs shall implement this decision and shall come into force on 10 November 2017.Amnesty International’s report on its second visit to the State of Qatar during the period 􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐􀀃􀀕􀀛􀀃􀀱􀁒􀁙􀁈􀁐􀁅􀁈􀁕􀀃􀀕􀀓􀀔􀀚􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁘􀁇􀁇􀁈􀁑􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁒􀁖􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀶􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃Qatar since 5 June 2017 have affected thousands of families and individuals (especially vulnerable groups) in the region who constitute a cohesive social fabric across national borders, dividing families, halting student education, threatening jobs and raising basic food prices in Qatar, making the region’s population face an uncertain future. Amnesty International urged the Kingdom of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to lift all arbitrary travel restrictions that impede the free movement of Gulf residents and residents (11).(11) https􀀝//􀁚􀁚􀁚.amnesty.org/ar/documents/document/􀀢index􀀱umber􀀠mde22􀀈2f7604􀀈2f2017􀀉language􀀠en
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations47neral 47Fifth violations47The report of the Technical Mission of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in the State of Qatar (17-24 November 2017) which was issued on 08/01/2018 􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁏􀁒􀁖􀁘􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁅􀁒􀁕􀁇􀁈􀁕􀁖􀀃􀀋􀁄􀁌􀁕􀀏􀀃􀁖􀁈􀁄􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁏􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀌􀀃􀁆􀁄􀁘􀁖􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁆􀁏􀁈􀁄􀁕􀀃􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁏􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁈􀁉􀁉􀁈􀁆􀁗􀁖􀀃on the freedom of movement to and from the State of Qatar. On June 5, the authorities of the blockading countries issued instructions to their ports and shipping authorities to refrain from receiving Qatari ships or any other vessels owned by any Qatari companies or individuals. The Saudi General Authority for Civil Aviation also banned the landing of any Qatari aircraft at airports in Saudi Arabia.The report added that restrictions on the movement of passengers and goods had consequences that directly affected various human rights, but the effects of those consequences have not all come at the same pace, some of which have had limited impact, while others have had a continuing impact to date. Such measures and restrictions initially constituted a direct violation of the right to freedom of movement, especially since they 􀁚􀁈􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁑􀁒􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁑􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁆􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁚􀁈􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁑􀁒􀀃􀁏􀁈􀁊􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁐􀁒􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁅􀁈􀁋􀁌􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁐􀀑􀀃The absence of freedom of movement between Qatar and other countries is a punishment for Qatari citizens and residents, as well as for residents of the blockading countries. The effects of the restrictions on the right to freedom of movement have varied effects between what is temporary and what is permanent. The temporary effect is the violation of the freedom to practice religious rituals as they were imposed during Ramadan and the Hajj season, as well as family separation, which we should pay due attention to because of the ties between the population in the countries concerned, and the effect on students who had to cut off their studies for inability to take the exams that were scheduled for them. Persistent effects and consequences have been the denial of the right to work and the right of access to property and personal assets of those residents or employees in Qatar or those with commercial interests in Qatar. 􀀷􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁘􀁖􀁓􀁈􀁑􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁓􀁄􀁖􀁖􀁈􀁑􀁊􀁈􀁕􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁆􀁄􀁕􀁊􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁉􀂿􀁆􀀃􀁅􀁈􀁗􀁚􀁈􀁈􀁑􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁕􀁈􀁈􀀃􀀪􀁘􀁏􀁉􀀃􀀶􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃the Quartet Group has had a major impact on the Qatari economy, which hindered trade 􀁐􀁒􀁙􀁈􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀃀􀁒􀁚􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁈􀁏􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁖􀁌􀁊􀁑􀁌􀂿􀁆􀁄􀁑􀁗􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁆􀁕􀁈􀁄􀁖􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁖􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁖􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃commodity as the government and individuals have had to resort to alternative options.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations48Nawaf Talal al-Rasheed The report of the Technical Mission emphasizes that such measures are targeting individuals depending on their Qatar nationality, connection or relationship with Qatar, shall be considered as «unequal and discriminatory measures».The reports of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch “previously mentioned”, have also highlighted the violations, which was committed against this right by the blockading countries. In addition to the negative effects on families, the right to education, the right to health and the right to freedom of worship and the practice of religious rites, the negative impact of the blockade on foreign migrant workers - especially from South Asia.And in continuation of the series of violations against human rights of the blockading countries towards the State of Qatar, which the authorities of the blockading countries have persisted on harming and harassing them, amounting to cases of arbitrary detention in violation of international conventions and instruments and norms of human rights.Saudi Arabia has arrested Mr. Muhsen Saleh Sa’adoun Al-Karbi, a Qatari citizen, on his way to visit his family and relatives in the Republic of Yemen. He was arrested in the Republic of Yemen by Allied Coalition Forces that was led by Saudi Arabia in “ Shahan Border Port“, which is located between the Republic of Yemen and Sultanate of Oman, on 2018, without any known legal charges. Moreover, they prevented him from contacting his family or his lawyer since 21 April and until the publishing of this report. In addition to the inability of his family and his relatives to determine the place of his imprisonment, or what he is accused of. He remains at risk of torture and other ill-treatment in violation of international human rights conventions.The NHRC also received a complaint from the family of Qatar national “Nawaf Talal Al-Rasheed” about the arbitrary arrest of the Qatari citizen by the Saudi authorities, which is considered an enforced disappearance under article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, it is also a crime against humanity under article 7 (i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted in Rome on 17 July 1998, which 􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁖􀁒􀀃􀁄􀀃􀃀􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁋􀁘􀁐􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁏􀁄􀁚􀀏􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁘􀁗􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁜􀀃􀁉􀁒􀁕􀁐􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁆􀁋􀁄􀁕􀁊􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁏􀁈􀁊􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁍􀁘􀁖􀁗􀁌􀂿􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁉􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁕􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁗􀀑􀀃􀀫􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁐􀁌􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁖􀁒􀀃􀁈􀁛􀁓􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁈􀁇􀀃to the NHRC the deep concern and shock it feels over the lack of knowledge of his place of detention, his enforced disappearance and his denial of contact with him or his lawyer, according to the complaint. Furthermore, the OHCHR called on the Saudi Authorities in May 29, 2018 to provide information about Nawaf Talal Al Rasheed. The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance called for clarifying the fate and whereabouts of him. Mohsen Saleh Saadoun al-Karbi
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations49Mr. (H. G) Saudi national:Has a license from the KSA to import 16 horses exported from Doha from the his father, who lives in the State of Qatar, died. When he asked the Saudi authorities at the Saudi land port “Salwa” to go to the State of Qatar to receive his father’s body, his request was denied and prevented from leaving, the matter that forced him to communicate with the NHRC. Mrs. (H. S) Bahraini national:Resident of the State of Qatar and married to a Bahraini citizen residing and working in the State of Qatar and has a family residing in the Kingdom of Bahrain; she demands the right to travel and stay between the State of Qatar and the Kingdom of Bahrain. But after severing relations between the two countries, she cannot go to Bahrain to meet with her family and requests the Bahraini authorities to apply for a permit Although she is a Bahraini citizen and is resident in the State of Qatar. The National Human Rights Commission has documented complaints of violations of the right to freedom of movement and residence by the countries of the blockade, including:Mr. (H. Y) Qatari national:He booked three tickets for his family from Doha to America. Their trip was on Emirates Airlines, where they traveled through Dubai. However, when the Gulf 􀁆􀁕􀁌􀁖􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁅􀁕􀁒􀁎􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁘􀁗􀀏􀀃􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁚􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁘􀁑􀁄􀁅􀁏􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁗􀁘􀁕􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁄􀁐􀁈􀀃􀃀􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀀑􀀃􀀸􀁓􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁗􀁘􀁕􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀏􀀃􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁚􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁑􀁒􀁗􀁌􀂿􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀀨􀁐􀁌􀁕􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁖􀀃􀀤􀁌􀁕􀁏􀁌􀁑􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁉􀁗􀁈􀁕􀀃􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁇􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁗􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁐􀀏􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁗􀁘􀁕􀁑􀀃through the State of Oman noting that he have three month old child and a sick wife, so he was forced to buy new tickets to return him and his family and 􀁖􀁘􀁉􀁉􀁈􀁕􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁕􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁏􀁒􀁖􀁖􀁈􀁖􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁕􀁈􀁈􀀃􀁐􀁒􀁑􀁗􀁋􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁏􀁇􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁉􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁌􀁆􀁎􀀏􀀃􀀶􀁒􀀃􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁅􀁘􀁜􀀃􀁑􀁈􀁚􀀃􀁗􀁌􀁆􀁎􀁈􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁗􀁘􀁕􀁑􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁐􀁌􀁏􀁜􀀏􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁘􀁏􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁕􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁏􀁒􀁖􀁖􀁈􀁖􀀑
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations50FifFifFifffFFithth thGGenGenGeraeraralRlRl Repoepoeprtrt::CCCCooCCCCCooCoCoCoCContintintnnnuanuanutioiotnn on oof f hf hhhumumaumaun rnrn righighigts vioviolattlationionionsss50
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations51I: Violation of the right to healthTable (8) shows the number of violations of the right to health since the beginning of the blockade of 5 June 2017 until 23 May 2018. There were 37 violations (19 violations by the KSA, 4 by the UAE, 14 by Bahrain).􀀬􀁑􀀃􀁌􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀀃􀁌􀁖􀁖􀁘􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀀭􀁘􀁑􀁈􀀃􀀔􀀜􀀏􀀃􀀕􀀓􀀔􀀚􀀏􀀃􀀤􀁐􀁑􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁜􀀃􀀬􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁆􀁈􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃medical treatment were given the option of continuing to treat them or to comply with the extensive and harsh measures declared by the Blockading countries (12).In addition, the impact on the right to health has had more than one effect in terms of affecting the access of the State of Qatar to medicines (including life-saving items) and medical supplies as a result of the cessation of trade. Qatar relies on 50% to 60% of the Pharmaceutical stocks are from 20 GCC-based suppliers; also the repercussions and consequences of the blockade 􀁚􀁈􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁖􀁒􀀃􀁕􀁈􀃀􀁈􀁆􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁇􀁈􀁏􀁄􀁜􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁓􀁈􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁑􀁈􀁚􀀃􀁋􀁒􀁖􀁓􀁌􀁗􀁄􀁏􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀀏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃report of the technical mission of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in the State of Qatar (17-24 November 2017) on the impact of the current Gulf crisis on human rights issued on 08/01/2018. Human Rights Watch also stated in its report issued on 13 July 2017 that the blockade imposed on the State of Qatar caused serious human rights violations, including the suspension of medical care. The organization noted that its researchers documented the cases of Qatari, Gulf and expatriate citizens living in Qatar, whose rights were violated due to restrictive policies imposed on the State of Qatar since 5 June 2017 (13). (12) https􀀝//􀁚􀁚􀁚.amnesty.org/ar/latest/ne􀁚s/2017/06/gulf-􀁔atar-dispute-human-dignity-trampled-and-families-facing-uncertainty-as-sinister-deadline-passes/(13) https􀀝//􀁚􀁚􀁚.hr􀁚.org/ar/ne􀁚s/2017/07/13/306595TotalStateViolationStatisticsDate37---19414The right tohealthMay 23,2018Table (8) Violation of the right to health
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations5252Fifth violations52The NHRC has documented complaints of violations of the right to health by the countries of the blockade, including:The disabled child (G. S) Qatari national:Was subjected to the violation of his right to complete treatment at Dallah Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which began since 2016 through the implantation of metal plate to correct his spine, and had to enter the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with the beginning of the Gulf crisis to the hospital to prolong these plates, but could not entered Saudi Arabia because of the decision to prevent the entry of Qataris. The delay in the operation led to the disintegration of the metal platelets and the re-operation of the operation in another hospital in the Republic of Turkey. Resulting in health complications and severe moral and material damage. The victim sent a communication to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in full details. Mr. (K. K) Bahraini national:In his visit to the NHRC, saying: «I suffer from chronic diabetes, which led to amputation of my left foot at Hamad General Hospital in Qatar, where I am currently receiving treatment in the same hospital regularly, and after imposing the blockade on the State of Qatar, the authorities in the Kingdom of Bahrain have asked me to leave the State of Qatar and return to the Kingdom of Bahrain. I am a resident of Doha and I am married to a Qatari woman. I have children born in the State 􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁄􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁈􀁇􀁘􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕􀁈􀀏􀀃􀁚􀁋􀁌􀁆􀁋􀀃􀁐􀁄􀁎􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁗􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁗􀀃􀁉􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁐􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁗􀁘􀁕􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁐􀁜􀀃country and leave my treatment and education of my children. Mrs. (N. A) UAE national:She is married to Mr. (A. A) Qatari national, resident in the State of Qatar, suffers from health problems and wishes to travel abroad for medical treatment. However, her UAE travel document expired on 06/01/2018 and cannot be renewed due to arbitrary procedures taken by the UAE authorities, the matter that forced her to take treatment at Hamad General Hospital in Qatar.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations53 violationsFifth violations53J: Violation of the right to litigationDue to the consequences of the blockade on the State of Qatar, citizens and residents of the State of Qatar have not been able to resort to the courts of the Blockading countries and exercise the right to litigation and their right to defense, through the following:1. Not being allowed to appear before the courts as a result of preventing them from entering blockading countries in violation of their right to litigation and the associated rights such as the right to defense.􀀕􀀑􀀃􀀫􀁌􀁑􀁇􀁈􀁕􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁚􀁒􀁕􀁎􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁌􀁕􀀃􀁄􀁗􀁗􀁒􀁕􀁑􀁈􀁜􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁆􀁕􀁈􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁐􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁆􀁈􀁈􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀁖􀀃on their behalf.􀀖􀀑􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁏􀁄􀁚􀀐􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁅􀁏􀁒􀁆􀁎􀁄􀁇􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁉􀁘􀁖􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁇􀁈􀁏􀁈􀁊􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀀴􀁄􀁗􀁄􀁕􀁌􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁌􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁏􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁊􀁄􀁑􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃the courts and failed to follow up the cases already entrusted to them.4. Non-implementation of court orders issued in favor of Qataris.5. Cancellation of judgments issued in favor of Qataris and residents as a result of their inability to initiate their cases and exercise their right to litigation and defense.The NHRC documented complaints of violation of the right to litigation by the countries of the blockade, including:Complaint submitted by: Mr. (G. A) Qatari National:The complainant submitted a complaint to the committee about the damage he suffered due to the Gulf crisis and the blockade on the State of Qatar, as he had a lawsuit in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia about renting a truck to a Saudi national, 􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁚􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁘􀁑􀁄􀁅􀁏􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁒􀁅􀁗􀁄􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁜􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁅􀁈􀁑􀁈􀂿􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁉􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁏􀁈􀁄􀁖􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃the lessee from the date of conclusion of the contract and until now could not because of the events to follow up his case, which number (364031068) did not 􀂿􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁜􀀃􀁖􀁒􀁏􀁘􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀞􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁕􀁘􀁆􀁎􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁈􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁒􀁏􀁈􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁋􀁌􀁇􀁇􀁈􀁑􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁏􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁈􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁏􀁇􀀃􀁑􀁒􀁗􀀃return the trucks again. The value of each truck is estimated at QR100,000 to be the total loss and damage caused by more than QR2,000,000.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations54Complaint submitted by: Mr. (A. A) Qatari National:He bought a house in the Emirate of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, a villa of AED 1,700,000 and a payment of AED 1,200,000 was made by sending payments; to date and after the blockade, they are communicating with him in 􀁒􀁕􀁇􀁈􀁕􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁓􀁏􀁈􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁓􀁄􀁜􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁏􀁄􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁓􀁈􀁕􀁗􀁜􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁒􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕􀀃property owned by the company in the State of Qatar with a commitment to pay the difference between the value of the two properties QR 1,000,000 million, 􀁆􀁄􀁘􀁖􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁋􀁌􀁐􀀃􀁖􀁌􀁊􀁑􀁌􀂿􀁆􀁄􀁑􀁗􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁏􀁒􀁖􀁖􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁇􀁒􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁑􀁒􀁗􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁖􀁋􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁇􀁒􀀃􀁖􀁒􀀑􀀃Complaint submitted by: Mr. (A. M) Qatari National:Where he claims that he concluded a contract for the purchase of 2 apartments for him and his wife and is committed to pay the monthly installments to the 􀁒􀁚􀁑􀁈􀁕􀀞􀀃􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁖􀁒􀁏􀁘􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁅􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁅􀁏􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁈􀁛􀁈􀁕􀁆􀁌􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁓􀁈􀁕􀁗􀁜􀀏􀀃􀁅􀁘􀁗􀀃􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁇􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁗􀀃􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁜􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁗􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁏􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁏􀁄􀁆􀁎􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁒􀁏􀁈􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀥􀁄􀁋􀁕􀁄􀁌􀁑􀁌􀀃􀁄􀁘􀁗􀁋􀁒􀁕􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁚􀁋􀁌􀁆􀁋􀀃􀁈􀁛􀁓􀁒􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁋􀁌􀁐􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁏􀁏􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁐􀁓􀁒􀁖􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁋􀁌􀁐􀀃􀁇􀁘􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁇􀁈􀁏􀁄􀁜􀀃in payment Premiums. Fifth: Legal descriptionThe governments of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Bahrain have violated several resolutions they are a party to and rules and laws of international human rights law. They are in clear violation of many articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced disappearance; as well as articles in the Arab Charter for Human Rights, the Declaration on the Human Rights of the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Economic Agreement between the Gulf Cooperation Council States. Consequently, these countries have the responsibility to protect and preserve the rights and interests of individuals residing in their territories. The countries of the blockade also blatantly violated the Chicago Convention and have banned the movement of Qatari civil aviation over its territory without any military or public security reasons.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations55􀁤Articles violated by in the 3 states of blockade:Article 2 “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind” it means that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has guaranteed all rights stated therein to everyone, especially right to litigation.Article 5No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Article 131. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 23 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. Article 25 1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.Firstly: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations56Article 26 1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. 2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.Article 2 Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Article 20 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.Article 6The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.Article 10 The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that: 1. The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children. Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses.Secondly: International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsThirdly: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations572. Special protection should be accorded to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth. During such period working mothers should be accorded paid leave or leave 􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁄􀁇􀁈􀁔􀁘􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁒􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁖􀁈􀁆􀁘􀁕􀁌􀁗􀁜􀀃􀁅􀁈􀁑􀁈􀂿􀁗􀁖􀀑3. Special measures of protection and assistance should be taken on behalf of all children and young persons without any discrimination for reasons of parentage or other conditions. Children and young persons should be protected from economic and social exploitation. Their employment in work harmful to their morals or health or dangerous to life or likely to hamper their normal development should be punishable by law. States should also set age limits below which the paid employment of child labour should be prohibited and punishable by law.Article 12 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:(a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;(b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;(c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;(d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.Article 13The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. Article 21. States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end: (a) Each State Party undertakesFourthly: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations58to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to en sure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation;(b) Each State Party undertakes not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or organizations;(c) Each State Party shall take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists;(d) Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization;(e) Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate, integrationist multiracial organizations and movements and other means of eliminating barriers between races, and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division.2. States Parties shall, when the circumstances so warrant, take, in the social, economic, 􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁗􀁘􀁕􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕􀀃􀂿􀁈􀁏􀁇􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁖􀁓􀁈􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁆􀁕􀁈􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁄􀁖􀁘􀁕􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁈􀁑􀁖􀁘􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁇􀁈􀁔􀁘􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁇􀁈􀁙􀁈􀁏􀁒􀁓􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These measures shall in no case en tail as a con sequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.Article 4The States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one color or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, 􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁖􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁙􀁌􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁜􀀃􀁄􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁖􀁗􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁕􀁄􀁆􀁌􀁖􀁗􀀃􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁆􀁏􀁘􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀂿􀁑􀁄􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕􀁈􀁒􀁉􀀞(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination. Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations59Article 6 States Parties shall assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals and other State institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination which violate his human rights and fundamental freedoms contrary to this Convention, as well as the right to seek from such tribunals just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination.Article 7 States Parties undertake to adopt immediate and effective measures, particularly in the 􀂿􀁈􀁏􀁇􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁈􀁄􀁆􀁋􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀏􀀃􀁈􀁇􀁘􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀏􀀃􀁆􀁘􀁏􀁗􀁘􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁉􀁒􀁕􀁐􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀏􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁈􀁚􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁅􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁈􀁍􀁘􀁇􀁌􀁆􀁈􀁖􀀃which lead to racial discrimination and to promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship among nations and racial or ethnical groups, as well as to propagating the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and this Convention.Article 2 For the purposes of this Convention, «enforced disappearance» is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.Article 3 1. Each State Party to the present Charter undertakes to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the right to enjoy all the rights and freedoms recognized herein, without any distinction on grounds of race, color, sex, language, religion, opinion, thought, national or social origin, property, birth or physical or mental disabilityArticle 81. No one shall be subjected to physical or mental torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.Fifthly: International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced DisappearanceSixth: Arab Charter on Human rights
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations60Article 26 1. Every person lawfully within the territory of a State Party shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence in accordance with applicable regulations.Article 321. The present Charter shall ensure the right to information, freedom of opinion and freedom of expression, freedom to seek, receive and impart information by all means, regardless of frontiers. 2. Such rights and freedoms are exercised in the framework of society’s fundamental principles and shall only be subjected to restrictions necessary for the respect of the rights or reputation of others and for the protection of national security or of public order, health or morals.Article 33 1. The family is the natural and fundamental unit of society, founded by the marriage of a man and a woman. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized. No marriage shall be entered without the full consent of the intending spouses. The law in force shall regulate the rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 2. The State and society provide for the protection of the family and its members, for the strengthening of its bonds. All forms of violence and abusive treatment in the relations between family members, especially towards women and children, shall be prohibited. The State and society undertake to provide outstanding care and special protection for mothers, children and the elderly. Young persons have the right to be ensured maximum opportunities for physical and mental development. 3. The State Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative and judicial provisions to ensure the protection, survival and well-being of children in an atmosphere of freedom and dignity. The best interest of the child, in all circumstances, serves as the basis for all measures taken, whether the child is a juvenile delinquent or a child “at risk”.Article 6 The Freedom of belief and the practice of religious rites is a right of every person according to the regulation (law) without disruption of the public order and public morals.Article 9Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and exercising such freedom is guaranteed insofar as it accords with Islamic Sharia law, public order and the regulations (laws) regulating this area. Seventh: GCC Human Rights Declaration
