# data[].attributes.headline
Frament: Rights that are enjoyed or practiced

# data[].attributes.subject
Frament: Rights that are enjoyed or practiced

# data[].attributes.body
News 1: Turquía: La confrontación en torno al Orgullo de Estambul pone de manifiesto la amenaza para los derechos LGBTI

link: https://www.amnesty.org/es/latest/news/2023/06/turkiye-istanbul-pride-showdown-highlights-threat-to-lgbti-rights/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Esta temporada del Orgullo, la población LGBTI de Turquía se enfrenta a una represión creciente y sin paliativos, según ha manifestado Amnistía Internacional en vísperas de las marchas del Orgullo de Estambul y Esmirna, que se celebrarán el domingo pese a los intentos previstos de prohibirlas.

Los políticos -incluidos altos cargos del gobierno- han empleado lenguaje discriminatorio contra las personas LGBTI tanto antes como después de las recientes elecciones de Turquía, y a medida que avanza el Mes del Orgullo, se han impuesto restricciones y practicado detenciones en todo el país.

"Mientras miles de personas toman las calles de Estambul y Esmirna en señal de desafío, corren el riesgo de enfrentarse a gases lacrimógenos y balas de goma. Las autoridades deben permitir que las marchas del Orgullo LGBTI de Turquía se celebren de manera segura y sin injerencias", manifestó Nils Muižnieks, director de Amnistía Internacional para Europa.

"Al exacerbar la retórica anti-LGBTI, el gobierno ha contribuido a avivar los prejuicios, envalentonando a los grupos anti-LGBTI de Turquía, algunos de los cuales han hecho llamamientos a la violencia contra la población LGBTI. Con el pretexto de proteger los valores familiares, las autoridades niegan a las personas LGBTI el derecho a vivir libremente."

Desde 2015, se vienen prohibiendo sistemáticamente los actos del Orgullo en Turquía. En esta edición del Orgullo las autoridades ha reprimido incluso actos pequeños como pícnics y proyecciones de películas.

Aunque aún no se haya emitido una prohibición oficial del Orgullo de Estambul y Esmirna, los organizadores cuentan con que se emitirá o se impedirán las marchas. Estas actividades pacíficas ya se han interrumpido anteriormente, incluso sin una prohibición oficial, con el pretexto de proteger el orden público, y las autoridades han practicado detenciones arbitrarias.

El 18 de junio, la policía bloqueó el Orgullo Trans de Estambul y, recurriendo al uso excesivo de la fuerza, detuvo a 10 personas que intentaban marchar.

En semanas recientes se han practicado al menos 27 detenciones de activistas LGBTI en el país. El 9 de junio, 15 estudiantes de la Universidad Técnica de Oriente Medio fueron detenidos tras manifestarse pacíficamente al infringir la prohibición de facto que pesa sobre todos los actos LGBTI en Ankara.

En un discurso preelectoral, el presiente Erdoğan afirmó que "lo LGBTI e[ra] un veneno inyectado en la institución de la familia que no se p[odía] aceptar". En su discurso de victoria, dijo: "Nadie hablará en contra de la familia".

Al comienzo del año, el gobierno propuso modificar la Constitución turca para redefinir la "familia" como "la unión de un hombre y una mujer", lo que exacerbó la hostilidad contra las personas LGBTI. Las personas activistas LGBTI también temen que la modificación situé al país en un camino que aboque en la penalización de las relaciones entre personas del mismo sexo y la prohibición de las organizaciones LGBTI.

"La represión de los actos del Orgullo no tiene nada que ver con cuestiones de seguridad y orden público, sino con una agenda cada vez más contraria a la población LGBTI", afirmó Nils Muižnieks.

"Los actos del Orgullo se celebrarán pese a las restricciones y la constante reducción del espacio para las personas LGBTI en Turquía, y al posible hostigamiento e intimidación por parte del Estado. Les ofrecemos nuestra solidaridad en todo el mundo."

Información complementaria

Las marchas del Orgullo de Estambul y Esmirna se celebrarán el 25 de junio. Amnistía Internacional enviará sendos equipos para realizar tareas de observación.

Amnistía Internacional ha puesto en marcha la campaña global "Protejamos la Protesta" para mostrar solidaridad con el Orgullo en Turquía.

El Orgullo de Estambul se celebra desde 2003, pero las autoridades lo prohíben de forma ilegal y arbitraria desde 2015, vulnerando los derechos a la libertad de reunión pacífica y de expresión. La policía ha sometido al uso ilegítimo de la fuerza y a detención arbitraria a personas que se manifestaban pacíficamente.

En Mersin, Adana, Ankara y Eskisehir, el activismo LGBTI tiene previsto seguir adelante con los actos del Orgullo a pesar de las prohibiciones y restricciones.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Turquía: La confrontación en torno al Orgullo de Estambul pone de manifiesto la amenaza para los derechos LGBTI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Esta temporada del Orgullo, la población LGBTI de Turquía se enfrenta a una represión creciente y sin paliativos, según ha manifestado Amnistía Internacional en vísperas de las marchas del Orgullo de Estambul y Esmirna, que se celebrarán el domingo pese a los intentos previstos de prohibirlas.

# data[].attributes.body
News 1: Rights Violations in Iran May Be Crimes Against Humanity, UN Investigators Find

link: https://www.voanews.com/a/rights-violations-in-iran-may-be-crimes-against-humanity-un-investigators-find/7532558.html

# data[].attributes.body
News 1: Foregrounding Human Dignity Is Key to Protect Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Protected Areas

link: https://thechanzo.com/2024/03/21/foregrounding-human-dignity-is-key-to-protect-indigenous-peoples-rights-in-protected-areas/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Human dignity has long been a subject of great interest in various disciplines. It is widely considered the foundation of modern international law.

This explains why the United Nations Charter reaffirms the indispensability of respecting "the dignity of the human person" as a precondition to saving "succeeding generations the