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations61Article 14 The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, originally composed of a man and a woman, governed by religion, morals and patriotism; its entity and bonds are maintained and reinforced by religion. Motherhood, childhood and members of the family are protected by religion as well as the State and society against all forms of abuse and domestic violence.Article 24Every person, who has the capacity of doing so, has the right to work and has the right to free choice of employment according to the requirements of dignity and public interest, while just and favorable employment conditions, as well as employees’ and employers’ rights, are ensured. Article 27Private property is inviolable and no one shall be prevented from the disposition of his property except by the regulation (law), and it may not be expropriated unless for public interest with fair compensation. The countries of the blockade have violated various International conventions, including: - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;- International Covenant on economic and social and cultural Rights;- The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD);- The international Convention on the Rights of the Child;- The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED)
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations62Sixth: Conclusions 􀀱􀀫􀀵􀀦􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁈􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁘􀁖􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁆􀁏􀁘􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁈􀁏􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁆􀁏􀁘􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃international reports and the United Nations Technical Mission on the consequences of the blockade in Qatar. Further NHRC stresses on the following:★ Unilateral arbitrary measures and procedures taken by the blockading countries have resulted in a number of violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. ★ The measures taken by states of blockade to punish citizens and residents of Qatar and citizens of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries were used as a tool for political pressure and a mean of managing political disputes. The said measures escalated to collective punishments affecting individuals and property.★ The discriminatory measures taken by the countries of the blockade amount to racial discrimination, and incitement and hatred attitude towards Qatari people aims to offend and contempt the Qatari citizen, as well as insulting symbols of the State of Qatar. ★ The purpose of the measures taken by the countries of the blockade in the economic, 􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁐􀁈􀁕􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁙􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀂿􀁈􀁏􀁇􀁖􀀃􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁄􀁕􀁊􀁈􀁗􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁖􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁎􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁉􀁕􀁄􀁖􀁗􀁕􀁘􀁆􀁗􀁘􀁕􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏􀀃economy of the State of Qatar, in addition to damaging the economic rights of individuals and communities, is a dangerous precedent which may amount to the crime of aggression. ★ The countries of the blockade did not take into account the minimum conditions and 􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁐􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁇􀁈􀀏􀀃􀁈􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁒􀁐􀁌􀁆􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁙􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁖􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁚􀁋􀁌􀁆􀁋􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀂿􀁕􀁐􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁅􀁖􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁄􀀃safe investment environment in those states.★ The countries of the blockade did not take into account the rights of the most vulnerable groups (women, children, persons with disabilities and the elderly). Further, these arbitrary measures have resulted in deprivation of education, denial of employment and violation of the right to health, especially for those groups. ★ Prolongation of the crisis and tragedy of the victims while neither redressing the victims nor restoration their rights, threatens international security and peace and undermines mediation efforts.★ The ongoing tragedy of separated families may lead to destroying social fabric and 􀁈􀁛􀁄􀁆􀁈􀁕􀁅􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁘􀁉􀁉􀁈􀁕􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁚􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁆􀁋􀁌􀁏􀁇􀁕􀁈􀁑􀀃􀁌􀁑􀀃􀁄􀀃􀃀􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏􀀃convention of the rights of the child and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations63★ The victims have not been granted access to justice in the countries of the blockade. Moreover, they have been deprived their rights to exercise litigation and the associated rights, such as the right to defense, which constitute an impediment to redress, compensation and restitution of victims. ★ There is no response by the countries of the blockade to remove the violations and lift the harm from those affected, and the measures taken by them were merely a maneuver to improve their image or to delay the current situation. The mysterious mechanisms that lack of credibility in which the countries of the Blockade claim that they have developed in order to address the situation of the victims, failed to remedy the victims’ jurist and humanitarian situation and failed to communicate with NHRC the Committee’s relentless efforts to do so. ★ Since the commencement of the blockade and up till now, NHRC did not receive any reply to any of its correspondences sent to national institutions and some relevant civil society organizations in the countries of the blockade, and the said organizations did not provide any cooperation whatsoever. ★ Qatari authorities have not taken reciprocal arbitrary measures to those taken by the countries of the blockade. The Qatari government has also strived to contain the crisis and its negative impact on citizens and residents, including residents of the countries of the Blockade. ★ There has been a response by international mechanisms for the protection of human 􀁕􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁏􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀲􀀫􀀦􀀫􀀵􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀀸􀁑􀁌􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀀱􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀀲􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀶􀁓􀁈􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀀳􀁕􀁒􀁆􀁈􀁇􀁘􀁕􀁈􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁈􀁏􀁏􀀃as the Subcommittee for Human Rights in the European Parliament. There has also been remarkable engagement by international human rights organizations such as Amnesty 􀀬􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏􀀏􀀃􀀫􀁘􀁐􀁄􀁑􀀃􀀵􀁌􀁊􀁋􀁗􀁖􀀃􀀺􀁄􀁗􀁆􀁋􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁚􀁋􀁌􀁆􀁋􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁇􀁘􀁆􀁗􀁈􀁇􀀃􀂿􀁈􀁏􀁇􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁖􀁌􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁓􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁄􀁕􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀁖􀀑􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁈􀁖􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁆􀁏􀁈􀁄􀁕􀁏􀁜􀀃􀁕􀁈􀃀􀁈􀁆􀁗􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁐􀁄􀁊􀁑􀁌􀁗􀁘􀁇􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁋􀁘􀁐􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁖􀁘􀁉􀁉􀁈􀁕􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁘􀁏􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃blockade.★ The report of the OHCHR Technical Mission revealed the extent of human rights violations caused by the blockade which not only affected the Qataris, but extended to residents and migrant workers in addition to citizens of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. ★ 􀀧􀁈􀁖􀁓􀁌􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁕􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁓􀁒􀁑􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀀱􀀫􀀵􀀦􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁊􀁄􀁕􀁇􀀏􀀃􀁑􀁒􀁑􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁕􀁈􀁊􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏􀀃mechanisms for the protection of human rights in the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf or the Arab Parliament have played an effective role in lifting the violations and remedy of victims. Therefore, these mechanisms are still unable to do their part. ★ The Saudi, UAE and Bahraini authorities have not allowed international organizations to investigate the facts of the negative repercussions of the blockade on human rights, including the rights of their citizens.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations64★ No action has been taken by the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights despite the fact that the NHRC has repeatedly called upon him to intervene quickly to counter the negative effects of arbitrary measures taken by the countries of the blockade and to mitigate their consequences on human rights, in contrast to the many UN Special Rapporteurs who issued urgent appeals 􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁔􀁘􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁅􀁏􀁒􀁆􀁎􀁄􀁇􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁌􀁝􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁗􀁜􀁓􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃how to compensate the victims. ★ Despite the statements of the NHRC, the assertions of international reports and organizations, and the urgent appeal of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief to Saudi Arabia, the Saudi authorities continue to politicize religious feelings, put obstacles and hindrances in the way of Qatari people and citizens, and prevent them from exercising their right to worship. The NHRC will work to prosecute KSA locally, regionally and internationally as a result of the psychological damage to the Qatari pilgrims and 􀁐􀁄􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁏􀁒􀁖􀁖􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁒􀁉􀂿􀁆􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀀫􀁄􀁍􀁍􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀀸􀁐􀁕􀁄􀁋􀀃􀁆􀁄􀁐􀁓􀁄􀁌􀁊􀁑􀁖􀀑􀀃􀀰􀁒􀁕􀁈􀁒􀁙􀁈􀁕􀀏􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁘􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁄􀁇􀁇􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁖􀀃the issue of politicizing religious rites in all international human rights forums, and to begin with regional and international partners in organizing awareness campaigns about the seriousness of Saudi Arabia’s actions in relation politicizing religious rites. ★ The presence of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as members of the Human Rights Council raises questions and doubts about the credibility of the Human Rights Council in light of the grave violations committed by these two countries. ★ Recently, the Saudi authorities have been targeting Qatari citizens while traveling outside the State of Qatar by kidnapping or making illegal arrest warrants and then arbitrarily detaining them and forcibly disappearing. ★ Most of the cases of victims and parties affected by the blockade, especially the mixed families, remain unresolved and the impact of the current crisis and its negative effects will remain for a long period of time.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations65Seventh: Recommendations to the Competent Authorities Recommendations to Civil Society Take urgent actions to lift the blockade, and make every possible effort to mitigate its repercussions on the people of Qatar, and citizens of the countries of the Blockade, in isolation from the efforts of political mediation to resolve the crisis.Recommendations to the Kuwaiti Mediaton Calling on the Kuwaiti mediation - in the light of the welcome efforts of the Kuwaiti mediation to resolve the humanitarian repercussions resulting from the crisis - to work to alleviate the suffering of the victims and resolve the humanitarian situation for them, especially for the mixed families even if the political solution is long.Recommendations to Civil Society Organizations based in GCC Countries Intensify efforts and joint cooperation to resolve the repercussions of the crisis on the humanitarian situation and carry out awareness campaigns to alleviate the suffering of the victims, in addition to 􀂿􀁊􀁋􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁗􀁕􀁈􀁇􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁓􀁈􀁈􀁆􀁋􀀏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁈􀁏􀁏􀀃􀁄􀁖􀀃􀁋􀁒􀁏􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁒􀁕􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁐􀁈􀁈􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁊􀁖􀀃􀁚􀁌􀁗􀁋􀀃􀀱􀀫􀀵􀀦􀀃􀁉􀁒􀁕􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁌􀁖􀀃purpose.Recommendations to OHCHR and UN1. Take further steps to force the countries of the blockade to reverse from the unilateral arbitrary decisions they have taken. 2. Continue to urge the countries of the blockade to stop the violations caused by the inhumane blockade measures, address these violations, redress the victims and compensate them for the physical and psychological damage caused to them by the blockade. 3. The OHCHR should present reports and data documenting the various types of violations that have affected a large number of individuals, in particular with regard to the displacement of families, including their dire consequences on women and children following the break-up of families, in addition to demanding the states to respect the fundamental freedoms of those in their territories. 4. Submit a detailed report on human rights violations to the Human Rights Council, special rapporteurs and contractual mechanisms to address violations and ensure that they are not repeated, and that a dangerous precedence is not set. 5. Call on the OHCHR for further action at all levels of international human rights mechanisms and to raise the issue of the repercussions of the blockade in the report of the OHCHR at the next session of the UN Human Rights Council. 6. Call on the OHCHR to contact specialized international agencies such as the International Labor Organization, UNESCO, WTO and ICAO to share information and support complaints against the countries of the Blockade.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations667. Call on the United Nations Special Rapporteurs to act swiftly to address the issues of victims of the blockade violations and to visit the countries of the blockade, as well as to include the repercussions of the blockade in their reports to the Human Rights Council.8. Call on the Special Rapporteur on the unilateral coercive measures to intervene immediately, approach the countries of the blockade, as well as visiting the State of Qatar and the countries of the blockade. 9. Call on the special rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers to move swiftly to enable victims to obtain their right to litigation, and urge the countries of the blockade to allow them to access the national courts to address their legal status. 10. Invite the Technical Mission of the OHCHR to visit the countries of the blockade and to recognize the negative impact on the countries of the blockade citizen’s and citizen’s of Qatar, and include its implications in a report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.11. Call on the General Assembly of UN to issue a global declaration against the blockade of the peoples and neutralize civilians from any political strife.Recommendations to Human Rights Council 1. Take all possible measures to lift the blockade and the resulting violations, as well as demand compensation for all damages to all individuals.􀀕􀀑􀀃􀀧􀁈􀁐􀁄􀁑􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁄􀁅􀁏􀁌􀁖􀁋􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁄􀀃􀁉􀁄􀁆􀁗􀀐􀂿􀁑􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁐􀁌􀁗􀁗􀁈􀁈􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁇􀁘􀁆􀁗􀀃􀁇􀁌􀁕􀁈􀁆􀁗􀀃􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁙􀁌􀁈􀁚􀁖􀀃with victims. 􀀖􀀑􀀃􀀦􀁄􀁏􀁏􀀃􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁑􀁗􀁕􀁌􀁈􀁖􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁅􀁏􀁒􀁆􀁎􀁄􀁇􀁈􀀃􀁗􀁒􀀃􀁄􀁏􀁏􀁒􀁚􀀃􀂿􀁈􀁏􀁇􀀃􀁙􀁌􀁖􀁌􀁗􀁖􀀃􀁅􀁜􀀃􀁖􀁓􀁈􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁕􀁄􀁓􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀁈􀁘􀁕􀁖􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃international human rights organizations, allow victims to resort to national justice, and pursue proceedings for the restoration of their rights. Additionally, immediately stop defamatory campaigns, hate speech and incitement, and hold those responsible accountable.4. Demands the countries of the blockade abolish all unilateral arbitrary measures, to respect their obligations under international human rights law, to immediately lift violations and to redress victims.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations67Recommendation to General Secretary of GCC1. Exert all efforts through The Settlement of Disputes Committee of the Supreme Council for to persuade the governments of countries to begin to resolve the situation of families, citizens, social, economic, civil and cultural.2. Work to lift the blockade on the State of Qatar and neutralize civilians from any political strife.Recommendations to the blockading countries1. Immediately lifting the blockade on the State of Qatar.2. Consider positively and immediately the foundations of the report of the OHCHR Technical Mission. 3. Cancel all unilateral arbitrary measures, respect their obligations under international human rights law, and immediately lift violations and redress victims.􀀗􀀑􀀃􀀱􀁈􀁘􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁏􀁌􀁝􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁓􀁒􀁏􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁏􀀃􀂿􀁏􀁈􀀃􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐􀀃􀁌􀁑􀃀􀁘􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁌􀁑􀁊􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁋􀁘􀁐􀁄􀁑􀁌􀁗􀁄􀁕􀁌􀁄􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃􀁖􀁒􀁆􀁌􀁄􀁏􀀃􀁖􀁌􀁗􀁘􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁄􀁑􀁇􀀃not using it as a pretext for violating international law and international human rights law.5. Establish effective mechanisms to address cases of violations and redress victims.6. Allow the visits of the OHCHR Technical Mission and special rapporteurs and international human rights organizations to examine the effects of the actions taken on the citizens of these countries and the citizens and residents of the State of Qatar. For close humanitarian situations and for determining responsibilities and redress for victims.7. Allow victims to resort to national justice and litigation procedures to restore their rights.􀀛􀀑􀀃􀀷􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁌􀁐􀁐􀁈􀁇􀁌􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁆􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁇􀁈􀁉􀁄􀁐􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀀃􀁆􀁄􀁐􀁓􀁄􀁌􀁊􀁑􀁖􀀏􀀃􀁋􀁄􀁗􀁈􀀃􀁖􀁓􀁈􀁈􀁆􀁋􀀏􀀃􀁌􀁑􀃀􀁄􀁐􀁐􀁄􀁗􀁒􀁕􀁜􀀃propaganda and accountability of those responsible.9. Stop fabricating arguments and lies to arrest and detain Qataris or residents of the State of Qatar arbitrarily and to limit the racist measures against Qatari citizens.
Annex 140
Fifth General Report: Continuation of human rights violations68Recommendation to the Qatari Government1. Continue to take all possible steps at the international level by the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Security Council, the Human Rights Council and the international tribunals to lift the unjust blockade on the population of Qatar and defend their rights in the face of violations against them, as well as holding the perpetrators accountable. 2. Seeking resort to the International Court of Justice, arbitration committees and specialized national and international courts, as well as holding the perpetrators of incitement campaigns, hate speech and calls for violence and racial discrimination from the countries of the Blockade accountable. 3. Taking urgent action at the level of the Human Rights Council to present a draft resolution on the repercussions of the blockade on the citizens and residents of the State of Qatar. Furthermore, the repercussions of the blockade to be discussed before the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Security Council. 4. Referring to international reports, led by the Technical Mission report in supporting complaints submitted before the World Trade Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization and UNESCO. 5. Inviting the Compensation Claims Committee to continue litigation and international arbitration procedures, relying on the rationales contained in the national and international reports on the blockade, in order to redress and compensate the victims. 6. Taking due actions to bring the perpetrators of incitement campaigns, hate speech, calls for violence and racial discrimination from the countries of the Blockade to justice.
Annex 140
00974 44048844 [email protected] www.nhrc-qatar.orgHot line00974 66626663Fereej Abdulaziz,Nasser Bin Khalid Intersection,Behind Doha Petrol Station
Annex 140
Annex 140

Annex 141
Reporters Without Borders, Unacceptable Call for Al Jazeera’s Closure in Gulf Crisis (28 June 2017),
available at https://rsf.org/en/news/unacceptable-call-al-jazeeras-closure-gulf-cris…

4/1/2019Unacceptable call for Al Jazeera’s closure in Gulf crisis | RSFhttps://rsf.org/en/news/unacceptable-call-al-jazeeras-closure-gulf-cris… 28, 2017Unacceptable call for AlJazeera’s closure in GulfcrisisStan Honda/AFPReporters Without Borders (RSF) is very disturbedby the demand made by several Arab countries forthe closure of Al Jazeera, Qatar’s leading TVbroadcaster, and other media outlets funded by theemirate. RSF regards this as an unacceptable act ofblackmail.QATARSAUDI ARABIABAHRAINUNITED ARAB EMIRATESEGYPTMIDDLE EAST - NORTH AFRICACONDEMNING ABUSESFREEDOM OF EXPRESSIONINTERNET
Annex 141
4/1/2019Unacceptable call for Al Jazeera’s closure in Gulf crisis | RSFhttps://rsf.org/en/news/unacceptable-call-al-jazeeras-closure-gulf-cris… three weeks after Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emiratesand Egypt broke off diplomatic relations with Qatar, journalists at AlJazeera were stunned to learn from a news agency dispatch and tweetson 23 June that the 13 demands for ending this unprecedented regionalcrisis included the closure of Al Jazeera and other outlets directly orindirectly supported by Qatar, such as Al-Araby Al-Jadeed and MiddleEast Eye. “This is without precedent in the history of humankind,” Al JazeeraArabic director-general Yasser Abu Hilalah told RSF, adding thatbacking the call for the Doha-based broadcaster’s closure was likeissuing a “licence for killing off journalism in this region” and endingmedia freedom. At times criticized for its coverage of the Arab revolutions and accusedof bias and of acting as Qatar’s mouthpiece(https://rsf.org/en/news/al-jazeera-collateral-victim-diplomatic-offensi…), Al Jazeera has nonethelessrevolutionized the Arab media world since its creation in 1996 byproviding a forum to all of the region’s political tendencies. The same diversity can also be found on the Middle East Eye website,whose editor, David Hearst told RSF that it was precisely its “pro-democracy and pro-Arab Spring” coverage, and its independence of anygovernment that had put it on the list of media for closure. ContrastingMiddle East Eye (http://www.middleeasteye.net/)’s“effective” journalism with the “traditional” kind practiced in SaudiArabia and UAE, he described the demand as an attempt to “extinguishany free voice which dares to question what they are doing.” “This use of pressure and blackmail betrays a clear desire by certainGulf states to censor the Qatari media and constitutes a grave attack onpress freedom and pluralism, and the right of access to information inthe region,” said Alexandra El Khazen, the head of RSF’s Middle Eastdesk.
Annex 141
4/1/2019Unacceptable call for Al Jazeera’s closure in Gulf crisis | RSFhttps://rsf.org/en/news/unacceptable-call-al-jazeeras-closure-gulf-cris…“The targeted media outlets must be able to exist freely, without beingforced to fall in with the policies of neighbouring countries, whichcannot by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as models ofmedia freedom, as models to be followed.” Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and UAE – the countries that aredemanding the closure of Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye and other mediaoutlets regarded as pro-Qatari – are ranked(https://rsf.org/fr/ranking) 168th, 164th, 161st and 119threspectively in RSF’s 2017 World Press Freedom Index, while Qatar isranked 123rd. Targeting free speech and freedom to inform Even before Qatar was given ten days to respond to the 13 demands,the emirate’s enemies began taking retaliatory measures against theQatari media and any form of expression potentially favourableto Qatar (http://www.albayan.ae/across-the-uae/news-and-reports/2017-06-07-1.2969…). The Saudi and Jordanian governments announced the closure of AlJazeera’s bureaux in their respective capitals at the start of June, just afew days after diplomatic relations were severed.At the same time, the UAE’s attorney-general announced that anyexpression of support for Qatar or opposition to UAE policy – whetherspoken, written or on social networks – would henceforth be a crimepunishable by three to 15 years in prison and a fine of 500,000 dirhams(120,000 euros).In Saudi Arabia, expressing support for Qatar is regarded as a publicorder offence(https://twitter.com/SaudiNews50/status/87220925393899520It is also punishable under article 7 of the cyber-crime law by up tofive years in prison(http://www.youm7.com/story/2017/6/7/%D8%B9%D9%83%D8%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D…-
Annex 141
4/1/2019Unacceptable call for Al Jazeera’s closure in Gulf crisis | RSFhttps://rsf.org/en/news/unacceptable-call-al-jazeeras-closure-gulf-cris…) and a fine of 3 millionriyals (710,000 euros). In Bahrain, the information ministry haswarned the media that publishing any information liable to harm thestate’s interests could lead to a fine and up to five years in prison(https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/bahrain-and-uae-…). A few weeks prior to these measures, access to the websites of AlJazeera and other Qatari media were blocked in Saudi Arabia,UAE(http://english.alarabiya.net/en/media/digital/2017/05/24/Weof-Al-Jazeer…) and Egypt(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/25/egypt-blocks-access-news-…). RSF is concerned about all these different violations of thefreedom to inform and free speech and notes that this is not the firstcrisis that Al Jazeera has had to face. Al Jazeera was forced to close its bureaux in Kuwait(https://rsf.org/en/news/government-shuts-down-al-jazeera-office) and Jordan (https://rsf.org/en/news/al-jazeera-office-amman-shut-down) in 2002. Iran demanded theclosure of its Tehran bureau in 2005(https://rsf.org/fr/actualites/reporters-sans-frontieres-proteste-contre…)for “inciting unrest” in its coverage of incidents. It was forced toterminate its activities in Bahrain in 2010,(https://rsf.org/fr/actualites/le-ministere-de-la-culture-et-de-linforma…) in Egypt in 2013 (https://rsf.org/fr/actualites/la-
Annex 141
4/1/2019Unacceptable call for Al Jazeera’s closure in Gulf crisis | RSFhttps://rsf.org/en/news/unacceptable-call-al-jazeeras-closure-gulf-cris…) and in Baghdad in 2014(https://rsf.org/fr/actualites/rsf-demande-la-reouverture-du-bureau-dal-…).Broadcasting worldwide in various languages, Al Jazeera is the Arabworld’s most important and influential media outlet. As well as politicalhostility, it has also survived physical attacks, as when its premisescame under fire during the Gaza war in 2014(https://rsf.org/en/news/journalists-lives-line-gaza-conflict)and it suffered US bombardment in Afghanistan in 2001(https://www.ifex.org/afghanistan/2001/11/15/rsf_seeks_clarifand Iraq in 2003. (https://rsf.org/fr/actualites/reporters-sans-frontieres-indignee-par-le…)“Al Jazeera’s staff have been threatened, locked up, and tragicallykilled as a consequence of carrying out their duties as journalists,” thebroadcaster’s press office said. One of its journalists is currentlydetained in Egypt. (https://rsf.org/en/news/another-al-jazeera-journalist-arrested-egypt) It may be because Al Jazeera has survived all these trials that itsbureau chief in Paris, Ayache Derradji, is still optimistic. He said: “AlJazeera means ‘The Island’ and, like an island, it cannot besurrounded, besieged or even occupied because it is bigger than theimagination of press freedom’s enemies and it will remain free (...) Itslife is longer than all the lives of the totalitarian regimes put together.”
Annex 141

Annex 142
Amnesty International, Report 2017/18: The State of the World’s Human Rights (2018), available at https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/POL1067002018ENGLISH.PDF

Annex 142
iiAmnesty International Report 2017/18AMNESTY INTERNATIONALAmnesty International is a global movement of more than 7 million people who campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations.First published in 2018 by Amnesty International LtdPeter Benenson House,1, Easton Street,London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom© Amnesty International 2018Index: POL 10/6700/2018ISBN: 978-0-86210-499-3A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.Original language: EnglishExcept where otherwise noted, content in this document is licensed under a CreativeCommons (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcodeFor more information please visit the permissions page on our website: www.amnesty.orgamnesty.orgThis report documents Amnesty International’s work and concerns through 2017.The absence of an entry in this report on a particular country or territory does not imply that no human rights violations of concern to Amnesty International have taken place there during the year. Nor is the length of a country entry any basis for a comparison of the extent and depth of Amnesty International’s concerns in a country.
Annex 142
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT 2017/18 THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S HUMAN RIGHTS
Annex 142
ivAmnesty International Report 2017/18
Annex 142
Amnesty International Report 2017/18vCONTENTSANNUAL REPORT 2017/18Abbreviations viiPreface ixForeword 12Spotlight 15Africa Regional Overview 18Americas Regional Overview 27Asia-Pacific Regional Overview 36Europe and Central Asia Regional Overview 46Middle East and North Africa Regional Overview 55Afghanistan 66Albania 69Algeria 71Angola 73Argentina 76Armenia 78Australia 79Austria 80Azerbaijan 82Bahrain 84Bangladesh 87Belarus 89Belgium 91Benin 92Bolivia 94Bosnia and Herzegovina 95Botswana 96Brazil 98Brunei Darussalam 102Bulgaria 103Burkina Faso 105Burundi 107Cambodia 110Cameroon 112Canada 115Central African Republic 118Chad 121Chile 123China 125Colombia 130Congo (Republic of the) 135Côte d’Ivoire 136Croatia 138Cuba 140Cyprus 142Czech Republic 143Democratic Republic of the Congo 144Denmark 147Dominican Republic 148Ecuador 150Egypt 151El Salvador 156Equatorial Guinea 158Eritrea 159Estonia 161Ethiopia 162Fiji 164Finland 165France 166Gabon 168Gambia 169Georgia 171Germany 173Ghana 176Greece 177Guatemala 180Guinea 182Haiti 183Honduras 185Hungary 187India 189Indonesia 193Iran 197Iraq 202Ireland 205Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories 207Italy 211Jamaica 214Japan 216Jordan 217Kazakhstan 220Kenya 222Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of) 225Korea (Republic of) 227
Annex 142
viAmnesty International Report 2017/18Kuwait 229Kyrgyzstan 231Laos 233Latvia 234Lebanon 234Lesotho 237Liberia 239Libya 240Lithuania 244Macedonia 244Madagascar 246Malawi 248Malaysia 249Maldives 250Mali 252Malta 254Mauritania 254Mexico 256Moldova 261Mongolia 262Montenegro 263Morocco/Western Sahara 265Mozambique 268Myanmar 269Namibia 273Nauru 274Nepal 275Netherlands 277New Zealand 278Nicaragua 279Niger 280Nigeria 282Norway 286Oman 287Pakistan 288Palestine (State of) 292Papua New Guinea 295Paraguay 296Peru 297Philippines 299Poland 301Portugal 303Puerto Rico 305Qatar 306Romania 308Russian Federation 310Rwanda 315Saudi Arabia 317Senegal 321Serbia 322Sierra Leone 325Singapore 327Slovakia 328Slovenia 329Somalia 331South Africa 332South Sudan 335Spain 339Sri Lanka 342Sudan 344Swaziland 346Sweden 347Switzerland 348Syria 349Taiwan 353Tajikistan 354Tanzania 357Thailand 358Timor-Leste 361Togo 362Tunisia 364Turkey 367Turkmenistan 372Uganda 373Ukraine 376United Arab Emirates 379United Kingdom 381United States of America 384Uruguay 389Uzbekistan 390Venezuela 393Viet Nam 397Yemen 400Zambia 403Zimbabwe 405
Annex 142
Amnesty International Report 2017/18379CRIMEAThe clampdown on the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly continued in Crimea. The authorities continued to predominantly target ethnic Crimean Tatars. The arbitrary ban on the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, a self-governing body representing the ethnic Crimean Tatars, continued. The Russian Security Services raided dozens of Crimean Tatar homes, purportedly looking for illegal weapons, drugs or “extremist” literature, as part of their campaign to intimidate critics of the peninsula’s occupation. The few lawyers willing to take up cases in defence of critical voices in Crimea faced harassment by the Russian authorities.On 26 January, lawyer Emil Kurbedinov was arrested and sentenced by a de facto court in the Crimean capital, Simferopol, to 10 days of administrative detention. He was accused of violating Russian anti-extremist legislation with a social media post predating the Russian occupation of Crimea. In the post, he had shared a video about a protest held by the Muslim organization Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is banned in Russia but not in Ukraine. On 8 August, police in Simferopol used excessive force and arrested Server Karametov for holding a placard outside the Crimean Supreme Court to protest at reprisals against Crimean Tatars. He was sentenced to 10 days in prison. On 22 September, Ukrainian journalist Mykola Semena was convicted for “threatening [the] territorial integrity of the Russian Federation” in his publications and given a two-and-a-half-year conditional sentence and a three-year ban on participating in “public activities”. In September, Crimean Tatar leaders Akhtem Chiygoz and Ilmi Umerov were given jail terms for their peaceful activism. On 25 October, both were flown to Turkey and released, without an official explanation. Akhtem Chiygoz had spent 34 months in detention, and Ilmi Umerov had been forcibly held in a psychiatric institution since August or September 2016. Both were prisoners of conscience.ARMS TRADEOn 28 September, the Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council, Oleksandr Turchinov, announced that Ukrainian state companies had decided to freeze arms transfers to South Sudan. The announcement came days after Amnesty International published a report which included contract documents and end-user certificates listing the Ukrainian state-owned arms exporter Ukrinmash as the prospective supplier of USD169 million worth of small arms and light weapons to the South Sudanese Ministry of Defence.2 In response to the report, the State Service of Export Control issued a statement saying that the contract in question had not been executed, and that no weapons had been shipped from Ukraine to South Sudan. In previous years, Ukraine had consistently reported exports of small arms, light weapons and major weapons to the government of South Sudan.Ukraine had not yet ratified the Arms Trade Treaty, which it signed in September 2014.1.Put an end to impunity for detention-related abuses in the context of the armed conflict in Ukraine (EUR 50/5558/2017)2.From London to Juba, a UK-registered company’s role in one of the largest arms deals to South Sudan (ACT 30/7115/2017)UNITED ARAB EMIRATESUnited Arab EmiratesHead of state: Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al NahyanHead of government: Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashed Al MaktoumThe authorities continued to arbitrarily restrict freedoms of expression and association, using criminal defamation and anti-terrorism laws to detain, prosecute, convict and imprison government critics and a prominent human rights defender. Scores of people, including prisoners of conscience, who were sentenced following unfair trials remained in prison. Authorities held detainees in conditions that could Annex 142
380Amnesty International Report 2017/18amount to torture and failed to investigate allegations of torture made in previous years. Women continued to face discrimination in law and in practice. Migrant workers remained vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Courts continued to hand down death sentences; there was one execution.BACKGROUNDThe United Arab Emirates (UAE) remained part of the Saudi Arabia-led international coalition engaged in armed conflict in Yemen. Along with Saudi Arabia, the UAE trained, funded and supported forces in Yemen, some of which were under its direct report. These forces engaged in arbitrary and illegal detention practices, including in Aden where they perpetrated a campaign of arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances (see Yemen entry). The UAE joined Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt in severing ties with Qatar (see Qatar entry).In September, the UN CERD Committee reiterated its call on the UAE to establish a national human rights institution, in line with the Paris Principles. The authorities rejected or took no action on statements and recommendations from UN human rights bodies, including those issued jointly by special procedures, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.In June, a Belgian court convicted in their absence eight women from Abu Dhabi’s ruling Al Nahyan family of trafficking in persons and of the degrading treatment of up to 23 women domestic workers.FREEDOMS OF EXPRESSION AND ASSOCIATIONAuthorities continued to arbitrarily restrict freedoms of expression and association, using the Penal Code and anti-terrorism and cybercrime laws that criminalized peaceful criticism of state policies or officials. At least 13 people were arrested or tried on such grounds. In Dubai, two men were arrested for “dressing in a feminine way”, in violation of their right to freedom of expression.In March, the government announced the creation of the Federal Public Prosecution for Information Technology Crimes, whose mandate to investigate and prosecute crimes included peaceful expression. In August, authorities in Dubai imposed a one-month suspension of the news website Arabian Business for publication of “false information” regarding unsuccessful real estate projects.Also in March, leading human rights defender Ahmed Mansoor was arrested. He had had no access to a lawyer by the end of the year. He was held in solitary confinement and, except for two family visits, in incommunicado detention, in violation of the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment.Also in March, the Federal Appeal Court in the capital, Abu Dhabi, upheld the 10-year prison sentence of Dr Nasser Bin Ghaith, a prisoner of conscience. He was arbitrarily detained in 2015 and stated during his trial that he had been tortured. In April, he went on hunger strike to protest against not being permitted to see the verdict of the appeal court or meet with his lawyer.In June, UAE’s Attorney General announced that anyone expressing sympathy with Qatar could face up to 15 years’ imprisonment and fines. In July, Ghanim Abdallah Matar was detained for a video he posted online in which he expressed sympathy towards the people of Qatar.The Federal Supreme Court upheld the three years’ imprisonment, a fine of Dh500,000 (USD136,135) and deportation sentence against Jordanian journalist and prisoner of conscience Tayseer al-Najjar. He had been detained since December 2015 for Facebook posts deemed “damaging [to] the reputation and prestige of the Emirati state”.Human rights defender and prisoner of conscience Dr Mohammad al-Roken remained in prison, serving a 10-year sentence imposed after an unfair mass trial in 2013 (known as the “UAE 94” trial). In May, he was awarded the Ludovic Trarieux International Human Rights Prize.
Annex 142
Amnesty International Report 2017/18381TORTURE AND OTHER ILL-TREATMENTReports of torture and other ill-treatment, including denial of medical care to detainees, remained common. No independent investigations were carried out into detainees’ allegations of torture.In May, detainees in al-Razeen Prison in Abu Dhabi, including Imran al-Radwan, undertook a hunger strike to protest against enforced strip searches, alleged sexual harassment and other ill-treatment by prison guards.JUSTICE SYSTEMThe authorities refused to release at least five prisoners on completion of their sentence, including Osama al-Najjar, a prisoner of conscience arrested in 2014. Prison authorities at al-Razeen Prison, where those convicted in the UAE 94 case were detained, routinely harassed family members and prevented them from visiting their imprisoned relatives.WOMEN’S RIGHTSWomen remained subject to discrimination in law and in practice, notably in matters of marriage and divorce, inheritance and child custody. They were inadequately protected against sexual violence and violence within the family.WORKER’S RIGHTS – MIGRANT WORKERSMigrant workers, who comprised the vast majority of the private workforce, continued to face exploitation and abuse. They remained tied to employers under the kafalasponsorship system and were denied collective bargaining rights. Trade unions remained banned and migrant workers who engaged in strike action faced deportation and a one-year ban on returning to the UAE.In September, Federal Law No.10 of 2017 came into effect, limiting working hours and providing for weekly leave and 30 days’ paid annual leave as well as the right to retain personal documents. The law appeared to enable employees to end their contract of employment if the employer violated any of its terms, and stipulated that disputes would be adjudicated by specialized tribunals as well as by courts. However, workers remained vulnerable to employers accusing them of overly broad and vague crimes such as “failing to protect their employer’s secrets”, which carry fines of up to Dh100,000 (USD27,225) or a six-month prison sentence.In September the UN CERD Committee expressed concern over the lack of monitoring and enforcement of measures to protect migrant workers, and over barriers faced by migrant workers in accessing justice, such as their unwillingness to submit complaints for fear of adverse repercussions.DEATH PENALTYCourts handed down death sentences; one execution was carried out on 23 November.UNITED KINGDOMUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandHead of state: Queen Elizabeth IIHead of government: Theresa MayWomen in Northern Ireland continued to face significant restrictions on access to abortion. Counter-terrorism laws continued to restrict rights. Full accountability for torture allegations against UK intelligence agencies and armed forces remained unrealized.LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL OR INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTSIn March, the Prime Minister triggered Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union, officially starting the withdrawal by the UK from the EU (Brexit). In July, the EU (Withdrawal) Bill received its first reading in the House of Commons. The Bill threatened to significantly reduce existing human rights protections. It excluded both the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (in its entirety) and the right of action for violations of EU General Principles from domestic law after the UK’s withdrawal. It also handed sweeping powers to ministers to alter legislation without Annex 142

Annex 143
Asian Football Confederation (AFC), AFC DEC issues USD$150,000 fine on UAE FA (11 March 2019),
available at http://www.the-afc.com/media/afc-dec-issues-usd-150-000-fine-on-uae-fa

4/1/2019 AFC DEC issues USD$150,000 fine on UAE FA
http://www.the-afc.com/media/afc-dec-issues-usd-150-000-fine-on-uae-fa 1/2
Media
AFC DEC issues USD$150,000 􀄆􀄆ne on UAE FA
Monday, March 11, 2019
Share on [] [] []
The infringements committed by the UAE FA related to the following matters:
Liability for spectator conduct
(Article 65, AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Code)
Organisation of Matches
(Article 64, AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Code)
Distribution of beverages
(Article 31, AFC Safety and Security Regulations)
Public passageways
(Article 33, AFC Safety and Security Regulations)
In addition, the UAE FA has also been ordered to play one (1) match without spectators (ie. a full
stadium closure), which will come into e􀄄ect during their next match played on the territory of the
United Arab Emirates during the AFC Asian Cup 2023 (Quali􀄆ers).
The UAE FA is required to settle the 􀄆ne within 30 days in accordance with Article 11.3 of the AFC
Disciplinary and Ethics Code and has been informed that any future violations may be met with more
severe punishment.
All decisions made by the AFC DEC in respect of the AFC Asian Cup UAE 2019, which have been
noti􀄆ed to the respective Member Associations, can be found here [http://www.theafc.
com/afc/documents/PdfFiles/list-of-the-afcdec-decisions-7-8-march-2019] . Meanwhile, please refer here
[http://www.the-afc.com/afc/documents/PdfFiles/list-of-afc-dec-decisions…] for the latest AFC DEC decisions
on the 2019 AFC Cup.
Kuala Lumpur: The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) Disciplinary and Ethics Committee has
sanctioned the United Arab Emirates Football Association (UAE FA) with a 􀄆ne of USD$150,000
following the incidents that occurred during their AFC Asian Cup UAE 2019 semi-􀄆nal match against
Qatar on January 29 at the Mohammed bin Zayed Stadium in Abu Dhabi.
Contact [/contact]
Media Channel [https://media.the-afc.com/]
Site Map [/sitemap]
Join Our Mailing List [/join-our-mailing-list]
Annex 143
4/1/2019AFC DEC issues USD$150,000 fine on UAE FAhttp://www.the-afc.com/media/afc-dec-issues-usd-150-000-fine-on-uae-fa2… © 2017. The Asian Football Confederation. All rights reserved.
Annex 143
Annex 144
M. Banton, International Action Against Racial Discrimination (Oxford University Press, 1996)

Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 15:56 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144
Supplied by the British Library 08 Apr 2019, 13:04 (BST)
Annex 144

Annex 145
A. A. Cançado Trindade, The Application of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 1983)

Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145
Annex 145

Annex 146
B. Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals
(Cambridge University Press, 2006)

Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 146
Annex 147
J. Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th ed., Oxford University Press, 2012)

Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147
Annex 147

Annex 148
N. Lerner, The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (BRILL, 2014)

The un Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial DiscriminationReprint Revised by Natan LernerByNatan LernerLEIDEN | BOSTONLerner, Natan. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL, 2014. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:49:43.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataLerner, Natan, author. The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : reprint revised by Natan Lerner / By Natan Lerner. pages cm. -- (Nijhoff classics in international law ; v. 3) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-27991-9 (hardback : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-90-04-27992-6 (e-book) 1. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966) 2. Race discrimination--Law and legislation. I. Title. K3242.A41966L37 2014 342.08’73--dc23 2014039929This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typefaceISSN 2214-2436ISBN 978-90-04-27991-9 (hardback)ISBN 978-90-04-27992-6 (e-book)Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff and Hotei Publishing.All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa.Fees are subject to change.This book is printed on acid-free paper.Lerner, Natan. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL, 2014. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:49:43.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
part 3Interpretation of the Convention∵Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi 10.1163/9789004279926_004chapter 1The PreambleThe Preamble of the Convention, as adopted by the General Assembly reads:The States Parties to this ConventionConsidering that the Charter of the United Nations is based on the principles of the dignity and equality inherent in all human beings, and that all Member States have pledged themselves to take joint and sepa-rate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of one of the purposes of the United Nations which is to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of human rights and fun-damental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,Considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out therein, without distinctions of any kind, in particular as to race, colour or national origin,Considering that all human beings are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law against any discrimination and against any incitement to discrimination,Considering that the United Nations have condemned colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith, in whatever form and wherever they exist, and that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 14 December 1960 (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)) has affirmed and solemnly proclaimed the necessity of bringing them to a speedy and unconditional end,Considering that the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 20 November 1963 (General Assembly resolution 1904 (XVIII)) solemnly affirms the necessity of speedily eliminating racial discrimination throughout the world in all its forms and manifestations and of securing understanding of and respect for the dignity of the human person,Convinced that any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
22Part 3 – chapter 11 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.308.2 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.309.3 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.314.and that there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere,Reaffirming that discrimination between human beings on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin is an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among nations and is capable of disturbing peace and security among peoples and the harmony of persons living side by side even within one and the same State,Convinced that the existence of racial barriers is repugnant to the ide-als of any human society,Alarmed by manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas of the world and by governmental policies based on racial supe-riority or hatred, such as policies of apartheid, segregation or separation,Resolved to adopt all necessary measures for speedily eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations and to prevent and combat racist doctrines and practices in order to promote under-standing between races and to build an international community free from all forms of racial segregation and racial discrimination,Bearing in mind the Convention on Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation adopted by the International Labour Organization in 1958, and the Convention Against Discrimination in Education adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in 1960,Desiring to implement the principles embodied in the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and to secure the earliest adoption of practical measures to that end,Have agreed as follows: …1 Discussion in the Sub-CommissionThe Sub-Commission had before it three texts for the Preamble, presented by Mr. Abram (usa),1 Mr. Calvocoressi (United Kingdom)2 and, jointly, Messrs. Ivanov (ussr) and Mr. Ketrzynski (Poland).3 While Mr. Abram’s and Mr. Ivanov’s and Mr. Ketrzynski’s draft proposed detailed texts, Mr. Calvocoressi’s test was a very short one. It referred to Article 55 of the United Nations Charter and to Resolution 1904 (XVIII) of the Assembly of 20 November 1963, and Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
23The Preamble4 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.313.5 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.317.expressed the desire “to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination and to secure the respect for the dignity of the human person.”Several amendments were submitted to the different drafts, a number of which were incorporated in a joint draft submitted by Messrs. Calvocoressi and Capotorti (Italy).4 A new debate followed and, after a number of amend-ments were suggested orally, a working group was established and prepared a new draft. Several amendments to this draft were still adopted before the final text5 was unanimously agreed upon. It referred to the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Reference was also made to the ilo and unesco Conventions.The text followed then:Convinced that any doctrine based on racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and danger-ous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination in theory or in practice anywhere,Reaffirming that discrimination between human beings on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin is an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among nations and a fact capable of disturbing peace and security among peoples as did the evil racial doctrines and practices of nazism in the past,Concerned by manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas of the world and by governmental policies based on racial superiority or hatred, such as policies of apartheid, segregation or separa-tion, and desiring therefore to adopt further measures in order to elimi-nate racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations as soon as possible,During the discussion in the Sub-Commission, Mr. Abram proposed to trans-pose the words in the paragraph beginning “Convinced” so that the text would read: “Convinced that any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentia-tion is scientifically false….”In Mr. Abram’s view, the doctrine of racial superiority was the root-cause of discrimination, but some members of the Committee interpreted this Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
24Part 3 – chapter 16 This doctrine was adopted in 1896 by the United States Supreme Court in the famous case Plessy vs. Ferguson and prevailed until 1954 when it was rejected by the Court in the historic decision of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka. See, on this doctrine, this writer’s En Defensa de los Derechos Humanos, Buenos Aires, 1958.7 Schwelb, op. cit., p. 1029, criticizes the objectors of the paragraph, particularly the British delegate, asking what national interest was supposed to be served by opposing “the principle of effectiveness in the interpretation of the basic instrument of the international community.”amendment as intended to justify the doctrine of “separate but equal.”6 It was recalled by the Chairman of the Sub-Commission, Mr. Santa Cruz (Chile), that the original wording of the draft was based on the conclusion of a unesco group of experts, for whom the concept of race commonly held was scientifi-cally false since there were no basic differences between racial and ethnic groups. Mr. Bouquin (France) felt that Mr. Abram’s amendment improved the text, and recalled that the unesco experts did not conclude that there were no differences between races, but that racial differences implied neither supe-riority nor inferiority. Mr. Abram’s amendment was finally rejected in the Sub-Commission, but his view was later adopted by the Commission on Human Rights.Another discussion centred on the question of substituting the word “nazism” for the suggested term “national socialism.” Some delegates wanted to clarify that the term “national socialism” referred to the theory and practice in Germany and Italy before and during the Second World War, in order not to confuse it with the national socialism advocated by some political groups in Africa. The wisdom of including a specific reference to one form of racist theo-ries was questioned by some members of the Sub-Commission.2 Discussion in the CommissionSeveral amendments were submitted, in the Commission on Human Rights, to the draft Preamble prepared by the Sub-Commission. Preambular paragraph 1 gave rise to difficulty, since some members considered it inappropriate to use the words “ensure” and “universal,” not included in the Charter, and which could be interpreted as giving a controversial interpretation of the Charter and as justifying interference in the internal affairs of States.7 The question whether Article 56 of the Charter refers only to Article 55, or to the Charter as a whole, is also involved here. Amendments by Lebanon and the Philippines to para-graph 1 were incorporated in a joint amendment, which was also cosponsored by India, and adopted.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
25The PreambleA proposal by Lebanon, to add the words “in particular as to race, colour or national origin” at the end of the second paragraph, was adopted in spite of the fact that the words “national origin” were objected to as being open to different interpretations.An amendment proposed by the Philippines to the third paragraph was adopted, while no changes were made in the fourth paragraph.An amendment by Lebanon to paragraph 5 (6 in the final text), in order to replace the words “based on racial differentiation or of superiority” by the words “of superiority based on racial differentiation,” was adopted unani-mously, reversing the stand taken by the Sub-Commission.In paragraph 6 (7 in the final text), the words “of nazism” were voted on separately, as requested by the representative of France, and rejected by eight votes to six with five abstentions.A new paragraph 8 (corresponding to 10 in the final text) was adopted after paragraph 7 as a joint amendment by Italy and Lebanon, incorporating sugges-tions made by the representatives of India, Lebanon and the ussr. It read:Resolved to adopt all necessary measures for eliminating speedily racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations and to prevent and combat racist doctrines and practices in order to build an international community free from all forms of racial segregation and racial discrimination.3 Discussion in the Third CommitteeSeveral amendments were proposed in the Third Committee. The third para-graph of the final text is the result of an amendment proposed by Romania and modified by the United Kingdom.Paragraph 5, as drafted by the Commission on Human Rights, concluded with the word “manifestations.” An amendment, submitted by a group of Latin American States, and adopted unanimously by the Committee, proposed the addition, at the end of the paragraph, of the words “and of securing under-standing of and respect for the dignity of the human person.”The same Latin American countries proposed an amendment to paragraph 7 (paragraph 6 in the Commission’s draft), calling for the replacement of the words “as evil racial doctrines and practices have in the past” by “as well as the harmonious co-existence of persons within the same State.” As a consequence of a suggestion by the representative of India, the final text adopted was: “and the harmony of persons living side by side even within one and the same State.”Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
26Part 3 – chapter 18 General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV).The new paragraph 8 was introduced by Brazil, Colombia and Senegal, which proposed the following text:Convinced that the existence of racial barriers is repugnant to the ideals of any civilized society.Some representatives objected to the use of the term “any civilized society.” The sponsors of the amendment agreed therefore to substitute the word “human” for the word “civilized.”In the new paragraph 10 (paragraph 8 of the Commission’s draft) an amend-ment proposed by several Latin American delegations and calling for the inser-tion of the words “promote understanding between races and to” after the words “in order to,” was adopted.4 Contents of the PreambleThe Preamble of the Convention is a lengthy description of the aims of the instrument, and should be useful for interpreting the operative articles. Being the outcome of so many discussions in different United Nations bodies, it lacks complete unity. It is, of course, no source of obligations for the Parties.The Preamble begins by recalling that the Charter of the United Nations is based on the principles of dignity and equality inherent in all human beings, and that all Member States have pledged themselves to promote and encour-age universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. This is a reference to the principles embodied in Articles 1(3), 55 and 56 of the Charter.Besides the Charter, the Preamble mentions five other international instru-ments: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,8 the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation of the International Labour Organization, and the Convention Against Discrimination in Education adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (unesco). The United Nations Declaration is mentioned twice (paragraph 5 and 12). While some essential principles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
27The Preamble9 We deal with this problem in Chapter 2, Article 1.u.n. Declaration on Racial Discrimination are expressly quoted, the ilo and unesco Conventions are only mentioned (paragraph 11) as having been borne in mind.The Preamble, following the wording of Article 7 of the Universal Declaration, proclaims (paragraph 3) that all human beings are equal before the law, and are entitled to equal protection of the law against any discrimina-tion, as well as against any incitement to discrimination. It declares (paragraph 6) that any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifi-cally false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, differing here from the Declaration, which condemns any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority. This question was a source of difficulty when both the Declaration and Convention were discussed. When this paragraph of the Declaration was taken up by the Third Committee, the United States of America asked for a separate vote on the words “differentiation or.” The words were retained after a roll-call vote, by thirty-five votes to nineteen, with forty-five abstentions. The whole paragraph was also adopted by a roll-call vote, by sixty-four to one, with thirty-four abstentions. The text, as adopted by the Convention, is the result of an amendment unanimously accepted by the Commission on Human Rights, in line with a remark made by the unesco representative.Paragraph 7 reaffirms that discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin is an obstacle to peace. The text differs from paragraph 2 in fine, which prohibits distinctions based particularly on “race, colour or national ori-gin.” The use of the words “national origin” in the Preamble as well as in Article 1, and in the deleted Article VIII of the draft prepared by the Sub-Commission, created difficulty.9 Paragraph 7 covers both the problems of racism as an obsta-cle to international peace and as a threat to harmony within the borders of a given State. This second aspect is connected with the problem of incitement to group-hatred dealt with by the Convention in Article 4.Paragraph 9 expresses alarm because of the “manifestations of racial dis-crimination” still in evidence in some areas of the world, and because of gov-ernmental policies based on racial superiority or hatred, such as “apartheid, segregation or separation.” Paragraph 9 should be related to Article 3 of the Convention, although the last one does not mention “separation,” condemning only apartheid and racial segregation.The drafters of the Convention clearly discriminated here, as they did in Article 3, in favour of the victims of apartheid. The not convincing explanation given for the special mention of apartheid and exclusion of other racial evils, such as nazism and anti-Semitism, was that apartheid is today the only instance Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
28Part 3 – chapter 110 During the debate in the Sub-Commission the representative of the International League for the Rights of Man, recalling that his organization had drawn the attention of the United Nations, after the outbreak of the “Swastika epidemic,” to the need for studying the question of racial discrimination, pointed out that colonialism and apartheid had never caused as many victims as Hitlerism and nazism. The United Nations could not, therefore, lose sight of the phenomena which were at the origin of its own work.of racial discrimination as an official policy of government, and, while it would be possible to find in the past other equally repulsive practices, a convention could not be transformed into a study of social evils. It is quite apparent from the nature of the debate on the adoption of this paragraph, as well as of the debates on the deletion of the reference to nazism and on the proposed new article on anti-Semitism, that what decided the final text were political considerations.10Paragraph 10, which speaks about the Parties’ resolution to take measures against descrimination, does not offer any difficulties, and should be related to paragraphs 5 and 7.The Preamble of the Convention follows more or less the structure of the Preamble of the Declaration. Paragraph 6 in the Convention differs from the respective paragraph 5 in the Declaration, as already indicated. Paragraph 8 has no direct equivalent in the Declaration. The Convention does not empha-size, as the Declaration does, that “international action and efforts in a number of countries have made it possible to achieve progress” in the field of discrimination.Compared to the preambles of other similar international instruments, such as the ilo Convention Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation, and the unesco Convention against Discrimination in Education, the Preamble of the Convention on Racial Discrimination is a more elaborate and detailed one. It was felt that in general, the structure of the Preamble of the Declaration should be followed in the Convention, with some changes emanating from its binding nature. Some dif-ferences of a substantial character were also introduced, as mentioned above.5 Reference to NazismThe question of including an explicit condemnation of nazism in the Preamble was discussed in the Commission and in the Third Committee. Such a con-demnation was incorporated in paragraph 6 of the draft prepared by the Sub-Commission. It read:Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
29The Preamble11 See Part 3, Chapter 3.12 Ibid.Reaffirming that discrimination between human beings on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin is an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among nations and is capable of disturbing peace and security among peo-ples as did the evil racial doctrines and practices of nazism in the past…During the debate in the Commission, the representative of France requested a separate vote on the words “of nazism” in paragraph 6. He, and other repre-sentatives who favoured the omission of the reference to nazism, emphasized that, while abhorring its doctrines and practices, which had led to the loss of many lives, historically there had been other equally repulsive and reprehen-sible evils, which were not specifically singled out in the text. Therefore it was preferable to adopt a general text describing all evil racial doctrines and prac-tices in the past. It was pointed out that no specific reference to nazism had been included in the Declaration on Racial Discrimination or in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights or in the Charter.Those favouring a reference to nazism considered that it represented the most striking historical instance of racist doctrines and practices, and had led to the Second World War. Besides, the fear of the resurgence of nazism was a problem of our time, and it was necessary therefore to include a reference to it. Some other representatives considered the move to omit the reference to nazism as being politically motivated.The words “of nazism” were voted on separately in the Commission, and were rejected by eight votes to six, with five abstentions. An additional discus-sion on the same subject was held when the Commission discussed the pro-posal to add a new article on anti-Semitism.11In the Third Committee, Poland proposed an amendment including a refer-ence to nazism in the Preamble. Similar opinions in favour of, and against, the singling out of nazism were repeated. As a consequence of the adoption of the Greek-Hungarian proposal, not to single out any specific form of discrimi-nation,12 the Polish amendment could not be considered and voted upon.The only form of racial discrimination singled out in the Preamble is, there-fore, apartheid. While accepting the view that an international Convention should be as general as possible, it is difficult to share the argument that racial evils such as nazism and anti-Semitism, the condemnation of which engen-dered the u.n. legislative process that culminated with the adoption of the Convention, should be left out of the Preamble that aims at explaining the objectives of the instrument.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi 10.1163/9789004279926_005chapter 2Substantive Articles Article 1. Definition of Racial DiscriminationArticle 1, as adopted by the General Assembly, reads as follows:1. In this Convention the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any dis-tinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the politi-cal, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.2. This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.3. Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality.4. Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure to such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamen-tal freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, how-ever, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.1 Discussion in the Sub-CommissionThe Sub-Commission had before it the three texts submitted by Messrs. Abram,1 Calvocoressi2 and jointly by Messrs. Ivanov and Ketrzynski.3 The text proposed by Mr. Abram included in the term “racial discrimination” any 1 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.308.2 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.309.3 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.314.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
31Substantive Articles4 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.318.5 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.319.“distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour or eth-nic origin, and in the case of States composed of different nationalities or per-sons of different national origin, discrimination based on such differences.”The text proposed by Mr. Calvocoressi added to the words “distinction,” “exclusion” or “preference” the word “limitation.”The text proposed jointly by Messrs, Ivanov and Ketrzynski covered “any differentiation, ban on access, exclusion, preference or limitation based on race, colour, national or ethnic origin, which has the purpose or effect of nul-lifying or impairing equality in granting or practising human rights and free-doms in political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life.”Amendments were submitted to the different texts. Several of them were incorporated in the new draft submitted jointly by Messrs. Calvocoressi and Capotorti.4 A working group later prepared a new draft.5 The first of its two paragraphs followed, in general, the lines of the final text adopted by the General Assembly. It did not refer to “descent” and included, in brackets, a ref-erence to cases of States composed of different nationalities. It referred also to the rights and freedoms set forth “inter alia in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The second paragraph dealt with measures giving preference to certain groups, in a shorter wording than that of paragraph 4 of the final text approved by the General Assembly.2 Discussion in the CommissionSeveral amendments to both paragraphs of the text prepared by the Sub-Commission were submitted to the Commission. After a discussion, agree-ment was reached in order to end the first paragraph after the words “of public life,” thus eliminating the reference to the Universal Declaration, since it was pointed out that there were rights not mentioned in the Declaration that should also be protected, and it was considered inappropriate to use the vague expression inter alia.A controversy arose on the advisability of retaining the words “national or” in paragraph 1. Some members considered that it was undesirable to include a notion like “national origin” in an operative paragraph of a convention, since its meaning and scope were vague and could lead to misinterpretation. At the request of the representative of the United Kingdom, a separate vote was taken on these words, which were retained by ten votes to nine, with one abstention. At a further meeting of the Commission, after a decision was taken to delete Article VIII of the draft prepared by the Sub-Commission, the representative of Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
32Part 3 – chapter 26 A/C.3/L.1220.France moved to reconsider article 1, paragraph 1, with a view to deciding whether the word “national” should be retained. This motion was voted on by roll-call and adopted by eight votes to six, with seven abstentions. It was again underlined that difficulties arose out of the fact that the term “national” in the English and French languages was not necessarily related to the country of origin, but referred to citizenship. Finally it was decided to place the word “national” within square brackets and to add, at the end of the paragraph, also in square brackets, the words “In this paragraph the expression ‘national origin’ does not cover the status of any person as a citizen of a given State.”The Commission decided to eliminate the parenthetic phrase related to States composed of different nationalities.Paragraph 2, dealing with preferential measures for certain racial groups, gave rise to difficulties, since several representatives considered that it required further clarification. Several amendments were submitted. The discussion cen-tred on the need to secure that special measures should not be maintained indefinitely, and on the use of the word “under-developed.” The discussion of this paragraph was postponed until a decision was taken on Article II, para-graph 2. When it was resumed, after the submission of a revised amendment by the representative of India, the paragraph was adopted unanimously.3 Discussion in the Third CommitteeSeveral amendments were proposed in the Third Committee to the text of Article 1 as submitted by the Commission. Most centred around the words in square brackets, in paragraph 1, and the reference to “under-developed” groups in the second paragraph. Finally the different amendments were withdrawn in favour of a joint amendment of Ghana, India, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Poland and Senegal,6 which proposed the replacement of paragraph 1 of the text of the Commission by a new one, which corresponds to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the text adopted by the Assembly. The new text was adopted unanimously by the Committee.An amendment of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Ivory Coast, to delete paragraph 2 of the original text, was rejected. After an oral amend-ment of Ethiopia and India, it was decided, by sixty-seven votes to ten, with fifteen abstentions, to replace, in the former paragraph 2 of the text of the Commission (paragraph 4 of the final text), the words “development or protec-tion of certain under-developed racial groups or individuals belonging to them” by the words “advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or indi-viduals needing such protection as may be necessary.”Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
33Substantive Articles7 Statement of the expert from Finland, Mr. Saario, E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.411, p. 6.8 The term “descent” was incorporated by the Third Committee and was originally suggested by India. Schwelb (op. cit., p. 1003) believes that the term includes the notion of “caste” used by the Indian Constitution.4 Contents of Article 1. The Question of National OriginArticle 1 has four paragraphs. Paragraph 1 defines racial discrimination. Paragraphs 2 and 3 contemplate cases when the Convention does not apply. Paragraph 4 deals with special temporary measures in favour of certain racial groups or individuals.According to paragraph 1, four kinds of acts are, in given circumstances, considered discriminatory: any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference. There were some doubts with regard to the use of words indicating discrimina-tion, and there were proposals to include in the definition words as “differen-tiation,” “limitation” and “ban on access.” It was agreed finally that the four mentioned terms would cover all aspects of discrimination which should be taken into account. When the discriminatory act consists in a “preference” it will only fall within the ban of the Convention if it is not one of the special measures mentioned in paragraph 4 of Article 1 or in Article 2.2. We refer later to this problem.In order that any of those four acts be considered discriminatory, two condi-tions are necessary:1. that they should be based on (a) race, (b) colour, (c) descent, (d) national origin or (e) ethnic origin;2. that they should have the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.The intention of the drafters of Article 1 was to cover in its first paragraph all kind of acts of discrimination among persons, as long as they were based on motivations of a racial nature, in the broad sense of the word. The Sub-Commission, the Commission and the Third Committee had to overcome deli-cate problems in order to reach agreement on this wording. As it was pointed out in the debate in the Sub-Commission, “while, as unesco had shown, there was no such thing as race, the term ‘race’ would have to be used in the draft convention.”7 The words colour, descent8 and ethnic origin did not present major difficulties, but a serious problem arose with regard to the term “national origin,” even after it was made clear that these words were not utilized as Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
34Part 3 – chapter 29 A/C.3/SR.1304, p. 2–3.10 A/C.3/SR.1304, p. 4.11 A/C.3/SR.1304, p. 4.12 A/C.3/SR.1304, p. 5.equivalents of the term “nationality” or “citizenship.” The question was still more complicated after the deletion of the proposed Article VIII containing an interpretation of the meaning of these words.The words “national origin” are used in the Preamble of the Declaration but not in its body. As the representative of Poland pointed out during the debate in the Third Committee, in many languages and cultural systems “national ori-gin” meant something different from “ethnic origin.”9 There were nations made up of different ethnic groups, and also situations in which a politically orga-nized nation was included within a different State, and continued to exist as a nation in the social and cultural senses, even without being a sovereign State. Members of such a nation within a State might be discriminated against, not as members of a particular race or as individuals, but as members of a nation which existed in its former political form.On the other hand, in the same debate, the representative of Haiti10 favoured the deletion of the word “national,” not because a State could not be made up of different nationalities, as in the case of some federations, but because it was superfluous, since, after joining the federation, all citizens acquired the same nationality. He mentioned as examples the Roman Empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Switzerland.This discussion showed the confusion between the terms “national origin” and “nationality.” As the representative of Austria11 pointed out, the terms “national origin” and “nationality” had been widely used in literature as relat-ing, not only to persons who were citizens of, or held passports issued by, a given State, but also to those having a certain culture, language and traditional way of life peculiar to a nation, but who lived within another State.The French delegate12 also underlined the ambiguity involved in the use of the word “national,” observing that it could be interpretated in entirely differ-ent ways, The word does not create difficulties when used in a sociological sense, but it might be equated with the word “nationality,” which in many countries had a very specific legal meaning. In French law—and the same applies, of course, to many countries—persons acquiring French nationality by naturalization did not enjoy full possession of certain rights until after the expiration of a period of time.Other representatives, like the Indian, stressed that no delegation sug-gested that the rights guaranteed and the duties imposed under national Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
35Substantive Articles13 A/C.3/SR.1304, p. 6.14 A/C.3/SR.1304, p. 7.15 Op. cit., p. 1004 et. seq. constitutions should be extended to aliens.13 The usa representative said that national origin differed from nationality in that national origin related to the past, while nationality related to present status. It differed from citizenship in that it related to non-citizens as well as to citizens. It was also narrower in scope than ethnic origin, since the latter was associated with racial and cul-tural characteristics.14Agreement was reached by adding paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 1. They do not offer particular difficulties, as they merely determine that distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preference between citizens and non-citizens could not be considered discriminatory acts prohibited by the Convention. On the other hand, the Convention should not be interpreted as affecting the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturaliza-tion, provided that they do not discriminate against any particular nationality. The Convention does not therefore interfere in the internal legislation of any State as far as differences in the rights of citizens and non-citizens are con-cerned, neither does it pretend to affect substantive or procedural norms on citizenship and naturalization. It only proclaims the principle that any partic-ular nationality—and here the term is used as equivalent to “national ori-gin”—should not be discriminated against.The second condition for making a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference a discriminatory act is that they must (a) have the purpose of nul-lifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal foot-ing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms or (b) have such an effect.In the first case, a subjective consideration will define the discriminatory nature of the act; in the second, the objective consequences of the act will be the decisive element. It is not necessary that both the purpose and the effect be present. One of them will be enough to define an act as discriminatory.The human rights and fundamental freedoms jeopardized could be any in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. We have referred already to the decision adopted by the Commission on Human Rights eliminating the specific mention of the Universal Declaration, in order to pre-vent a restrictive interpretation of the Article. In effect, Article 5 of the Convention mentions some rights not included in the Universal Declaration, such as the rights of accesss to public places and to inherit. Schwelb15 criticizes the contradiction between Article 1 and the detailed provisions of the Convention and particularly the omission, in the definitions article, of the Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
36Part 3 – chapter 216 Article 1,1 (a).17 Article 1,1.18 E/CN.4/Sub.2/234, Annex IV.19 The Convention definition leaves out the problem of racial hatred, a term which gave rise to considerable difficulties and which is used in Article 4. In Part VI, Chapter II we deal with the 1978 unesco Declaration on Race. category of “civil rights.” He also deems it inappropriate to use the words public life when obviously the Convention also protects rights outside the sphere of public life.There is no definition of racial discrimination in Article 1 of the u.n. Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, which refers to discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin. The Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil Rights refer to distinctions of “any kind, such as race, colour…national origin…birth…” (Article 2 of both covenants), following the terminology used by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (Article 2).The ilo Convention Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation defines discrimination as any “distinction, exclusion or prefer-ence” made on the basis of “race, colour…national extraction…which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation.”16The unesco Convention Against Discrimination in Education uses the words “distinction, exclusion, limitation or preference” based on “race,” “colour,” “national…origin” or “birth.”17 A working paper on the draft Convention submitted by Czechoslovakia18 included, in its proposed Article 1, a definition which covered not only discrimination but also racial hatred “based on differ-ences of race or colour,” considering as such all “manifestations advocating superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour over another race or group of persons of another colour or inciting hatred by one race or group of persons of one colour against another race or group of persons of another colour.”19The European Convention on Human Rights also uses the term “association with a national minority” (Article 14), while the European Social Charter of 1961 speaks in its Preamble about “national extraction.”While comparing the Convention on Racial Discrimination with the other international instruments mentioned above, it should not be forgotten that it only deals with racial discrimination. Any discrimination on grounds of sex, political opinion or social origin is obviously outside its scope. As for religion, we have already indicated that the United Nations intended to deal with both Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
37Substantive Articlesforms of discrimination in “twin” instruments. In some cases discrimination on the ground of language could fall within the scope of the Convention.5 Special Non-Discriminatory MeasuresParagraph 4 of Article 1 deals with what was called “favourable discrimination,” measures taken in favour of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals in order to ensure to them equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fun-damental freedoms.This paragraph should be related to Article 2, paragraph 2, which imposes on States Parties the duty to take special measures “to ensure the adequate development and protection” of certain racial groups, or individuals belonging to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.Some delegations, as mentioned earlier, proposed to delete paragraph 4 of Article 1 (paragraph 2 in the original draft), particularly in the light of the exis-tence of the paragraph in Article 2 imposing on State Parties duties of prefer-ential treatment. In the debate it was recalled that a similar provision was included in the Declaration (Article 2, paragraph 3). It was underlined that protection of certain groups did not constitute discrimination, provided that such measures were not maintained after the achievement of the aims for which they had been taken. It was made clear that the Convention should pro-tect groups as well as individuals, although some representatives felt that groups as such should not be stressed, because the Convention should seek to accomplish the objective of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to pro-mote the rights and freedoms of all human beings, without distinction of any kind. The aim should not be to emphasize the distinctions between different racial groups, but rather to ensure that persons belonging to such groups could be integrated into the community.Another problem raised by paragraph 4 was the use of the word “under-developed,” in which some offending element could be found and which was not used in the Declaration. It was pointed out that the term “under-develop-ment,” while valid for countries in an economic context, should not be applied to human beings. The word “under-privileged” was proposed, but was also objected to, even for legal and constitutional reasons.There is a similar Article (5) in the ilo Convention, and, as mentioned, Article 3 of the Declaration refers to the same matter.The reason for having two provisions in the Convention dealing with the same problem is that, while Article 1 defines discrimination and its paragraph 4 refers to a case in which the application of a different treatment should not be deemed discriminatory, Article 2 relates to duties which are imposed by the Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
38Part 3 – chapter 2Convention on States Parties. There are some inessential differences in the wording of the two Articles, but both cover clearly the same question, and both insist upon the temporary character of the special—special and concrete, says Article 2—measures. Article 1 refers to “adequate advancement” while Article 2 speaks about “adequate development and protection.”In the debate on the paragraph on special measures, as well as in the discus-sion on the similar provision in the Declaration, some representatives men-tioned their concern that it could be used as a weapon by governments anxious to perpetuate the privileges of certain racial groups, as in the case of apartheid. Article 2. Obligations of StatesArticle 2, as adopted by the General Assembly, reads as follows:1. States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms, and promoting understanding among all races, and to this end:(a) Each State Party undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation;(b) Each State Party undertakes not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or organizations;(c) Each State Party shall take effective measures to review governmen-tal, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuat-ing racial discrimination wherever it exists;(d) Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropri-ate means, including legislation as required by circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization;(e) Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate, inte-grationist multi-racial organizations and movements and other means of eliminating barriers between races, and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division.2. State Parties shall, when the circumstances so warrant, take, in the social, economic, cultural and other fields, special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
39Substantive Articles20 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.324.21 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.324/Rev.1.or individuals belonging to them for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental free-doms. These measures shall in no case entail as a consequence the main-tenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.1 Discussion in the Sub-CommissionThe Sub-Commission had before it texts prepared by Mr. Abram, Mr. Calvocoressi, jointly by Messrs. Ivanov and Ketrzynski, by Mr. Ketrzynski alone, and jointly by Messrs. Calvocoressi and Capotorti. The last one20 was selected by the working group as a basis for discussion. In the light of the discussion and the amendments, a new revised text21 was submitted.Several amendments to the revised text were suggested. Mr. Ivanov pro-posed replacing the first sentence of Article II by the following:Each contracting State undertakes to prohibit racial discrimination and to carry out by all possible measures a policy of eliminating it in all its forms, since racial discrimination is an infringement of the rights and an offence to the dignity of the human person and a denial of the rules of international law and of the principles and objectives set forth in the United Nations documents mentioned in the Preamble of the present Convention.The amendment was rejected by the Sub-Commission.An amendment by Mr. Mudawi (Sudan) adding a paragraph on special con-crete measures in order to secure adequate development or protection of indi-viduals belonging to “under-developed racial groups” was adopted by the Sub-Commission.2 Discussion in the CommissionSeveral amendments to both paragraphs of Article 2 were proposed in the Commission on Human Rights.An amendment by the Austrian representative, to add the words “against persons, groups of persons or institutions” after the words “no act or practice of racial discrimination” in paragraph 1(a), was adopted. A Lebanese pro-posal to delete the second sentence of paragraph 1(a), by which States Parties undertook not to encourage, advocate or support racial discrimination, Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
40Part 3 – chapter 222 Costa Rica, Haiti, Jamaica and Japan.was adopted, since it was felt to be unthinkable that States could engage in such acts.In paragraph 1(b) only minor changes were introduced. Paragraph 1(c)—1(d) in the final text—as adopted unanimously by the Commission, was proposed orally by the representative of Turkey. The discussion in connection with this paragraph centred around the question whether every State would be in a posi-tion to prohibit immediately racial discrimination, and around the need to fight racial discrimination with methods other than legislation, such as educa-tional measures. The problem arising in States with a common law system, where racial discrimination was dealt with under general measures of protec-tion and not by declaring it an offence, was also discussed in the Commission.Several amendments to paragraph 2 were replaced by a joint amendment redrafting the text. At the request of the representative of Philippines, a sepa-rate vote was taken on the word “underdeveloped,” which was retained.3 Discussion in the Third CommitteeSeveral amendments to both paragraphs of Article 2 were submitted to the Third Committee. Seventeen Latin-American States proposed a new sub-para-graph (b) to paragraph 1, with the following text: “Each State Party undertakes not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or orga-nizations.” The amendment was adopted.An oral suggestion of the representative of Ghana to replace the words “if necessary” by the words “as required by circumstances” was adopted.A new sub-paragraph, (e) in the final text, was proposed by Brazil, Colombia and Senegal and adopted by roll-call, by ninety-seven votes to none, with four abstentions.22In connection with paragraph 2, a new discussion took place with regard to the use of the word “under-developed.” Some delegations suggested the word “under-privileged.” A nine-State amendment suggesting the text incorporated in the Convention was finally adopted.4 Contents of Article 2. Obligations of StatesThe essential purpose of Article 2 is to lay down the principle that States Members must neither practise nor encourage discrimination. It corresponds to Article 2 of the Declaration which proclaims that no state, institution, group or individual shall make any discrimination whatsoever in matters of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the treatment of persons, groups or institutions on the ground of race, colour or ethnic origin. A second paragraph of Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
41Substantive Articles23 Statement of Mr. Capotorti. E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.417, p. 4.Article 2 of the Declaration calls upon States not to encourage or support pri-vate acts of discrimination, and a third one refers to special concrete measures, in the spirit of paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Convention.Article 2 has two paragraphs. Paragraph 1 deals with obligations of the States to adopt measures to eliminate racial discrimination; paragraph 2 deals with the problem of special measures for the so-called under-developed or under-privileged groups.Paragraph 1 begins with a general condemnation of racial discrimination. State Parties undertake to pursue without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination and to this end sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) determine a series of obligations, as follows:(a) States Parties undertake to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimi-nation against persons, groups of persons or institutions, and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation. Sub-paragraph (a) involves a negative obligation for States Parties and its agents. It protects not only physical persons and groups of persons, but also institutions. Of course, an institution has no race, but an organi-zation which is discriminated against because of the race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin of its members could therefore invoke the provisions of the Convention. States have to ensure that all their agents, on the national and local level, should act in conformity with that obligation. The purpose of this provision is to cover not only organs which depend directly on the central government, but also autonomous entities such as, for instance, State rail-ways, power or port authorities and local cultural institutions.23 While autonomous, such entities are always of a public nature. Sub-paragraph (a) does not deal with private organizations engaged in acts of discrimination, which are referred to in sub-paragraphs (b) and (d).(b) Not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or organizations. This is again a negative obligation. While sub-paragraph (a) deals with discriminatory acts by the State or its agents, this sub-para-graph refers to the duty of the State not to add its support to discrimina-tory acts committed by any persons or organizations that may or may not depend on the State. The drafters of Article 2 wanted to establish in it a gradual system of undertakings for State Parties. While according to sub-paragraph (d) States Parties shall prohibit racial discrimination, Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
42Part 3 – chapter 224 We deal with this problem when commenting on Art. 4.25 Schwelb, op. cit., p. 1017. sub-paragraph (b) simply intends to prevent persons or organizations engaged in racial discrimination from getting the official support of the State. Thus, for instance, an official publishing house that prints a racist book, or a local government that gives financial support to a school engaging in racial discrimination, would be violating sub-paragraph (b).(c) Sub-paragraph (c) calls upon States to take effective measures to review governmental policies, on the national or the local level, and to amend, rescind or nullify laws and regulations of a discriminatory nature. There were some difficulties with the wording of this sub-paragraph, since it was considered that the word “nullify” was unnecessary after the use of the word “rescind.” However, it was decided to retain it, considering it equiva-lent to “supress entirely.” The word “review” was adopted by the Commis-sion instead of the term “revise” in the draft of the Sub- Commission. This paragraph does not present any difficulties. It calls upon States Par-ties to review and modify those among their own legal provisions that could be a source of racial discrimination.(d) Sub-paragraph (d) is a crucial one, and is closely connected with Article 4 of the Convention, which penalizes the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred. Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by cir-cumstances, racial discrimination by any person, group or organization. Sub-paragraph (d) gave rise to many difficulties. The whole matter of the use of legislation in order to stop racial discrimination came under scru-tiny during the discussion of this sub-paragraph, particularly with regard to the problem arising for States with a common law system, where racial discrimination was dealt with, not by making it an offence, but by the protection given under the law to all without distinction. The possibility of jeopardizing freedom of thought and expression, and of invading the private life of individuals, was raised in the discussion, as well as the gen-eral controversy on the use of legislation or education in the fight against racial discrimination.24 The words “as required by circumstances” are intended to cover the cases of States which already have such legislation, or of those which do not need it. The words “if necessary” had also been proposed with the same view. Sub-paragraph (d) is of great significance, to the point that it was con sidered “the most important and most far-reaching of all substantive provisions of the Convention.”25 If duly observed by State Parties, it could Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
43Substantive Articles26 Statement of Mr. Krishnaswami (India), E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.416, p. 12.27 Statement of Mr. Santa Cruz (Chile), E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.416, p. 13.certainly be decisive in the fight against racialist practices, including those of private organizations.(e) Sub-paragraph (e), proposed in the Third Committee, deals with the encouragement that States Parties should give, where appropriate, to integrationist multiracial organizations and movements and other means of eliminating barriers between races. States should discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division.This sub-paragraph is broadly and vaguely worded. It imposes upon States the duty to use their moral influence in order to strengthen those organizations and movements that advocate racial integration, as well as to discourage any-thing which strengthens racial division. The last sentence was adopted in the Committee after a separate vote was taken on it, at the request of Venezuela. The whole sub-paragraph was adopted by a roll-call vote, as mentioned before. What “integrationist” movements are, and what “strengthens” racial “division,” is not defined. In general, Article 2, besides defining legal obligations for State Parties, is rather a kind of programmatic article, suggesting to States a policy in the field of racial relations, reaching its highest effectiveness in the duty imposed on State Parties by paragraph 1(d).5 Favourable DiscriminationParagraph 2 of Article 2 is related to paragraph 4 of Article 1, and we referred to the problems involved when commenting on Article 1. The drafters of the Convention decided to deal twice with this question, since they considered that, while Article 1 defines racial discrimination, Article 2 enunciates the poli-cies that State Members should follow in order to eradicate racial discrimina-tion. Its purpose is to secure the integration of certain racial groups in the nation, in order to attain the objective of equal development for all citizens.26During the discussion on this paragraph, references were made to the situa-tion in South America where there were two conflicting schools of thought. According to one, racial groups which were economically and socially back-ward in comparison with the rest of society could only be integrated through measures of special protection. The second school of thought considered that to adopt special measures with regard to these groups only served to maintain and perpetuate their separation from the rest of the population.27The dangers involved in the possibility of such a paragraph being used by some racist States were pointed out in the discussion. Difficulties also arose Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
44Part 3 – chapter 228 For the discussion on the article on anti-Semitism see Part III, Chapter III.with regard to the use of words like “underdeveloped” or “under-privileged.” We have already referred to these questions.Article 5 of the ilo Convention contemplates special measures of protec-tion or assistance which will not be deemed to be discrimination. The unesco Convention determines when separate educational systems will not be deemed to constitute discrimination, but does not refer to special measures of favour-able discrimination. The 1978 unesco Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice deals with such measures in Article 9, paragraph 2. Article 3. ApartheidArticle 3, the shortest of the Convention, reads:States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate, in territories under their jurisdiction, all practices of this nature.1 Drafting of the ArticleThe text drafted by the Sub-Commission, on the basis of a preliminary text proposed by Mr. Abram on the lines of Article 5 of the Declaration, and modi-fied by a working group, did not differ substantially from the final text. Instead of the word “under” it read “subject to.”The Commission on Human Rights did not introduce any changes in the text. An oral amendment of the United States of America, to replace the words “racial segregation and apartheid” by “racial segregation, apartheid and anti-Semitism,” was withdrawn by its sponsor in order to introduce a new article on anti-Semitism.28In the Third Committee, seventeen Latin American States proposed to have the words “subject to” changed to the word “under.”2 Contents of Article 3. Definition of ApartheidArticle 3 of the Convention is shorter and sharper in its wording than Article 5 of the Declaration, which reads:An end shall be put without delay to governmental and other public poli-cies of racial segregation and especially policies of apartheid, as well as all forms of racial discrimination and separation resulting from such policies.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
45Substantive Articles29 Introduction to the Annual Report on the Work of the Organization covering the period 16 June 1965 to 15 June 1966; u.n. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub. 2/301, p. 130 ff.Apartheid is mentioned twice in the Convention. In paragraph 9 of the Preamble the “policies of apartheid, segregation or separation” are mentioned as instances of governmental policies based on racial superiority or hatred. Article 3 of the Convention does not use the word “separation” and condemns racial segregation and apartheid, while the Preamble refers to apartheid, segre-gation or separation.State Members undertake to:(a) prevent practices of apartheid and racial segregation;(b) prohibit them and(c) eradicate them.Article 3 should be interpreted as a general condemnation of all forms of racial segregation and separation which States Members shall prevent, prohibit and eradicate. More particularly it is a condemnation of the practices of apartheid of the Government of South Africa, practices that have been dealt with by the United Nations since the very first session of the General Assembly in 1946.The Secretary-General of the United Nations defined apartheid, “the most conspicuous and anachronistic mass violation of human rights and funda-mental freedoms,” as the policy which “continues to be enforced against the ‘non-white’ majority of the people of the Republic of South Africa.”29The term apartheid was defined in the Afrikaans Dictionary in 1950 as “a political tendency or trend in South Africa, based on the general principles (a) of a differentiation corresponding to differences of race and/or level of civi-lization, as opposed to assimilation; (b) of the maintenance and perpetuation of the individuality (identity) of the different colour groups of which the popu-lation is composed, and of the separate development of these groups in accor-dance with their individual nature, traditions and capabilities as opposed to integration.”The Convention does not define apartheid, and does not mention by name the Republic of South Africa. The numerous debates held in the United Nations on the subject were however explanatory enough. Besides, the United Nations have established a Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, and the General Assembly adopted, in November 1962, Resolution 1761 (XVII) on sanctions. There is no doubt therefore that, when the Convention refers to apartheid, it deals primar-ily with the practice of racial segregation prevailing in South Africa. However, Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
46Part 3 – chapter 230 See Report of the United Nations Human Rights Seminar on Apartheid, held at Brasilia from 23 August to 4 September 1966, u.n. document A/6412, paras. 41 and 119.31 Above-mentioned report, par. 31.32 For the problems resulting from the racial classification established in South Africa in 1950, see Apartheid. Its Effects on Education, Science, Culture and Information, published in 1967 by unesco in Paris, and John T. Baker, Human Rights in South Africa in Howard Law Journal, Symposium on the International Law of Human Rights, Volume II, Number 2, Spring 1965, Washington dc, usa, p. 549–582.33 The United Nations have instituted March 21 as “international day for the elimination of racial discrimination” as a recordation day of the massacre of Sharpeville, in South Africa, in 1960. See, also, Part VI, Chapter II, on the relationship between the Convention and the 1973 Convention on Apartheid.the term is also being used with regard to other territories, such as South West Africa, Rhodesia, the Portuguese Territories and Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland,30 and Article 3 could therefore be applicable to the situations there created.Apartheid was described as the “implacable application by a minority of three million persons of European origin imbued with a doctrine of white supremacy, of a policy designed to keep power permanently and exclusively in their own hands and to keep in permanent dependency and subjection some fourteen million people of African, Asian and mixed descent.”31 The result of such a policy was the deprivation of 80 percent of the inhabitants of South Africa of political, economic, social and civil rights and of other fundamental freedoms. The rule of law was abrogated, and such legal procedures as contin-ued to exist operate under discriminatory laws. The Pretoria Government, in order to achieve its aims, has conceived the notion of regrouping the non-white population in separate areas, “Bantustans,” or “separate developments” restricted to only 13 percent of the total area of the country. Under the Bantu Laws Amendment Act, 1964, the three and a half million Africans outside the Bantustans were deprived of political and economic rights. In addition, a repressive legislation provides the government with legal means to prevent any manifestation of dissent. Freedom of work, freedom of movement and freedom of association had been abrogated for the non-white communities.323 Singling Out of ApartheidThis is not the place to study in detail the abuses of apartheid, nor to examine if apartheid, described by the General Assembly as a “crime against human-ity,”33 should be considered a threat to international peace and security under Chapter VII of the Charter. The u.n. seminar held at Brasilia in August-September 1966 dealt with this and other related problems. One of the Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
47Substantive Articles conclusions reached by many participants in the seminar was that “the poli-cies of the Pretoria Government bore, in fact, much similarity to nazism.”The fact that apartheid is specially condemned by the Convention, while nazism, as well as anti-Semitism, are not specifically mentioned, should not be considered a consequence of a substantial difference among these forms of racial discrimination, but rather as a consequence of political and other con-siderations of the majority of States Members of the United Nations. Apartheid violates every accepted concept of fundamental rights and the rule of law as set out in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But so do nazism and anti-Semitism. Once it had been decided to single out one form of racial discrimination, the juridical logic demanded a similar treatment for other equally abhorrent forms which have resulted in no less tragic consequences. Article 4. Measures to Eradicate Incitement and Prohibition of Racist OrganizationsArticle 4, one of the most difficult and controversial of the Convention, reads:States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination, and to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in Article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of other persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial dis-crimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
48Part 3 – chapter 234 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.308, Add.1/Rev.1/Corr.1.35 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.314.36 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.330/Rev.1.1 Discussion in the Sub-CommissionWhen the Sub-Commission began to discuss Article 4, it had before it two drafts, one submitted by Mr. Abram34 and one, jointly, by Messrs. Ivanov and Ketrzynski.35Mr. Abram’s text declared “all incitement to racial hatred and discrimina-tion resulting in or likely to cause acts of violence, whether by individuals or organizations, as an offence against society and punishable under law.” The draft asked States Parties not to grant franchises to organizations or individuals for the purpose of inciting to racial hatred, and not to permit its officials or government-supported agencies to promote or incite racial hatred or discrimination.Messrs. Ivanov and Ketrzynski’s draft urged “to prohibit and disband racist, fascist, and any other organization practising or inciting to racial discrimina-tion,” “to admit no propaganda of the superiority of one race or national group over another,” and to consider “participation in the activities of such organiza-tions, as well as incitement to or acts of violence on the ground of their racial, national or ethnic origin” as a “criminal offence counter to the interest of soci-ety punishable under laws.”Several amendments were suggested, and new drafts were submitted. Finally Messrs. Cuevas Cancino (Mexico) and Ingles (Philippines) submitted a revised text36 which condemned all propaganda and organizations which jus-tify or promote racial hatred and discrimination, urged the penalization of all incitement to racial discrimination resulting in, or likely to cause, acts of vio-lence, and urged that organizations, and also organized propaganda activities which promote and incite racial discrimination, should be declared illegal and prohibited.2 Discussion in the CommissionSeveral amendments to the Article were proposed in the Commission. Some representatives expressed doubts regarding the words “or likely to cause” in paragraph (a). They felt that the words could give place to subjective judg-ments, and make possible abuse on the part of public officers.A Danish amendment proposed to replace the words “racial discrimination resulting in or likely to cause acts of violence” by “or acts of violence against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin.” Other repre-sentatives pointed out, however, that the Danish amendment referred only to Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
49Substantive Articlesacts of violence and incitement to acts of violence, already punishable in most countries, regardless of their motivation. They favoured that appeals to acts of racial discrimination and racial violence should also be held punishable.The representative of Denmark withdrew his amendment in favour of an Indian oral proposal, which proposed to replace the words “or likely to cause acts of violence” in the text submitted by the Sub-Commission, by the follow-ing: “acts of violence, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin.” The Indian amendment was adopted unanimously.Costa Rica proposed to insert in paragraph (b) after the word “organiza-tions,” the words “or the activities of organizations, as appropriate.” This amendment, intended to meet objections related to the matter of freedom of expression, was originally submitted as a sub-amendment to an amendment of the usa which called for the insertion of the words “activities of” before the word “organizations.” The usa amendment was later withdrawn in favour of the Costa Rican amendment.Other members opposed the usa and Costa Rica amendments, pointing out that the rights to freedom of expression and to freedom of association were not unlimited.Several amendments and sub-amendments, intended to strengthen the text, were rejected. Finally, paragraph (b), as amended, was adopted by sixteen votes to none, with five abstentions.3 Discussion in the Third CommitteeNumerous amendments to the text adopted by the Commission were consid-ered by the Third Committee. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden proposed to insert, after the words “to this end,” the words “with due regard to the rights expressly set forth in Article V.” France proposed to insert after the words “such discriminations” the words “within the framework of the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.” Both proposals aimed at meeting the objections related to the question of freedom of expression.In paragraph (a) the Ukrainian representative proposed to penalize the financing of racist activities. Czechoslovakia asked to declare a punishable offence all “dissemination of ideas and doctrines based on racial superiority or hatred” and to delete the words “resulting in acts of violence.”The United States of America proposed to add, at the end of the first Czechoslovakian amendment, the words “with due regard for the fundamental right of freedom of expression.”In paragraph (b), Poland submitted a text intended to make stronger the wording of that paragraph, and the usa proposed an amendment to Poland’s Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
50Part 3 – chapter 237 Statement of the Argentine representative in the General Assembly, A/PV. 1406, p. 27.38 By the delegate of Ghana, Mr. Lamptey, A/PV.1406, p. 7.amendment in order to preserve “the right to freedom of expression and asso-ciation.” India proposed to replace “and” by “or” in the phrase “which promote and incite racial discrimination.”In the light of the difficulties which arose, Nigeria submitted a new text, which corresponds to the final text adopted by the Assembly. Separate votes were taken on the words “with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in Article 5 of this Convention,” in the introductory paragraph, “all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred,” in paragraph (a), and “also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof” in the same paragraph (a). All these words were retained. Article 4, as a whole, was adopted by eighty-eight votes to none with five abstentions.4 Discussion in the General AssemblyWhen the draft prepared by the Third Committee was submitted to the General Assembly, five Latin American States—Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama and Peru—introduced an amendment in order to delete in sub-paragraph (a) the words “dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred.” The amendment was defeated by a vote of fifty-four against, twenty-five in favour and twenty-three abstentions. When introducing his amendment, the Argentine representative supported the punishment of organizations devoted to racial discrimination, propaganda activities, and acts of violence, as well as the incitement or promotion of discrimination. But the sponsors of the amend-ment did not wish to condemn “the fact that a scientist might publish a docu-ment pointing out differences among races…We are not opposed to a discussion on the subject between two or more persons in a public place.”375 Contents of Article 4. The Questions of Freedom of Speech and AssociationArticle 4, which should be related to Article 9 of the Declaration, raised, as the one in the Declaration did, many difficulties in all stages of its drafting. As it was stated in the General Assembly,38 Article 4 “was the outcome of a difficult compromise after hours, and even days, of discussion, drafting and redrafting.” Some delegations saw in Article 4, as finally drafted, and even more in the light of some amendments submitted to the text prepared by the Commission, an infringement of the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
51Substantive Articles39 See statement of the representative of the United Kingdom, Lady Gaitskell, in the Third Committee, A/C.3/SR.1315, p. 2.40 A/PV.1406, p. 42–43.association.39 The representative of Colombia even announced that, because of Article 4, the Colombian Parliament would be unable to ratify “a pact con-trary to the political constitution of the country and contrary to the norms of public life.” Article 4, he added, “is a throwback to the past,” since “punishing ideas, whatever they may be, is to aid and abet tyranny, and leads to the abuse of power…As far as we are concerned and as far as democracy is concerned, ideas should be fought with ideas and reasons; theories must be refuted by arguments and not by the scaffold, prison, exile, confiscation or fines.”40 The Colombian delegate made the point that penal law should not be imposed as “punishment for subjective crimes.”Article 4 has an opening paragraph and three operative paragraphs imposing concrete duties on States Parties. In the opening paragraph States Parties con-demn (a) all propaganda and (b) all organizations that 1. are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or 2. attempt to justify and promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form.The opening paragraph of Article 4 as well as paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Declaration, condemn all propaganda and all organizations based on theories of racial superiority. Both also refer to one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin. This paragraph should be related to Article 1 of the Convention, that defines racial discrimination, as well as to Article 3, that con-demns racial segregation and apartheid. The terms “race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin” should not be interpreted in a restricted way. The purpose is to condemn any theory of racial superiority in the broad sense of the definition contained in Article 1.But the Convention goes further than the Declaration, in that it condemns not only propaganda and organizations which attempt to justify or promote racial discrimination, but also those that attempt to justify or promote racial hatred. The use of the word hatred caused many difficulties, and the point was made that, being only a feeling, a state of mind, it was impossible to deal effec-tively with racial hatred. The point was stressed particularly with regard to the first operative paragraph of Article 4 which urges States to declare a punish-able offence the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred.In the second part of the opening paragraph, States Parties undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures to eradicate incitement to, or acts of, racial discrimination. To this end, States Parties will have to adopt, inter alia, three kinds of measures, always with due regard to the principles embodied in Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
52Part 3 – chapter 241 Statement in the General Assembly by the representative of the United States of America, A/PV.1406, p. 53–55.the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in Article 5 of the Convention.The phrase beginning with “with due regard” was introduced, as explained before, in the Third Committee in order to meet objections of those who main-tained that Article 4 would violate the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of association. The incorporated phrase was interpreted in the sense of giving State Parties the right to understand Article 4 “as imposing no obliga-tion on any party to take measures which are not fully consistent with its con-stitutional guarantees of freedom, including freedom of speech and association.”41 Provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that should be particularly kept in mind in this regard are Articles 19 (on freedom of opinion and expression) and 20 (on freedom of assembly and association), both, of course, with the limitations permissible under Article 29 (2) of the Declaration.The three kinds of obligations that Article 4 imposes upon States Parties in its three operative sub-paragraphs are: (a) to punish dissemination of racist ideas, incitement to racial discrimination and racist violence and activities; (b) to declare illegal racist organizations and propaganda; (c) to prevent official bodies from engaging in racial discrimination.Sub-paragraph (a) deals with the first point. States Parties shall declare an offence punishable by law (a) all dissemination of ideas based on racial supe-riority or hatred; (b) incitement to racial discrimination; (c) acts of violence against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin; (d) incitement to acts as expressed in (c); (e) provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof.As said above, the question of dissemination of ideas based on racial supe-riority or hatred engendered an amendment in the General Assembly itself, when the report of the Third Committee was discussed. In all the debates it was made clear that the Convention should not be interpreted as objecting to the dissemination of scientific ideas that deal with the problem of race. It should not be forgotten, however, that in the past many books and papers aimed at disseminating racial hatred adopted the external form of “scientific” books or studies. The Nazi regime was specially prolific in the production of such studies. The reference in the opening sentence to the Universal Declaration and to the rights set forth in Article 5 should, therefore, help to interpret sub-paragraph (a). It is not the free discussion of ideas which should be punished, but the dissemination of ideas based on “racial superiority or Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
53Substantive Articles42 In the Third Committee, A/C.3/SR.1315, p. 2.43 Numerous countries have adopted legislation against racist organizations. See this writ-er’s above-mentioned Survey. See, also, Part VI, Chapter I.hatred,” and this always in accordance with the constitutional framework of each country in order not to violate fundamental rights.There are no difficulties with the punishment of acts of violence or incite-ment to such acts. But problems arise from the use of the word “incitement” when referring to racial discrimination. It was one of the controversial points raised in all the stages of the drafting of the Convention.Also complicated is the matter of the provision of “assistance to racist activi-ties, including the financing thereof.” The question was asked whether buying a propaganda booklet of a racist organization could involve the danger of hav-ing committed a crime.We are here again in the presence of one of those marginal fields when it is hard a priori to state if an offence is being committed. States Parties, when implementing the duties imposed on them by Article 4 and adopting the respective penal legislation, will have to establish clearly the dividing line between licit and illicit acts in order to avoid precisely the violation of rights in those marginal fields. The British delegate declared, for instance, that her country could never agree to punish by law somebody who paid a subscription towards membership of a fascist organization.42Sub-paragraph (b) deals with racist organizations. States Parties shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations which promote and incite racial discrimina-tion. The Declaration uses, in its article 9, the words “promote or incite,” after the adoption, by the General Assembly itself, of an amendment by Argentina intended to add the words “or incite to.” The adoption of this amendment per-mitted the Assembly to bring to an end a crisis which delayed the adoption of the Declaration. The Convention, on its part, uses the words “promote and incite.”The prohibition of racist organizations was also one of the most difficult problems in the drafting of the Convention. The matter of freedom of associa-tion is involved here, and again we have the question of marginal problems. During the discussion it was pointed out that racist organizations could not be allowed to become a danger to peace. They should, therefore, be declared ille-gal as soon as it becomes clear that they intend to engage in promoting and inciting racial discrimination. Again it is a matter for internal penal legislation to be adopted in accordance with the Convention to solve these problems in the framework of each constitutional system.43States Parties should also declare an offence “organized and all other propa-ganda activities of a racist nature.” This phrase refers to forms of propaganda Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
54Part 3 – chapter 2carried on by groups which do not possess the status of organizations but that are considered dangerous. The words “all other” provide a wide field for inter-nal legislation.Participation in organizations such as those to be declared illegal, and in activities such as those mentioned, should also be declared a punishable offence.Sub-paragraph (c) determines that States Parties shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination. There are no major difficulties involved in this sub-paragraph. It is obvious that activities which are an offence when committed by individu-als should certainly not be committed by public authorities or public institu-tions. The words “public authorities or public institutions” are also used in Article 2, and Article 4 employs them in the same sense. Autonomous institu-tions should therefore be included.Sub-paragraph (c) differs from the preceding two by the fact that it does not impose upon States Parties any obligation related to their internal criminal law, but only urges them to adjust their policies to principles in accordance with the Convention and to take care that public officers, on the national and local levels, do not depart from such policies. In that sense it complements Article 2, paragraph 1.Most of the difficulties involved in Article 4 of the Convention received expression during the debates in the Third Committee and in the subsidiary United Nations bodies. A similar debate took place previously during the dis-cussion of what subsequently became Article 9 of the Declaration.One of the points of the discussion was the need, already commented on, to reconcile respect for the right of expression and association with the desire to provide effective sanctions against the advocacy of racial discrimination and hatred. The question is related to the right of the State to intervene even before acts of violence are committed, or are likely to be committed. It was argued that to recognize such a right would be a means of giving States the right to punish intentions or even feelings. But, as indicated, States could certainly not wait until the unlimited right of association reaches a stage of imminent vio-lence against sectors of the population.The distinction was also made between the need of the State to prohibit its agents to engage in racist activities, and its limitations when the ideas of private individuals are involved. The fact that a government did not prohibit individu-als from expressing certain views did not mean that the government itself con-doned those views, but “citizens must still be allowed the right to be wrong.”4444 The American expert, Mr. Morris Abram, in the Sub-Commission. E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.418.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
55Substantive Articles45 The representative of Hungary in the Third Committee declared that his country could not sign a Convention which permitted fascist organizations to operate.46 E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.418.47 The Polish expert, Mr. Ketrzynski, E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.418.48 Canada abstained from voting on these paragraphs in the Third Committee “because they went considerably beyond the existing provisions of Canadian criminal law,” under scru-tiny at that time. An Act to amend the Canadian Criminal Code was introduced following the report of a special committee which concluded that the protection of individuals as members of groups required the enactment of legislation to curb the spreading of racial and religious hatred. Under the heading of “Hate propaganda” the Act, passed by the House of Commons on 13 April 1970, as Bill C-3, covers incitement to hatred or contempt against any “identifiable group,” i.e. any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.The risks involved in the power given the State to prohibit organizations were also exposed in the debate. Such a power, it was said, opens the way for totalitarian measures and abuses. On the other hand, it was recalled that such a power was already incorporated in international instruments, such as the Treaty of Peace signed by several countries with Italy after the Second World War, the Potsdam Agreement, the Treaties of Peace with Austria and Finland and the Treaty of Peace with Hungary.45The differences between incitement to racial discrimination and propa-ganda in favour of it, were also discussed. For the Italian expert in the Sub-Commission, Mr. Capotorti, for instance, while propaganda could be regarded only as the expression of an opinion contrary to the established order, incite-ment was an act that could be declared illegal.46The relationship between hatred and incitement was stressed by those who considered that “the fact of creating an atmosphere of racial hatred” would inevitably lead indirectly to racial discrimination.47Some discussion was also devoted to the question of using the words “pro-mote or incite” in sub-paragraph (c). The proposal was made to drop the word “promote” or use the conjunction “and” between both words, since the word “promote” by itself could be too widely interpreted. It was argued that, while incitement was a conscious and motivated act, promotion presented a “lower degree” of motivation, and might occur even without any real intention or endeavour to incite.Several references were made during the debate to Articles 29(2) and 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to Article 26 of the draft Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. References were also made to the diffi-culties of States Parties in adjusting their internal criminal law to the terms of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).48 The representative of France in the Third Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
56Part 3 – chapter 249 A/C.3/SR.1318, p. 4.50 For the full text of the Model Law, see Measures to be taken against incitement to racial, national and religious hatred, Council of Europe, Strasbourg 1966; Lerner: International Definitions to Racial Hatred, in New York Law Forum, vol. XIV, no. 1, Spring 1968, p. 49.51 See, in Part V, the statements on interpretation of Article 4 formulated by several States upon signature or ratification of the Convention.Committee felt that an international convention should not involve penal sanctions.49The Convention solved in Article 4 one of the conflicts between freedoms which cannot be ignored in the process of shaping of the international bill of rights. The Convention goes further than the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law” (Article 20,2). The more severe pattern was also followed by the Model Law drafted by the Council of Europe, which penalizes persons who publicly call for or incite hatred, intolerance, discrimination or violence against persons or groups of persons distinguished by colour, race, ethnic or national origin, or religion, or insult them or hold them to contempt or slander them on account of the distinguishing particularities above mentioned (Article 1). Organizations whose aims or activities fall within the indicated scope shall be prosecuted and/or prohibited (Article 4). The public use of insignia of organi-zations that are prohibited is also made an offence (Article 5).506 Interpretation of Article 4The United Kingdom, when signing the Convention, formulated the following interpretation regarding Article 4: “It interprets Article 4 as requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further legislative measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that Article only in so far as it may consider, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in Article 5 of the Convention (in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association), that some legislative addition to or variation of existing law and practice in those fields is necessary for the attainment of the end specified in the earlier part of Article 4.”51The United States of America, without referring directly to Article 4, made the following declaration: “The Constitution of the United States contains pro-visions for the protection of individual rights, such as the right of free speech, and nothing in the Convention shall be deemed to require or to authorize leg-islation or other action by the United States of America incompatible with the Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
57Substantive Articles52 A/C.3/SR.1373.53 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.334.provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America.” The declara-tion followed the points made in the Third Committee by the American repre-sentative, Mr. Goldberg.52 Article 5. Rights Specially Guaranteed by the ConventionIn compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in Article 2, States Parties, by Article 5, undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimina-tion in all its forms, and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, nota-bly in the enjoyment of the rights expressly enumerated in the Article.1 Discussion in the Sub-CommissionClauses relating to the obligation of States to prohibit and to eliminate racial dis-crimination in the enjoyment of various rights, were included in the different drafts submitted to the Sub-Commission. In Mr. Abram’s draft articles IV, V and VI dealt with the matter. Article III of Mr. Calvocoressi’s draft contained a short enumera-tion of rights guaranteed to everyone. Article II of the joint draft submitted by Messrs. Ivanov and Ketrzynski enumerated such rights in its paragraphs (d) to (1).After a discussion of the three texts and amendments proposed, a working group elaborated a new text,53 which was orally amended and unanimously adopted.2 Discussion in the CommissionMembers of the Commission considered as generally satisfactory the structure and the text of draft Article 5. Some representatives would have preferred a more general formulation, in order to avoid leaving out rights proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although it was felt that the use of the word “notably” could avoid a restrictive interpretation. A reservation was made with regard to the right of everyone to return to his country, in order to prevent its application to members of former royal families.A joint amendment of France and Poland to the introductory paragraph was adopted unanimously. The new paragraph corresponds to the final text adopted by the Assembly.A revised amendment of France, Italy and Poland to paragraph (a), corre-sponding also to the final text, was adopted unanimously.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
58Part 3 – chapter 254 The word “everyone” was objected to, since some delegates considered that distinctions between citizens and non-citizens could legitimately be made by any State with regard to the enjoyment of some rights, as determined by Art. 1 of the Convention.A Polish amendment to add, after paragraph (d) (v), a new sub-paragraph (vi)—the right to inherit—was adopted.3 Discussion in the Third CommitteeSeveral amendments were submitted in the Third Committee to the draft as approved by the Commission on Human Rights. An amendment by Czechoslovakia to insert the word “national” before the words “or ethnic ori-gin” in the introductory paragraph was adopted by a majority. The Committee also adopted an amendment by Bulgaria to insert, in paragraph (c), after the word “elections,” the words “to vote and to stand for election.”A proposal of Mauritania, Nigeria and Uganda to add, in paragraph (d) (iv), the words “and choice of spouse,” after the word “marriage,” was accepted. The Committee rejected by thirty-seven votes to thirty-three, with twenty-four abstentions, a proposal by the same countries to replace paragraph (e) (vi) by the following text: “The equal right to organize cultural associations and to participate in all kinds of cultural activities.”4 Contents of Article 5The Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination does not contain any general article enumerating rights particularly guaranteed. Article 3 of the Declaration refers to civil rights, accesss to citizenship, educa-tion, religion, employment, occupation, housing and equal access to any place or facility intended for use by the general public. Article 5 of the Declaration deals with political and citizenship rights and equal access to public service, and Article 7 proclaims the right to equality before the law and to equal justice under the law, and the right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm.Article 5 of the Convention has an opening paragraph and six paragraphs enumerating some rights selected for special mention. The opening paragraph refers to Article 2 of the Convention, which determines the fundamental obli-gations of States Parties, repeats—unnecessarily, according to some dele-gates—their undertaking to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms, and imposes upon them the obligation to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law. This is the general principle, intended to be as wide as possible, for which purpose the word “everyone” was used.54 The inclusion of the words “equality before the law” in the opening, and not in the enunciating paragraph, Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
59Substantive Articles55 See, inter alia, N. Robinson, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, New York, 1958, and H. Lauterpacht, International Law and Human Rights, London, 1950. See, also, as rel-evant, the rich literature on the European Convention on Human Rights.56 See Art. 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Arts. 14 and 26 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.57 See Art. 3 of the Universal Declaration and Art. 7 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.has also the same purpose of establishing the general principle. The word “notably” was used in order to avoid a restrictive interpretation of the rights enumerated.As said before, some delegations would have preferred a more general and less detailed wording, with a view to preventing such an interpretation, which could be deemed as logical in the light of the extension of the enumeration. There were also proposals to add a clause stating that the omission of any rights mentioned in the Universal Declaration did not imply that such a right was intentionally excluded from protection by the Convention.The enumeration of rights in Article 5 should, thus, not be considered as exhaustive. The Article is a typical catalogue of human rights with regard to which discrimination on grounds of race, colour or national or ethnic origin is prohibited. Most of the rights correspond to those listed in the Universal Declaration. No attempt will be made here to discuss the nature, scope or interpretation of the enumerated rights.55Paragraph (a) refers to the right to equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administering justice. There were proposals to proclaim the right to a “fair trial” and to “equal treatment before the courts.” Finally the words used were agreed upon as clear and broad enough.The paragraph guarantees the right of everyone who seeks justice before a competent organ not to be discriminated against because of racist motiva-tions. It should not be confused with Article 6 of the Convention, which refers to protection and remedies through the competent tribunals in case of viola-tions of the Convention.56Paragraph (b) deals with the right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual, group or institution. The wording of the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination was here followed.57The violence or bodily harm can be inflicted by public officers or by private individuals or groups. The word “institutions” should be intepreted as referring to violence or harm inflicted through agents or officials of an institution. The purpose of the paragraph is to avoid any distinction in the protection of indi-viduals against any violence, whoever inflicts it.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
60Part 3 – chapter 258 See Art. 21 of the Universal Declaration and Art. 25 of the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.59 The term “civil rights” is not used in Art. 1 of the Convention. The omission cannot be covered by the words “any other field of public life” since some rights mentioned in Art. 5 under the heading of “civil rights” do not belong to the field of “public life.”60 See Art. 12 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.61 See Art. 13(2) of the Universal Declaration and Art. 12 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.Paragraph (c) deals with political rights, in particular active and passive electoral rights, i.e. to vote and to stand for election, on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, to take part in the Government as well as in the conduct of public affairs at any level and to have equal access to public service. Article 6 of the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination refers to political and citizenship rights and to the right to participate in elections through universal and equal suffrage.58Paragraph (c) does not deal with the problem of citizenship. The principle is that nobody should be deprived, because of reasons of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, of political rights to which he is entitled as a national of the country. The words “to participate in elections” should be understood in a broad sense, in connection with the words “to vote and to stand for election,” as covering the complete set of active and passive electoral rights.In the Sub-Commission some difficulties arose with regard to a proposal by the Soviet expert to have the right proclaimed to actual participation by racial, national and ethnic groups in legislative and executive bodies. The amend-ment was withdrawn when the majority of the experts stated their opposition to a reference to groups, on the basis of the view that the Convention should protect the rights of the individual and not touch the complicated matter of the rights of groups as such.Paragraph (d) deals, in its nine sub-paragraphs, with “other civil rights.”59 Those mentioned in particular are:(i) the right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the State. The Convention here literally follows the wording of Article 13(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;60(ii) the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country;61(iii) the right to nationality. Article 15(1) of the Universal Declaration pro-claims that everyone has the right to a nationality. Article 3 of the Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
61Substantive Articles62 Art. 24 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that every child has the right to acquire a nationality, but no reference is made to adults.63 The Universal Declaration, Art. 16(1) proclaims the right to marry and to found a family. Art. 23 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Art. 10 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights deal with this right.Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination deals with “access to citizenship”;62(iv) the right to marriage and choice of spouse. As expressed before, the words “and choice of spouse” were added in the Third Committee, at a sugges-tion of Mauritania, Nigeria and Uganda. This addition is related to the laws existing in some countries that prohibit inter-racial marriage;63(v) the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. This is the literal text of Article 17(1) of the Universal Declaration. The Covenants do not mention this right;(vi) the right to inherit. The Commission on Human Rights adopted a Polish amendment to mention specifically this right, to which neither the Universal Declaration, nor the Covenants, nor the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination refer explicitly;(vii) the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right is pro-claimed in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration and Article 18 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;(viii) the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which is recognized by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration and Article 19 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;(ix) the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. The Convention followed the wording of Article 20(1) of the Universal Declaration. Articles 20 and 21 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights deal, respectively, with those two.Paragraph (e) refers to economic, social and cultural rights, and mentions in particular the following:(i) the right to work, free choice of employment, just and favourable condi-tions of work, protection against unemployment, equal pay for equal work, just and favourable remuneration. These are the same rights enun-ciated in Article 23, paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the Universal Declaration. The rights of employment and occupation are also mentioned in Article 3 of the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. In connection with this sub-paragraph, the provisions of Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
62Part 3 – chapter 2the ilo Convention concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation, and Articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, should be taken into consideration;(ii) the right to form and join trade unions. This right is established in paragraph (4) of the above-mentioned Article of the Universal Decla-ration and in Article 8 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;(iii) the right to housing, mentioned in Article 3 of the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination and included among the rights enunciated in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration. This right is enunciated in Article 11 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;(iv) the right to public health, medical care and social security and social ser-vices. These rights are enunciated in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration. Articles 12 and 9 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights deal with these aspects;(v) the right to education and training. The right to education is mentioned in Article 3 of the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, and is dealt with in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration and Articles 13 and 14 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The provisions of the unesco Convention Against Discrimination in Education should also be taken into consideration. The word “education” should be used in the sense of the definition contained in the unesco Convention. Situations like those enumerated in Article 2 of the unesco Convention—separate educational systems or institutions in order to keep the two sexes apart, or for religious or lin-guistic reasons, or in order to provide additional educational facilities— shall not be deemed to constitute discrimination, when permitted in a State. The right to training should be connected with the right to work as established in subparagraph (i). The ilo Convention deals with the right to vocational training, also recognized in Article 6 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;(vi) the right to equal participation in cultural activities. Article 27 of the Universal Declaration and Article 15 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights deal with this right.The last paragraph, (f), refers to the right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public such as transport, hotels, restaurants, cafés, theatres, parks. Articles 3 of the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination proclaims that everyone shall have equal access to any Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
63Substantive Articles64 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.308.65 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.309.66 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.330.67 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.339.place or facility intended for use by the general public. This right is not men-tioned in the Universal Declaration.The enunciation of public places and services should not be interpreted in a restrictive way, as indicated by the use of the words “such as.” Article 6. Remedies Against Racial DiscriminationArticle 6 reads:States Parties shall assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies through the competent national tribunals and other State institutions against any acts of racial discrimination which violate his human rights and fundamental freedoms contrary to this Convention, as well as the right to seek from such tribunals just and ade-quate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination.1 Discussion in the Sub-CommissionThe Sub-Commission considered three drafts, proposed, respectively, by Messrs. Abram,64 Calvocoressi65 and, jointly, Cuevas Cancino and Ingles.66 After a discussion, Messrs. Abram, Calvocoressi and Capotorti67 submitted a new draft, which was orally revised and unanimously adopted. It referred to “effective remedies and protection through independent tribunals” and to the right to obtain from such tribunals reparation for any damages suffered as a result of racial discrimination. The text did not include reference to “other State institutions,” as does the final text adopted by the Assembly.2 Discussion in the CommissionThe discussion in the Commission centred around the nature of the tribunals which were to assure remedies and protection and to the question of the rem-edies themselves.The Commission finally adopted a revised text proposed by Lebanon, incor-porating the various amendments proposed and corresponding very closely to the final text. There was general agreement, in the sense that the tribunals Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
64Part 3 – chapter 2mentioned in the Article should be independent national tribunals. The absence of the word “national” was considered a simple omission. The word “competent” proposed by the Soviet Union, was intended to contemplate the creation of new tribunals that might have to be set up to consider exclusively cases of racial discrimination. It was pointed out, however, that the word was used, in a similar context, in Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as just meaning legal competence. It was also suggested that the quali-fication of “impartial” be added when referring to the tribunals, but it was con-sidered unnecessary since the word “independent” had already been used.The United Kingdom proposed to insert the words “contrary to the present Convention” after “racial discrimination” in order to clarify in which cases the remedies and protection were available. The suggestion was opposed on the ground that it could narrow the scope of the article. Agreement was reached on the phrase as stated in the proposal of Lebanon.The Commission decided to refer to the “right to seek” reparations, in order to avoid prejudgement on the question whether reparations were pertinent or not in a given case. The representative of Austria proposed to add the words “just satisfaction” to cover cases where pecuniary damages were insufficient. It was decided to refer to “just and adequate reparation or satisfaction,” in spite of the fact that some members of the Commission considered that those were subjective terms which would create difficulties for the tribunals. It was under-stood that the right to obtain reparation should cover not only reparation for financial damage, but also the restoration of the victim’s rights.3 Discussion in the Third CommitteeThe Third Committee only voted upon one amendment, proposed by Bulgaria, intended to insert the words “and other State institutions” between the words “tribunals” and “against.” The amendment was adopted.4 Contents of Article 6Article 6 should be compared with Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 7(2) of the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. The first grants the right to an effective remedy by the compe-tent natural tribunals for acts violating fundamental rights. Article 2 of the Covenant refers to an effective remedy by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities. The Declaration on Racial Discrimination speaks about an effective remedy and protection against any discrimination on the ground of race, colour or ethnic origin, through independent national tribunals competent to deal with such matters. The Convention goes further than the Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
65Substantive Articles68 Statement of the Italian expert in the Sub-Commission, Mr. Capotorti. E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.425, p. 3.69 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.310.aforementioned instruments, granting also the right to seek just and ade-quate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of racial discrimination.The intention of the drafters of the Article was to ensure that the party responsible for causing injury as a result of racial discrimination, whether it be the State itself or a private individual or organization, should provide an effec-tive remedy to the victim.68The first part of the Article deals with the protection and remedies through competent tribunals and other State institutions. The word “national” here means municipal or domestic tribunals. The second part is intended to ensure reparation or satisfaction when the victim of the act of racial discrimination has already suffered damage as a result of it. The words just and adequate repa-ration or satisfaction should be interpreted liberally. The word satisfaction should cover the instances when material reparation is impossible or difficult.Article 6 should be taken into consideration when dealing with Article 14, paragraph 2, which establishes the procedure for petitions by victims of a vio-lation “who have exhausted other available local remedies.” Article 7. Steps in the Fields of Education and InformationArticle 7, as adopted by the General Assembly, reads:States Parties undertake to adopt immediate and effective measures, par-ticularly in the fields of teaching, education, culture and information, with a view to combating prejudices which lead to racial discrimination and to promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship among nations and racial or ethnical groups, as well as to propagating the pur-poses and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and this Convention.When the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities began the discussion of this Article it had before it the draft pre-pared by Mr. Abram and an amended text proposed by Mr. Krishnaswami (India).69 A new text was proposed by Messrs. Abram, Calvocoressi and Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
66Part 3 – chapter 270 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.339.71 For its text, see E/CN.4/Sub.2/241, p. 40.Capotorti70 and, finally, the Sub-Commission adopted unanimously a text pro-posed by the Chairman, Mr. Santa Cruz (Chile).71In the Commission on Human Rights, the representative of the United Kingdom submitted an amendment, revised upon a suggestion of the repre-sentative of Lebanon and unanimously adopted, according to which “State Parties undertake to adopt immediate and effective measures, particularly in the fields of teaching, education and information with a view to combating prejudices which lead to racial discrimination and promoting…” The rest of the Article remained unchanged.During the debate in the Commission it was pointed out that the wording of the Article should follow closely that of Article 8 of the Declaration. The atten-tion of the Commission was called to the fact that in another article reference was made not only to racial discrimination but also to racial hatred. However, since the Article dealt with measures connected with teaching, education and information, it was decided to refer only to discrimination.Two small changes were made in the Third Committee. One was the adop-tion of an amendment of Bulgaria, calling for the insertion of the word “cul-ture” between the words “education” and “and.” The second one was the addition, proposed by Czechoslovakia, of the words “and of this Convention” at the end of the Article.Article 7 is inspired by Article 8 of the Declaration. It has a similar intention to that of Article 26(2) of the Universal Declaration, which refers to the pur-poses of education. Article 5, paragraph 1(a) of the unesco Convention Against Discrimination in Education repeats the wording of the Universal Declaration. Article 13 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that education shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all racial, ethnic or religious groups.This Article does not present any difficulties. We have already indicated the discussion on the inclusion of a reference to racial hatred.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi 10.1163/9789004279926_006chapter 3Substantive Articles Not Incorporated in the ConventionThe Sub-Commission had before it, and discussed, the text of several articles proposed for incorporation in the Convention, which were later deleted by the Commission on Human Rights.1 Article on InterpretationMessrs. Calvocoressi and Capotorti submitted to the Sub-Commission a draft Article (VIII), on interpretation of the Convention, that read:1. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as implying any right to discriminate on any other basis other than those listed in Article I, such as sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, social origin, prop-erty, birth or other status.2. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as implying a grant of equal political rights to nationals of a contracting State or a grant of polit-ical rights to a distinct racial, ethnic or national group as such.Mr. Matsch (expert from Austria) proposed to add the following words at the end of paragraph 2:in a contracting State where no such special rights have been or are granted to a group of persons for reasons of race, colour or ethnic origin.The first paragraph, considered unnecessary by some experts, was later with-drawn and Mr. Cuevas Cancino proposed a new text for the second paragraph. It read:Nothing in the Convention shall be interpreted as implying positive obli-gations in accordance with which the States Parties undertake to grant a specific political or social status to aliens in their territory. It shall not be interpreted as a grant of political rights to racial, ethnic or national groups as such, if such a grant might destroy, in whole or in part, the national unity and the territorial integrity of a State Party.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
68Part 3 – chapter 3Messrs. Krishnaswami and Mudawi proposed a different text. It read:The distinction between nationals and non-nationals of a State recog-nized by public international law in the enjoyment of political rights shall not be affected by this convention, nor does it impose a duty to grant special political rights to any group because of race, colour or ethnic origin, although it does not prohibit their exercise if otherwise established.After a discussion in which several oral amendments were proposed, the Sub-Commission adopted a text suggested by the Chairman, which read:Nothing in the present Convention may be interpreted as implicitly rec-ognizing or denying political or other rights to non-nationals nor to groups of persons of a common race, colour, ethnic or national origin which exist or may exist as distinct groups within a State Party.The proposed Article VIII caused considerable difficulty. The discussion cen-tered around two problems: the question of nationals and non-nationals, related to the definition of Article 1, and the applicability of the Convention to groups and not only to individuals. In the Commission the Ukrainian ssr pro-posed to delete the portion of the text following the words “to non-nationals.” France proposed to add the following phrase:or as amending provisions governing, on a temporary basis, the exercise of political or other rights by naturalized persons.France, India and the Philippines proposed to replace the text by the following:Nothing in the present Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the distinction between nationals and non-nationals of a State, as recognized by international law, in the enjoyment of political or other rights, or as amending provisions governing the exercise of political or other rights by naturalized persons; nor does anything in this Convention impose a duty to grant special political or other rights to any groups of persons because of race, colour or ethnic origin.The phrase “as recognized by international law” was later deleted by the sponsors.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
69Substantive Articles Not Incorporated In The Convention 1 See Part III, Chapter II, Art. 1.The Commission devoted several meetings to the proposed Article. The dis-cussion was interrupted in order to allow the Commission to complete all other substantive Articles. When the Commission returned to the proposed Article, India and Philippines withdrew their sponsorship of the joint amend-ment. France announced that she would be willing to withdraw the text if the Commission were to revert back to the consideration of Article 1, and to delete there the reference to “national origin.”1 Finally, on the motion of Austria, the Commission decided by twelve votes to two, with six abstentions, to delete Article VIII from the draft.There was agreement in the Commission on the distinction to be drawn between nationals and non-nationals in the enjoyment of political or other rights, as well as on the special position of naturalized persons who might, temporarily, not be in a position, in every country, to enjoy political or other rights immediately. The Ukrainian amendment was objected to by several members of the Commission, who stressed that the Convention should apply to all nationals of a State, regardless of the ethnic group to which they belonged.2 Other Articles DeletedThe Sub-Commission adopted, as Article IX, a draft Article proposed by Mr. Mudawi that read:Every State Party shall, as far as appropriate, include in its Constitution or fundamental law provisions prohibiting all forms of racial discrimination.Mr. Mudawi also proposed two more Articles, one on the application of the Convention also to all non-self-governing, trust and colonial territories, and one on cooperation between States Parties and regional organizations in con-nection with the draft Convention. The Sub-Commission did not consider these two draft Articles.In the Commission on Human Rights, amendments were submitted to the Article IX as adopted by the Sub-Commission. The Ukrainian ssr proposed to replace the words “as far as appropriate” by the words “if this has not yet been done” and to add at the end of the Article the words “and establishing admin-istrative responsibility and responsibility before the courts for the violations of the provisions.”Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
70Part 3 – chapter 3Costa Rica submitted a new text which, after revisions, read:States Parties shall take steps to promulgate, in conformity with their legal systems, constitutional or legal provisions which may be necessary to prohibit all forms of racial discrimination, and to establish administra-tive and judicial responsibility for the violation of these provisions.Members of the Commission considered the text ambiguous and a source of difficulty for States where the procedure for amending constitutions was com-plicated and required a special act, as well as for those that had no constitu-tions. Other members felt that the Article would not add anything to the provisions of Article 5 and Article 2, paragraph 1(c).As for the matter of establishing administrative and judicial responsibility for violations covered by the Convention, several representatives felt that the ordinary internal law would be sufficient.After the adoption of a motion of India to close the debate on this Article, and after a procedural debate, the Commission adopted, by ten votes to five, with six abstentions, a motion of the United Kingdom proposing to delete Article IX.3 Article on Anti-SemitismDuring the twentieth session of the Commission on Human Rights, the repre-sentative of the United States of America proposed an oral amendment to Article III, in order to replace the words “racial segregation and apartheid” by “racial segregation, apartheid and anti-Semitism.”The representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics orally proposed a sub-amendment to the usa amendment, suggesting the addition of the word “nazism” after the word “apartheid,” and the words “and other expressions of hatred based on doctrines of racial superiority” after the word “anti-Semitism.”After a discussion, in which several members of the Commission favoured the idea of a reference to anti-Semitism, while others opposed such a reference in the Article connected with apartheid, the usa representative withdrew the oral amendment, and said that she would introduce a new Article specifically condemning anti-Semitism.The new Article proposed by the usa would read:States Parties condemn anti-Semitism and shall take action as appropri-ate for its speedy eradication in the territories subject to their jurisdiction.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
71Substantive Articles Not Incorporated In The Convention 2 Both the amendment and the sub-amendment were modified by their sponsors, but later the modifications were withdrawn.3 Statement of the Soviet representative, Mr. Morozov, E/CN.4/SR.807. He insisted on the close relationship between anti-Semitism and nazism. The Israeli representative Mr. Comay, while stressing the historical association between anti-Semitism and nazism, recalled the manifes-tations of anti-Semitism outside the nazi context.The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics submitted a sub-amendment to the usa amendment. According to it, the text would read:States Parties condemn nazism, including all its new manifestations (neo-nazism), genocide, anti-Semitism and other manifestations of atro-cious racist ideas and practices and shall take action as appropriate for their speedy eradication in the territories subject to their jurisdiction.2After a debate in which many representatives favoured the adoption of the usa amendment, as well as the sub-amendment of the ussr, the Commission approved, by nineteen votes to none with two abstentions, a motion of the representative of India to transmit the proposal of the usa and the amend-ments thereto of the ussr, together with the records of the discussion thereon, to the General Assembly.During the debate it was pointed out that anti-Semitism, of which the most pernicious form had been Hitler’s policy of extermination of Jews, had not dis-appeared. Anti-Semitism should be considered, in all its manifestations, past and present, as a “repugnant form of racial discrimination and as a dangerous social and political phenomenon.”3Although many representatives approved the sub-amendment of the ussr, it was suggested that the inclusion of the words “neonazism” brought in a notion with a doubtful meaning which might also have political implications. The reference to nazism, “including all its new manifestations,” would provide a satisfactory solution. Some representatives were in favour of dealing with anti-Semitism in one Article and in another Article with nazism, genocide and other forms of racist ideas and practices. It was also suggested that such enu-merations be included in the Preamble.Those who opposed the Article expressed doubts about the desirability of singling out any special form of racial discrimination in the draft Convention. They argued that the special reference to apartheid in article 3 followed a simi-lar reference in the Declaration, because apartheid has been declared to be part of a governmental policy of a Member State, and it was therefore proper for the United Nations to condemn it. With regard to other forms of racial Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
72Part 3 – chapter 34 Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Israel and usa.5 Austria, China, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Italy, Ivory Coast, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Panama, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela. Absent were: Albania, Burundi, Cambodia, Gambia, Laos, Maldive Islands, Malta, Nepal, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Singapore and South Africa. discrimination, it would be necessary to determine carefully their enumera-tion in order to reach general agreement. It was recalled in this connection that the Commission had decided earlier to leave out the reference to nazism in paragraph 6 of the Preamble.In the Third Committee, Brazil and the usa proposed to insert a new Article, according to whichStates Parties condemn anti-Semitism and will take action as appropriate for its speedy eradication in the territories subject to their jurisdiction.The ussr introduced an amendment to the Article proposed by Brazil and the usa. According to this amendment, the new Article would read:States Parties condemn anti-Semitism, Zionism, nazism, neo-nazism and all other forms of the policy and ideology of colonialism, national and race hatred and exclusiveness and shall take action as appropriate for the speedy eradication of those misanthropic ideas and practices in the ter-ritories subject to their jurisdiction.Ultimately, the ussr replaced the word “misanthropic” by the word “inhuman.”Bolivia introduced a sub-amendment to the Soviet amendment, proposing to delete the word “Zionism” and to replace “neo-nazism” by a more general phraseology referring to all forms of manifestations of nazism.During the debate on these amendments, Greece and Hungary introduced a draft Resolution according to which the Third Committee would decide not to include in the draft Convention any reference to specific forms of racial dis-crimination. This decision would not affect the already adopted article on apartheid.By a roll-call vote of eighty in favour, seven4 against, and eighteen5 absten-tions, the Committee agreed to give priority to the draft Resolution of Greece and Hungary.After a few delegates referred to the Greek-Hungarian proposal, Ghana moved for the closing of the debate, and its proposal was approved by fifty-seven votes in favour, twenty-four against and eighteen abstentions.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
73Substantive Articles Not Incorporated In The Convention 6 The countries which voted against were: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay. The coun-tries that abstained were: China, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Haiti, Italy, Ivory Coast, Mexico and Venezuela.As this vote precluded many delegations from referring to the proposed amendments and sub-amendments, some delegations proposed that an opportunity be given to the members of the Committee to explain their stand before the vote on the Greek-Hungarian proposal. The Chairman submitted such request to the Committee and the latter voted, by seventy-seven votes in favour, eight against and twelve abstentions, that the explanations on the vote be given after the vote.A roll-call vote was then taken on the substance of the Greek-Hungarian pro-posal. The result was: eighty-two in favour, twelve against and ten abstentions.6As a result of the vote, the following amendments could not be considered: the Brazil-usa amendment condemning anti-Semitism; the Soviet sub-amendment condemning not only anti-Semitism but also Zionism, nazism and neo-nazism; the Bolivian sub-amendment deleting the word “Zionism” from the Russian amendment, and Polish and Czech amendments, specifying nazism and fascism.During the debate on procedure, several representatives announced that they would oppose the Brazilian-usa amendment because they considered that a u.n. Convention should not specifically single out discrimination against a given race. Others who favoured the amendment based their support on the need to refer to particularly evil forms of discrimination. Some delegations were in favour of a specific condemnation of nazism. The majority of Afro-Asian countries stated that they had decided to reject all new proposals, and would vote in favour of the original text prepared by the Commission on Human Rights. The ussr subordinated its position to that of the usa on its own amendment. Greece, one of the cosponsors of the procedural proposal, opposed all specific references as “unnecessary and dangerous.”The Israel representative, Mr. Michael Comay, said that his delegation opposed the Greek-Hungarian proposal, and considered it essential that anti-Semitism should be expressly mentioned in the Convention. After summariz-ing the history of anti-Semitism, he stated that the Convention owed its origin to the manifestations of anti-Semitism which had occured in a number of countries in 1959 and 1960. The general consensus had been then that anti-Semitism was not a matter of religious intolerance alone, and that it was neces-sary to draft a separate convention dealing with the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
74Part 3 – chapter 37 The Commission on Human Rights had suggested the inclusion of a reference to anti- Semitism in the draft Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Religious Intolerance. The Third Committee of the General Assembly, in its 1967 meeting, decided against such a reference.8 In the Statement on Race and Racial Prejudice issued by unesco and prepared at a meeting of experts on race and racial prejudice in September 1967, anti-Semitism is mentioned as an example of racism.9 On the Problem of anti-Semitism in the Convention see articles by H.D. Coleman in Human Rights Journal, Vol. II, 4, 1969, and R. Cohen in Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 2, No. 2, March–April 1968.Commenting on the Soviet amendment bracketing Zionism with anti-Sem-itism, nazism and neo-nazism, the Israel representative considered it “an affront to Israel and to the Jewish people everywhere.” He defined Zionism as the Jewish national movement which had given birth to the State of Israel, endorsed by the United Nations in 1947, when the Soviet Union had associated itself with the majority, thus approving Zionism.During the debates in the Commission and in the Third Committee it was made clear that anti-Semitism—some delegates considered it more accurate to refer to anti-Judaism—definitely came within the scope of the Convention. Some representatives indicated that it would have been preferable to condemn anti-Semitism in the Preamble, instead of dealing with it in a separated opera-tive Article. Others questioned the use of the word anti-Semitism, since the phenomenon to which it referred dealt only with Jews and not with Semites in general. Others, while indicating their opposition to anti-Semitism, considered that it was a manifestation of religious and not racial discrimination, and that its place was therefore in the Convention on Religious Intolerance.7In Part II, when dealing with the problem of the universality of the Convention, we have already mentioned the relationship between the anti-Semitic incidents in 1959–1960 and the decision to prepare the two “twin” Conventions on Racial Discrimination and Religious Intolerance. We have also indicated the general interpretation with regard to the broadness of the scope of the Convention. If not specifically mentioned, anti-Semitism is therefore clearly one of the phenomena which the Convention condemns, declares pun-ishable and attempts to eliminate.8The shift in the ussr stand may be explained in many ways. The develop-ments around the position of the Jewish minority in Russia, as well as the increasing Soviet involvement in the Middle East conflict, obviously played a major role.9While this seems to be beyond doubt, it is however regrettable that one of the most persistent manifestations of racial discrimination and prejudice in Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
75Substantive Articles Not Incorporated In The Convention the history of mankind, and precisely the one that most directly put into motion the United Nations effort that led to the Convention, should not have been mentioned, at least in the Preamble. This exclusion is still more striking since it was agreed to mention apartheid in the Preamble, in addition to a spe-cial article on it.The reasons for the exclusion are clearly political. The Arab States feared that a condemnation of anti-Semitism could be interpreted as support for the State of Israel. The obviously purely political Soviet manoeuvre equating Zionism with nazism created then a situation in which a big majority vote pre-vented the incorporation of the Article on anti-Semitism.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi 10.1163/9789004279926_007chapter 4Measures of Implementation1 Drafting of the Articles on ImplementationPart II of the Convention (Articles 8 to 16) refers to measures of implementa-tion.1 Such measures are an essential part of the Convention and without them, as some representatives stated, the Convention would not differ too much from a Declaration and would remain “a dead letter” or a “paper tiger.” But the Convention did not create a far-reaching machinery and implementa-tion measures that could ensure universal protection against violations of the rights it proclaims. It represents progress compared to all other u.n. instru-ments in this respect, but it is less effective than the European Convention on Human Rights or the ilo system.The Sub-Commission had before it a proposal submitted by Judge José Ingles (Philippines)2 based on the draft International Covenants on Human Rights prepared by the Commission on Human Rights,3 with modifications inspired by the 1962 Protocol to the unesco Convention. The Sub-Commission only discussed Article I of the proposed measures of implementation, and decided that this text should become Article X of the Convention.The Sub-Commission also adopted a resolution on additional measures of implementation, transmitting to the Commission on Human Rights a prelimi-nary draft “as an expression of the general views of the Sub-Commission on additional measures of implementation which will help to make the draft International Convention…more effective.”The Commission on Human Rights did not examine the proposed Article X because of lack of time, and it recommended to the Economic and Social 1 Cf. the abundant literature, i.a.: Proceedings of the Nobel Symposium on the International Protection of Human Rights, Oslo, 1967; E. Schwelb, “Civil and Political Rights:, The International Measures of Implementation,” in a.j.i.l., Vol. 62, No. 4, 1968, p. 827, and “Some Aspects of the Measures of Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” in Human Rights, Vol. 1–3, September 1968, p. 377. See, also, Part IV, Chapter I, note 1.2 E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.321.3 The articles on implementation in the Covenants as finally adopted by the General Assembly in 1966 differ from the draft prepared by the Commission. We refer later to some of its provi-sions, considerably weaker than the Commission’s draft.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
77Measures Of Implementation4 A/C.3/L.1221.5 A/C.3/L.1274 and 1274/Rev.1.6 A/C.3/L.1291.Council the submission of the text of Article X to the General Assembly, with the records of the discussion thereon.The need for a strong system of measures of implementation, including the right of individual petition against violations of the Convention, was stressed during the debate in the Commission.While the Third Committee began the discussion of the Articles on mea-sures of implementation it had before it the proposed Article X and the pre-liminary draft of additional measures of implementation. The representative of the Philippines submitted nineteen Articles on measures of implementa-tion,4 based mainly on the documents prepared by the Sub-Commission. Several amendments were suggested to the Philippine proposal, including one from Ghana5 containing a comprehensive system of measures of implementation.After a discussion it was suggested that members of the Committee who submitted texts should prepare a new draft which would provide a basis for the discussion in the Committee. Such a draft6 was submitted by Ghana, Mauritania and the Philippines, and the Third Committee considered it Article by Article.2 Contents of Part II of the ConventionThe implemention system created by the Convention consists essentially of three means—a reporting procedure, an implementation machinery in the form of a Good Offices and Conciliation Committee, and the right of peti-tion—communications in the language of Article 14—by individuals or groups within the jurisdiction of States Parties claiming to be victims of a violation by that State of any of the rights set forth in the Convention.(a) The Reporting Procedure. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial DiscriminationArticles 8 to 11 deal with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.Article 8, as finally adopted, follows in general, excepting paragraphs 2 and 6, the revised draft submitted by Ghana, Mauritania and the Philippines. The Committee (paragraph 1) will consist of eighteen experts of high moral stand-ing and acknowledged impartiality elected by States Parties from amongst their Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
78Part 3 – chapter 47 The Human Rights Committee created by the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights follows (Art. 28) the same system as the u.n. Convention. The European Convention (Art. 21) does not prevent the election of persons which are not nationals of States Parties.nationals.7 The word “experts” gave rise to some difficulties. It was made clear that the word was used in a broad sense as referring to experts in racial dis-crimination and related fields.The experts shall serve in their personal capacity. This means that they will not act as plenipotentiaries—as suggested in Ghana’s draft—or as agents or representatives of any government, and will not be bound by any instructions. In their election, consideration will be given to equitable geographical distribu-tion and to the representation of the different forms of civilizations as well as of the principal legal systems. The intention of this paragraph, as of similar provi-sions in other international instruments, is that the experts should represent as many geographical parts of the world and as many political systems and cultures as possible. Such an arrangement also determines, when political con-siderations do not prevail, the election of members of U.N. bodies where only a small proportion of State Members can be represented.According to the second paragraph of Article 8, the members of the Committee shall be elected, by secret ballot, from a list of persons nominated by the State Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own nationals. While supposed to be impartial experts serving in their personal capacity, the members of the Committee can, thus, only be nomi-nated by their own national State. To what extent such a system can effec-tively create a body of independent thinking and acting experts, is at least dubious.The initial election (paragraph 3) shall be held six months after the date of the entry into force of the Convention, i.e. six months from the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of the twenty-seventh instrument of ratification or of accession. At least three months before the date of each election the Secretary-General shall invite the States Parties to submit their nominations within two months. The Secretary-General will prepare, and submit to the States Parties, a list, in alphabetical order, of all persons thus nominated, indi-cating the States Parties which have nominated them. The elections will be held (paragraph 4) at a meeting of States Parties convened by the Secretary-General at the Headquarters of the United Nations. The persons elected to the Committee shall be those nominees who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives present and voting. Two-thirds of the States Parties shall constitute a quorum.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
79Measures Of Implementation8 The emoluments of members of the Human Rights Committee created by the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights will be paid from United Nations resources (Art. 35).9 The reporting system is one of the simplest and most generally accepted measures of imple-mentation in the field of human rights. Both Covenants (Part IV), the European Social Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights provide for reporting systems. For the ilo and unesco procedures see u.n. Docs. E/4144 and E/4133.By ecosoc Resolution 624 B (XXII) of 1 August 1956, Member States of the United Nations and Specialized Agencies were asked to report every three years on developments and progress achieved in the field of human rights. In 1962, non-governmental organizations having consultative status were invited to submit comments and observations (ecosoc Resolution 888 B. [XXXIV]. The Commission on Human Rights was to consider these reports. By ecosoc Resolution 1074 C (XXXIX), a new system was established in 1965, inviting The term of office of the members of the Committee will be four years (paragraph 5[a]). The term of nine of the members elected at the first election, chosen by lot, shall expire at the end of two years.For the filling of casual vacancies (paragraph 5[b]), the State Party whose expert has ceased to function as a member of the Committee shall appoint another expert from among its nationals, subject to the approval of the Committee. Proposals to allow members of the Committee to nominate alter-nates were disregarded.The last paragraph (6) of Article 8, establishing that States Parties shall be responsible for the expenses of the members of the Commission while they are engaged in the performance of their duties, gave rise to difficulties, and the Third Committee rejected by roll-call an amendment of Tanzania proposing that the expenses of the Committee be borne by the regular budget of the United Nations. It was alleged that it would not be in accordance with accepted practices of international law to impose upon States which were not parties to the Convention indirect responsibility for expenses incurred as a consequence of the Convention.8This problem is related to the more complicated question of the nature of the Committee. If States that do not become parties to the Convention do not have to share its expenses, then the Organization should also be free of the expenses involved in the services it has to provide according to Article 10 para. 3 and Article 12 para. 5. The States Parties to the Convention decided at their meetings in 1969 that the expenses of the members of the Committee would be shared equally until July 1970. For the following year, half of the expenses would be shared equally and half on the basis of the United Nations’ scale. A new scale would be calculated afterwards.The Committee (Article 9) will consider the reports9 that the States Parties undertake to submit to the Secretary-General on the legislative, judicial, Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
80Part 3 – chapter 4States to supply information in a three-year cycle covering the different kinds of rights. These reports were to be published and sent to the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities for study. ecosoc Resolution 1230 (XLII) established new arrangements for dealing with the reports. For the reporting system of the United Nations and the failure of the Commission on Human Rights and of the Sub-Commission in the performing of their tasks, see Professor John Humphrey’s above men-tioned Report to the 53rd Conference of the International Law Association, pages 5 et seq.10 An amendment, by Sudan, to delete the word “suggestions” and, thus, weaken even more the powers of the Committee, was rejected by a big majority in the Third Committee. Of course, the suggestions and general recommendations can only be made, in this system, to the States Parties and not to the General Assembly.11 On inter-State complaints procedure, see Art. 41 and 42 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Art. 24 of the European Convention; Art. 45 of the American Convention; Art. 26 of the ilo Constitution and Art. 12 of the unesco Protocol.administrative, or other measures that they have adopted and that give effect to the provisions of the Convention. Those reports will be submitted one year after the entry into force of the Convention for the State concerned and, there-after, every two years and whenever the Committee so requests. They will not be reports on the general situation in the field of human rights but on adopted measures. The Committee is entitled to request further information from the States Parties. It has no authority to request such information from other sources.The Committee shall report annually, through the Secretary-General, to the General Assembly on its activities and may make suggestions10 and general rec-ommendations based on the examination of the reports and information received. They will be reported to the General Assembly together with com-ments, if any, from States Parties.The Committee (Article 10) will adopt its own rules of procedure and elect its officers, for a term of two years. The Secretariat of the Committee shall be provided by the Secretary-General and its meetings will, normally, be held at Headquarters. The word “normally,” adopted as an amendment introduced by Tanzania, indicates that, when necessary and possible, the Committee may also hold meetings at other places.(b) Inter-State ComplaintsArticle 11 deals with complaints of one State Party against another.11 The word “complaint,” although originally proposed, is not used. The article says that if a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provi-sions of the Convention, it may bring the matter to the attention of the Committee. The Committee will transmit the communication to the State Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
81Measures Of Implementation12 The Israel representative, Judge Ben-Ito, suggested the addition of a sentence on the fol-lowing lines: “It will be presumed that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted unless the receiving State proves to the satisfaction of the Committee that domestic remedies exist which have not yet been used.”13 The same formulation is used in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Art. 41).14 For the interesting European practice with regard to the principle of exhaustion of domes-tic remedies, see H. Golsong, Implementation of International Protection of Human Rights, Rec. des Cours of the Hague Academy of International Law, 1963, III, pp. 1–151; J.E. S. Fawcett, Human Rights and Domestic Jurisdiction, in The International Protection of Human Rights, London, 1967, pp. 286–308. For the principle in the Convention, see P. Schaffer and D. Weisbrodt in Human Rights Journal, II.4, 1969, p. 632.Party concerned. Within three months the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and rem-edy, if any, that may have been adopted by the State.If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of the parties, within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter again to the Committee, giv-ing notice to the Committee and also to the other State. The Committee (para-graph 3) will only deal with a matter referred to it in accordance with such procedure after it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the case, in conformity with the generally recog-nized principles of international law.This provision created difficulty. Tanzania proposed the deletion of the whole of paragraph 3. This was rejected by the Third Committee. The Committee also decided to retain the word “domestic” after Tanzania asked for a separate vote on it.The use of the words generally recognized principles of international law also caused problems. Some delegations requested clarification of the method to be used to ascertain that “all available remedies” had been invoked and exhausted. The Israeli representative suggested placing the burden of proof of such exhaustion on the receiving State.12 The Third Committee solved this problem with the closing sentence in paragraph 3, according to which this determination will not be the rule where the application of the remedies is “unreasonably” prolonged.13The exhaustion of all available domestic remedies is a generally accepted principle, whose consideration is outside the scope of this study and which is intended to close the door to legal adventures. It is incorporated in Article 26 of the European Convention,14 Article 14 of the unesco Protocol, and in the 1969 American Convention.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
82Part 3 – chapter 415 A proposal of Mexico and Tanzania to delete this paragraph was rejected. See above, the remarks on the financial implications of the work of the Committee.When dealing with the matter referred to it, the Committee (paragraph 4) may call upon the States Parties concerned to supply any other relevant infor-mation. The States Parties concerned shall be entitled (paragraph 5) to send a representative to take part in the proceedings of the Committee while the mat-ter is under consideration. He will have no voting rights.(c) The Conciliation ProcedureArticles 12 and 13 refer to the ad hoc Conciliation Commission, which the Chairman of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination will appoint after the Committee has obtained and collated all the information it thinks necessary in a dispute.The Commission (Article 12, 1[a]) will comprise five persons who may or may not be members of the Committee, and who shall be appointed with the unanimous consent of the parties to the dispute. Its good offices shall be made available to the States concerned, with a view to an amicable solution to the matter, on the basis of respect for the Convention. If the States Parties to the dispute fail to reach agreement on all or part of the composition of the Commission within three months, the vacancies shall be filled by election, by a two-thirds majority vote by secret ballot of the Committee, from among its own members (paragraph 1[b]). Mexico proposed in the Third Committee that sub-paragraph 1[b] be deleted, but its proposal was rejected. The sub-para-graph is obviously inadequately worded.According to Article 12, the members of the Commission shall serve in their personal capacity, and shall not be nationals of the Parties to the dispute or of a State not Party to the Convention. The Commission shall elect its own Chairman and adopt its own rules of procedure. Its meetings will normally be held at Headquarters, or at any other convenient place as determined by the Commission. The Secretariat provided for the Committee will also serve the Commission. The expenses of the members of the Commission will be shared equally by the States Parties to the dispute, in accordance with estimates by the Secretary-General. A proposal by Tanzania that the expenses of the Commission be borne by the regular budget of the United Nations was rejected. But (Article 12, paragraph 7) the Secretary-General will be empowered to pay those expenses, if necessary, before reimbursement by the States Parties.15The last paragraph (8) of Article 12 provides that the information obtained and collated by the Committee shall be made available to the Commission, Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
83Measures Of Implementation16 As the Italian representative in the Third Committee indicated, the use of the word “com-munication” and not of the word “petition” was not merely a verbal precaution, since the measures envisaged, as the proposed treatment for such “communications,” were “very moderate” (A/C.3/SR.1357, p. 9).and the Commission may call upon the States concerned to supply any other relevant information.The third Committee rejected a proposal of Tanzania to add a new para-graph providing that the recommendations of the Commission shall be made public but not necessarily the evidence received by it in camera.The whole Article 12 was adopted by eighty-one votes to none, with six abstentions, in a roll-call vote requested by Mexico. The abstaining countries were Japan, Mexico, Sudan, United Arab Republic, Tanzania and Venezuela.Article 13 deals with the results of the work of the Commission. When the Commission has fully considered the matter, it shall submit to the Chairman of the Committee a report embodying its findings on all questions of facts rele-vant to the issue between the parties, and containing such recommendations as it may think proper for the amicable solution of the dispute. The report of the Commission will be communicated by the Chairman of the Committee to each of the States Parties to the dispute, and these States shall within three months inform the Chairman of the Committee whether or not they accept the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission, which are, of course, not mandatory for them.After the afore-mentioned period, the Chairman of the Committee shall communicate the report of the Commission and the declarations of State Parties concerned to the other States Parties.All the communications to the States Parties to the dispute, as well as to the States Parties to the Convention are, consequently, made by the Chairman of the Committee. The Commission is limited in its relationship with the States Parties to the request for the relevant information mentioned in Article 12, paragraph 8, in fine.Conciliation procedures for inter-State complaints are included in the Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (Article 42) in the unesco Protocol (Article 17), in the European Convention (Article 28 et seq.) and in the American Convention (Article 48 et seq.).(d) The Right of Petition by Individuals or GroupsThe right of petition—communications16 in the language of the Convention—by individuals or groups of individuals, is recognized by Article 14, the longest Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
84Part 3 – chapter 417 A/C.3/L.1308.18 A/C.3.1308/Rev.1.19 A/C.3/SR.1355, p. 10.in the whole Convention and a key Article in the set of measures of implementation.Article 14 was achieved with difficulty. The first text discussed was the one prepared by Ghana, Mauritania and the Philippines. A group of Latin American representatives proposed amendments to paragraph 2 to 5 of that text and a first revised new text17 was later submitted by Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, Mauritania, Panama, Peru and the Philippines. Lebanon proposed several amendments to this new text and, with a view to taking into account these amendments as well as opinions expressed during the discussion, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Mauritania, Panama, Peru and the Philippines presented a second revised text,18 to which the Committee still adopted amendments.Article 14 creates an optional system. As the representative of Ghana pointed out, it was necessary to reconcile the “sincere wish of many delegations to use the right of petition and communication as an effective weapon against dis-crimination” with the fact that many States “were jealous of their sovereignty and were reluctant to acknowledge that right.”19A State Party may at any time declare that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals, or groups of individuals, within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a viola-tion, by the State Party, of any of the rights set forth in the Convention. If a State Party has not made such a declaration, no communication concerning that State shall be received by the Committee.The significance of the recognition of the right of individual petition, or of petition by groups of individuals, even on an optional basis, is obvious. If such a right is not recognized, only States could complain when individual rights were violated. Historical experience shows that States are more than reluctant to complain against violations committed by other States—be the relations among them friendly or unfriendly—unless the rights of their own citizens are involved. Such complaints would be a source of international conflict, and would be denounced as interference in the domestic affairs of States, The recent European experience, which shows instances of State complaints, like those of the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden against Greece, which seem to be free of political motivations, is not enough to dispel the doubts in this field. Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
85Measures Of Implementation20 Golsong, op. cit., p. 141.21 See above, footnote 9.22 See ecosoc Resolution 1237 (XLII).23 Saudi Arabia (see A/C.3/L.1297) wanted the individual petitions to be dealt with only by a domestic “National Committee,” whose decisions could be appealed before a “national tribunal.” The amendment was withdrawn.“Depolitization” can only be ensured if the right of action does not lie solely with States.20While in the optional system no State can be forced to make the declaration recognizing the right of individual petition, international public opinion could certainly influence individual States inducing them to make such declarations. In any event, the Convention is a step forward.The individual right of petition is recognized in the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which restricts it only to individuals and does not grant it to organizations. Article 25 of the European Convention allows any person, nongovernmental organization or group of individuals to address petitions to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, if the State Party has recognized the competence of the Commission for such com-plaints. The American Convention provides that any person or group or non-governmental entity legally recognized may lodge petitions or complaints (Article 44).We have already mentioned the United Nations machinery created by ecosoc Resolution 888 B (XXXIV), its failure and the criticism raised against it, as well as the new procedure recommended by the Commission on Human Rights.21 A proposal of Costa Rica to create an office of a u.n. High Commissioner for Human Rights is on the agenda of the United Nations.22 The High Commissioner would have access to all communications concerning human rights addressed to the United Nations, including complaints by individuals and groups.The first paragraph of Article 14, as indicated, refers to communications from individuals or groups of individuals. There were proposals to refer to non-governmental organizations, but the words groups of individuals are quite gen-eral and comprehensive. Those individuals or groups should be within the jurisdiction of the accused State.Petitioners have not the right to submit their complaints to the Committee before going through a preliminary domestic procedure, established in paragraphs 2 to 5.23 According to this procedure, which was not followed by the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, a State which makes a declaration recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive communications Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
86Part 3 – chapter 4from individuals or groups of individuals, may establish or indicate a body, within its national legal order, which shall be competent to receive and con-sider petitions from individuals or groups of individuals. The use of the word may again underlines the optional character of the system. The peti-tion should be from individuals or groups within the jurisdiction of the State, who claim to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Convention.A pre-requisite for the submission of such petitions is that the individuals or groups should have exhausted “other available local remedies.” This should be interpreted as a reference to the normal internal legal order of the State.The declaration made by the State, and the name of any body established or indicated in accordance with the prescribed procedure, shall be deposited by the State Party concerned with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. Any State Party may withdraw a declaration at any time by notification to the Secretary-General, but such a withdrawal shall not affect communications pending before the Committee. Again the optional nature of the system is clearly determined.The body established or indicated shall keep a register of petitions, and cer-tified copies of the register shall be filed annually, through appropriate chan-nels, with the Secretary-General, on the understanding that the contents shall not be publicly disclosed.It is only when the petitioner fails to obtain satisfaction from the body established or indicated by the State Party, or when such a body does not exist, that he will have the right to communicate the matter to the Committee, within six months time. The Committee will then (paragraph 6(a)), confiden-tially, bring any communication referred to it to the attention of the State Party alleged to be violating any provision of the Convention. The identity of the individual or groups of individuals concerned shall not be revealed without his or their express consent, a rule that can hardly be observed in practice, and which is likely to be an obstacle to the clarification of the complaint. Its justifi-cation is the protection of the personal security of the petitioner.The Committee shall not receive anonymous communications. The receiv-ing State will have three months to submit to the Committee written explana-tions or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State.The Committee (paragraph 7) will consider the communications in the light of all information made available to it by the State Party concerned and by the petitioner. No communication will be considered unless the Committee has ascertained that the petitioner has exhausted all available domestic remedies. Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
87Measures Of Implementation24 The comments made on Art. 11(3) are applicable to Art. 14, paragraph 7(a). The Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Art.5) also expressly prevents con-sideration of communications that are being examined under another international procedure.25 This sub-paragraph, proposed as an amendment by Lebanon, was adopted in a roll-call vote, by 43 votes to 12, with 34 abstentions.26 A/C.3.1307/Rev.1.27 A/C.3/L.1307/Rev. 2 and 3.This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreason-ably prolonged.24Paragraph 7(b) of Article 14 says that the Committee shall forward its sug-gestions and recommendations, if any, to the State Party concerned and to the petitioner.25The Committee shall include in its annual report, mentioned in Article 9, a summary of the communications received and, where appropriate, a summary of the explanations and statements of the States Parties concerned and its own suggestions and recommendations.The last paragraph of Article 14, paragraph 9, introduced as an amendment by Sweden, provides that the Committee shall be competent to exercise its functions only when at least ten States Parties to the Convention are bound by declarations recognizing its competence.(e) Petitions of Inhabitants of Colonial TerritoriesArticle 15, which deals with petitions of inhabitants of Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories, raised many difficulties. It had its origin in a draft Article XIII bis proposed by Sudan, the United Arab Republic and the United Republic of Tanzania, to be inserted after Article XIII in the three-States draft. It was intended to make clear that no provisions in the Convention shall prevent the Committee established under Article 8 from accepting petitions from inhabit-ants of non-independent territories. A first revised text, referring to the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, was submitted by Mauritania, Sudan, the United Arab Republic and the United Republic of Tanzania.26Second and third revised texts27 were submitted jointly by twenty-two Afro-Asian countries, and further amended. An amendment of the United Republic of Tanzania to add a new paragraph, empowering the Committee to receive comments, complaints, statements, or other communications directly from the inhabitants of the territories mentioned in paragraph 2(a), was rejected in a roll-call vote, taken at the request of the United States of America, by Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
88Part 3 – chapter 428 Australia, Portugal and the United Kingdom voted against and Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Thailand, usa and Upper Volta abstained.29 Art. 87 of the Charter allows the General Assembly and the Trusteeship Council to accept petitions and examine them in consultation with the administering authority. forty-three votes to twenty-five. A roll-call was also taken at the request of the representative of the United Kingdom, on paragraph 2(a). It was adopted by seventy-six votes to three and twelve abstentions.28The whole Article 15 was adopted in a roll-call vote, requested by Tanzania, by eighty-three votes to two (Portugal and United Kingdom), with six absten-tions (Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, United States of America and Upper Volta).Paragraph 1 of Article 15 is intended to eliminate the doubts of those who alleged that this Article could be interpreted as a way of agreeing to the per-petuation of colonialism. That paragraph, which should be referred to Article 87 of the Charter,29 says that pending the achievement of the objectives of the General Assembly resolution concerning the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the provision of the Convention shall in no way limit the right of petition granted to these peoples by other international instruments or by the United Nations and its specialized agencies.Paragraph 2 caused several problems. The discussion in the Third Committee centred around the question of the right of the Committee to receive direct petitions from the inhabitants of colonial territories. The solu-tion adopted was that the Committee shall receive copies of the petitions from, and submit expressions of opinion and recommendations on these peti-tions to, the bodies of the United Nations which deal with matters directly related to the principles and objectives of the Convention, in their consider-ation of petitions from the inhabitants of Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories and all other territories to which the Declaration on the Granting of Independence applies, relating to matters covered by the Convention which are before these bodies.The Committee shall also receive from the competent bodies of the United Nations copies of the reports concerning legislative, judicial, administrative or other measures directly related to the principles and objectives of the Convention applied by the Administering Powers within the mentioned terri-tories. The Committee shall express opinions and make recommendations to these bodies. In its report to the General Assembly the Committee will include a summary of the petitions and reports it has received from United Nations Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
89Measures Of Implementation30 A/C.3/SR.1363, p. Th11.31 John Carey, “The United Nations’ Double Standard on Human Rights Complaints,” The American Journal of International Law, October 1966, p. 792–803, and U.N. Protection of Civil and Political Rights, Syracuse Univ. Press, New York, 1970.32 The Yugoslav representative in the Third Committee, A/C.3/SR.1363.bodies, and the expressions of opinions and recommendations of the Committee related to them. The Committee shall also request from the Secretary-General all information relevant to the objectives of the Convention, and available to him, regarding the mentioned territories.Critics of Article 15 asserted that it is of a discriminatory nature. For the representative of the United Kingdom Article 15 would establish two catego-ries, one of States which did not have colonial responsibilities and would have an option in the matter of petitions and a second one, of States with colonial responsibilities, that would constitute a sort of international second class, and its inhabitants would form a superior class. The consequence would be a higher standard of human rights in colonial territories than in the territories of States recognized as fully independent.30 In the note expressing a reservation to Article 15, the United Kingdom also indicated that the Article purported to establish a procedure applicable to the dependent territories of States, whether or not those States have become parties to the Convention.The difference of treatment between persons under trusteeship and citi-zens of the administering countries also existed before the adoption of the Convention. The Trusteeship Council, the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly and the Special Committees like the Committee of 24 on Colonialism and on Apartheid, conceded hearings to petitioners from other than Trust Territories, creating a “double standard” according to which complaints directed against colonial governments or against the South African govern-ment were widely publicized, while complaints submitted by individuals against their own governments in general were merely filed with the Secretariat and summarized for the Human Rights Commission.31This “double standard” was maintained in the Convention and was, accord-ing to its supporters, “necessary and justified on both legal and practical grounds.”32 The legal justification could be found in the fact that the Charter devotes a separate chapter to the non-independent territories “because it had been felt that their inhabitants needed the special protection of the world community.” As a practical matter, while racial discrimination existed in inde-pendent as well as in non-independent territories, it was practised most severely and felt most strongly in the non-independent territories.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
90Part 3 – chapter 433 The Italian representative, A/C.3/SR.1352.34 Op. cit., p. 1048 ff. See, infra, Part IV, Chapter V.(f) Legal Nature of the CommitteeWhen dealing with the financial implications of the establishment of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, we have referred already to the question of its legal nature. The rejection of the Tanzania amend-ment, proposing that the expenses of the Committee be borne by the United Nations, as well as the rejection (by fifty-five votes to twenty-two, with seven-teen abstentions) of another Tanzania amendment, proposing to replace the name of the Committee by “the United Nations Committee on Racial Discrimination,” seem to indicate that a majority considered that the Committee was not to be an organ of the United Nations in the technical sense of the word. In the discussion in the Third Committee it was even said that the Committee could not amend the Charter creating new organs of the United Nations.33On the other hand, Articles 8, paragrahs 3 and 4, Article 9, Article 10, para-graphs 3 and 4, Article 12, paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7, Article 14, paragraphs 3 and 4 and Article 15, paragraphs 2(a) and (b) show the close relationship between the Committee and the Organization in general. The reports to be submitted to the General Assembly according to Article 9, paragraph 2 are particularly conclusive.The Human Rights Committee created by Part IV of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is also not defined as an organ of the United Nations. Its relationship to the Organization is, however, still closer. Its members will receive emoluments from United Nations sources, on terms to be decided by the General Assembly (Art. 35). They, as well as the members of the ad hoc conciliation commissions, will be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of “experts on mission for the United Nations” (Art. 43).It is difficult to assume that the omission in the Convention of an Article like Article 43 of the Covenant should have the effect of depriving the members of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination of the immunities and privileges of experts on mission for the Organization, exposing them to a treatment based merely on courtesy. Of more significance, as a matter of prin-ciple, would be the difference as far as the financing of the two Committees is concerned.Schwelb, taking up this matter, believes34 that the Committee and the Commission are organs which form part of the Organization, in the same way as, for instance, the various drugs control organs or the International Bureau for Declarations of Death. He does not consider decisive the argument on Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
91Measures Of Implementation35 Golsong, op. cit., p. 65.financing and indicates that, naturally, the General Assembly is entitled to establish subsidiary organs. He suggests as a solution that the Committee be brought into relationship with the United Nations as a specialized agency under Articles 57 and 63 of the Charter.A similar discussion took place with regard to the nature of the Commission and the Court within the European system.35 As for the Inter-American sys-tem, the Commission was considered as an “autonomous entity” until the 1967 amendment of Article 112 of the Charter of the oas which incorporated the Commission as one of the organs of the Organization.3 Recourse to Other ProceduresArticle 16 states that the provisions of the Convention concerning the settle-ment of disputes or complaints shall be applied without prejudice to other procedures for settling disputes or complaints in the field of discrimination laid down in the constituent instruments of, or in conventions adopted by, the United Nations and its specialized agencies. They shall also not prevent the States Parties from having recourse to other procedures for settling a dispute in accordance with general or special international agreements in force between them.This Article is based on the text submitted by Ghana, Mauritania and the Philippines and was adopted after incorporating amendments proposed by New Zealand and Lebanon and accepted by the sponsors. A similar rule is con-tained in Article 44 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.The principle established in this Article should be interpreted liberally. If States Parties would prefer to have recourse to other procedures in force between them, the Convention would not be an obstacle to this. The same applies in the case of individuals or groups who prefer to seek international remedies other than the right of petition established in Articles 14 or 15, for instance individuals or groups of individuals within the jurisdiction of States bound by the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This Convention created an organ that is entitled to examine complaints, hear the States involved, and refer a case to the European Court of Justice. This procedure goes further than the one created by the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, and complaining individuals within the jurisdiction of States Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
92Part 3 – chapter 436 A rich literature exists on the European Convention on Human Rights and the organs cre-ated. See, inter alia, H. Golsong, op. cit.; F. Monconduit, op. cit.; K. Vasak, La Convention Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, Paris 1964; A. McNulty, “The Practice of the European Commission of Human Rights,” in Howard Law Journal, Symposium on the International Law of Human Rights, Spring 1965.37 For the Inter-American system of Human Rights see this writer’s “Human Rights in Latin America,” in Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 2, No. 1, London, January–February 1968, and D.V. Sandifer, “Human Rights in the Inter-American System,” Howard Law Journal. Spring 1965. The Convention will come into force upon ratification by 11 of the 23 Member States of the oas.that are parties to both Conventions could prefer the more comprehensive system.36The Convention would not prevent persons within the jurisdiction of American States from submitting communications to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which will take cognizance of these communica-tions for information purposes. The Commission was created in 1960 as an auton-omous entity of the Organization of American States, and was incorporated into its Charter in 1967, as one of the organs of the Organization. The Commission dealt with thousands of communications and, while it lacks enforcement power, it is a valuable even if imperfect instrument for the protection of human rights on a regional basis. A more comprehensive system of protection of human rights exists in America since the adoption, by the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights in San Jose, Costa Rica, 7–22 November 1969, of the American Convention on Human Rights, prepared by the Inter-American Council of Jurists. It includes, in addition to the Commission, a Court.37If the violation of the Convention is of such a nature that it is also covered by the ilo Convention Regarding Discrimination in Employment and Occupation, adopted in 1958, States Parties as well as employers’ and workers’ associations have recourse to the procedure whereby formal complaints can be filed against the violating State. Such complaints can be ultimately referred to the International Court of Justice and, if the State in question fails to comply with the Court’s decision, the Governing Body can ask the International Labour Conference to make the necessary recommendations.In the case of discrimination in the field of education, States Parties to the unesco Convention Against Discrimination in Education have recourse to the system of the Protocol Instituting a Conciliation and Good Offices Commission. The Commission will draw up a report indicating, where a solu-tion is not reached, its recommendation that the International Court of Justice be requested to give an advisory opinion on any legal question connected with a matter laid before the Commission.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
93Measures Of Implementation38 Op. cit., p. 1048.We have already compared the implementation system of the Convention with that of the Covenants and the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Schwelb38 remarks that Article 16, while making available to States Parties “other procedures” for settling a dispute, is silent on a similar recourse available to individuals. He is of the opinion, however, that it cannot have been the intention of the General Assembly and of the States Parties to affect the rights of the individual arising from other instruments.This seems to be the correct interpretation. Particularly after the adoption of the Covenants, it is apparent that no single machinery for the implementa-tion of the several human rights instruments can at this stage be created. Different machineries do exist, on the double level of different fields covered and the regional and universal level. None of these machineries goes far enough, and it could not have been the intention of the United Nations mem-bers, when drafting the Convention on Racial Discrimination, to impose a restrictive interpretation to Article 16.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi 10.1163/9789004279926_008chapter 5Final Clauses—ReservationsPart III of the Convention (Articles 17 to 25)1 is devoted to final clauses. Suggestions for final clauses were submitted to the Third Committee by its offi-cers, and were based on a working paper on final clauses2 prepared by the Secretary-General.1 Signature and RatificationArticle 17 has two paragraphs. According to paragraph 1 the Convention is open for signature by any State Member of the United Nations or member of any of its specialized agencies, by any State Party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by any other State which has been invited by the General Assembly to become a party to this Convention.Paragraph 2 says that the Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General.The text finally adopted follows closely the one submitted to the Third Committee by its Officers, who had before them seven alternative clauses sug-gested in the working paper prepared by the Secretary-General. Poland, con-sidering that it was legally not justified in limiting participation in the Convention only to those States mentioned in paragraph 1, proposed to replace it by a text opening the Convention for signature “by all States.” The amend-ment was voted on by roll-call and rejected by forty-one votes to thirty-two, with eighteen abstentions. Those opposing the Polish amendment invoked the other u.n. humanitarian conventions, such as those on the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons, on Political Rights of Women, on the Recovery Abroad, on Maintenance and on Slavery, which also contain the same restrictions.3 It was also said that many State Members would be unwilling to become parties to the Convention if, by doing so, they would have to enter into treaty relations with entities they did not recognize as States.Several countries expressed reservations to Article 17, paragraph 1—as well as to Article 22—because of the restrictions as to who may become a party to the Convention.1 For the full text, see Appendix 1.2 E/CN.4/L.679.3 The Covenants on Human Rights adopted in 1966 contain identical clauses.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
95Final Clauses—reservations2 AccessionAccording to Article 18, paragraph 1, the Convention shall be open to accession by any State referred to in Article 17, paragraph 1. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General (paragraph 2).Article 18 corresponds to the text suggested by the Officers of the Third Committee, who had before them three alternative texts included in the docu-ment prepared by the Secretary-General. Poland proposed to replace para-graph 1 by a text opening the Convention to accession “by any State which has not signed it.” The amendment was rejected in a roll-call vote by 43 to 29, with 19 abstentions. The clause as a whole was also voted on by a roll-call and adopted by seventy-six votes to twelve, with three abstentions.3 Entry into ForceArticle 19 deals with entry into force. The Convention was to enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit, with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the twenty-seventh instrument of ratification or instrument of accession. For each State ratifying this Convention or acceding to it after the deposit of the twenty-seventh instrument of ratification or instrument of accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or of accession.The final text differs from that prepared by the Officers of the Committee. It requires the deposit of twenty-seven instruments of ratification or acces-sion, instead of twenty as foreseen in the Officers’ draft. The Secretary-General, in his working paper, suggested five alternative texts on the number of ratifications and accessions and on the time limits required for entry into force. The reason why the sponsors of the final text wanted the Con-vention to enter into force after the deposit of the twenty-seventh rather than the twentieth instrument of ratification or of accession, was that they con-sidered it necessary to leave the States Parties more freedom of choice in appointing the eighteen experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.4 ReservationsArticle 20, on reservations, is one of the most controversial in the Convention, and was adopted at the General Assembly after the Third Committee had decided not to have such a clause.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
96Part 3 – chapter 54 A/L.479.Paragraph 1 refers to the procedure. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall receive and circulate to all States which are or may become par-ties to the Convention reservations made by States at the time of ratification or accession. Any State which objects to the reservation shall, within ninety days from the date of the said communication, notify the Secretary-General that it does not accept it.Paragraph 2 deals with reservations incompatible with the object and pur-pose of the Convention. Such a reservation shall not be permitted, nor shall a reservation be allowed the effect of which will inhibit the operation of any of the bodies established by the Convention. The Article does not define what kind of reservations should be considered incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, but determines that a reservation shall be consid-ered incompatible or inhibitive if at least two-thirds of the States Parties to the Convention object to it.According to paragraph 3, reservations may be withdrawn at any time by notification to this effect addressed to the Secretary-General. Such notification shall take effect on the date on which it is received.When the Secretary-General submitted his working paper with alternative final clauses, he drew the attention of the Commission on Human Rights to General Assembly resolution 598 (VI), of 12 January 1952, in which the Assembly recommended that organs of the United Nations should, when preparing mul-tilateral conventions, consider the insertion therein of provisions relating to the admissibility or non-admissibility of reservations. The Secretary-General proposed three alternative texts, the most extreme of which excluded the pos-sibility of reservations to the Convention.The Officers of the Third Committee submitted a text dealing with reserva-tions to any Article of the Convention. Poland proposed a different text that did not permit reservations to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Ghana, Mauritania and the Philippines also proposed to prohibit reservations to Articles 8 to 14. Finally, the Third Committee adopted, by twenty-five votes to nineteen, with thirty-four abstentions, a proposal of Canada to delete the whole clause on reservations.The reservation clause, as finally adopted, was introduced in the General Assembly on 21 December, the day when the Convention was adopted, as an amendment submitted by a large group of Afro-Asian States.4 It was adopted by a vote of eighty-two to four, with twenty-one abstentions.The delegate of Ghana, introducing the amendment, said that the absence of such a clause “could conceivably nullify the effect of the Convention ab Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
97Final Clauses—reservations5 A/PV.1406, p. 6.6 For the difficulties created by the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 21 May 1951, on the question of reservations to the Convention on Genocide, see Nehemiah Robinson, The Genocide Convention, ed. Institute of Jewish Affairs, New York 1960, pp. 35–39.initio.”5 After the adoption of the clause, the delegate of Colombia, declaring that his country would not ratify the Convention because of Article 4, criti-cized the amendment on reservations. Mexico announced that it would abstain from voting on the draft Convention as a whole because of the reserva-tion clause, but later reversed its position and voted in favour of the Convention. France, stating that it was the right of each State to decide on the acceptability of ratifications with reservations, opposed the two-thirds clause, which intro-duces “political elements” likely to inhibit the purposes of the Convention. Argentina opposed, too, the reservations clause, which her representative con-sidered “hastily” adopted, while Britain, though voting for the reservations clause, maintained her objections to Article 15. The usa considered that it would have been better for the Convention not to contain an Article on reser-vations and that, if there had to be one, it should provide for a judicial decision on the question of compatibility of a reservation.The system adopted by the Convention permits, consequently, reservations, but they may not be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, nor may they inhibit the operation of any of the bodies established by it. A two-thirds majority will have the power to determine when a reservation should be considered incompatible or inhibitive.6No clause on reservations is contained in the Covenants on Human Rights adopted in 1966, nor in the ilo Convention on Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation. By Article 9 of the unesco Convention Against Discrimination in Education, reservations to the Convention are not to be permitted.5 DenunciationAccording to Article 21, a State Party may denounce the Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General. Denunciation shall take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General. The clause, as adopted, follows the text submitted by the Officers of the Third Committee, who had before them four alternative texts.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
98Part 3 – chapter 57 Shabtai Rosenne, The World Court, A.W. Sijthoff, Leyden 1962, p. 76.6 Settlement of DisputesArticle 22 deals with the settlement of disputes between two or more States Parties over the interpretation or application of the Convention. When such disputes are not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in the Convention, the dispute shall be referred, at the request of any of the Parties, to the International Court of Justice for decision, unless the disputants agree to another mode of settlement.The Third Committee had before it a draft submitted by its Officers, who considered alternative texts suggested by the Secretary-General, including examples of clauses on arbitration, interpretation and settlement of disputes. The draft was amended, without objection, after a proposal of Ghana, Mauritania and the Philippines to introduce the phrase “or by the procedure expressly provided for in the Convention.” The Committee rejected a proposal of Poland intended to prevent what its representative called “the tacit recogni-tion of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.” The term “compulsory juris-diction” is, however, “misleading to the extent that it causes the voluntary nature of the acceptance of the jurisdiction to be overlooked.”7According to the system adopted, it suffices if any of the parties to a dispute requests that it be referred to the International Court. Poland’s rejected pro-posal was intended to replace the word “any” by “all.” The supporters of the clause as adopted made it clear that the consent of the parties was in any event given upon ratification of the Convention, and that it would be much more difficult to obtain the consent of States when a dispute already existed than when the Convention was opened for signature.Several countries expressed reservations to Article 22, considering that the consent of all parties to a dispute is necessary for referring it to the International Court of Justice. The reasons given in each case are summarized in Part IV, 2, when dealing with declarations and reservations.7 RevisionAny State Party may at any time request the revision of the Convention, accord-ing to Article 23. The State who wants to request such a revision shall address a notification in writing to the Secretary-General. The General Assembly shall decide upon the steps, if any, to be taken in respect of such a request.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
99Final Clauses—reservationsThe adopted text follows the one submitted by the Officers of the Third Committee. The Committee decided to retain the whole text after a separate vote had been taken, at the request of France, on the second sentence. The French delegate indicated that a decision on a request for revision of the Convention should be taken by the States Parties alone, and not by the General Assembly. The sentence was retained by forty-seven votes to twenty-one, with twenty-three abstentions.8 NotificationsArticle 24 imposes upon the Secretary-General the duty to inform all States referred to in Article 17, paragraph 1, of the following particulars:(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions under Articles 17 and 18;(b) The date of entry into force of this Convention under Article 19;(c) Communications and declarations received under Articles 14, 20 and 23;(d) Denunciations under Article 21.The final text does not refer expressly to reservations, as did the text submitted by the Officers of the Third Committee.9 Authentic TextAccording to Article 5, the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts of the Convention are equally authentic. The Convention shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations and the Secretary-General shall transmit certified copies to all States “belonging to any of the categories mentioned in Article 17, paragraph 1.” A Polish proposal to delete the words transcribed in quotes was rejected in the Third Committee.10 Omitted ClausesThe Third Committee did not adopt two final clauses submitted by its Officers. One declared that the Convention shall apply also to non-self-governing, trust, colonial or other non-metropolitan territories for the international relations of which any State Party is responsible. The second clause dealt with the cases of Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148
100Part 3 – chapter 5a Federal or non-unitary State. Poland proposed to delete both clauses, and the Third Committee so decided. The proposed federal clause was deleted by a vote of sixty-three to seven, with sixteen abstentions. The territorial applica-tion clause was deleted by a vote of seventy-six votes to three, with eight abstentions.Lerner, Natan. 2014. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination : Reprint Revised by Natan Lerner. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed April 4, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.Created from nyli on 2019-04-04 06:47:26.Copyright © 2014. BRILL. All rights reserved.
Annex 148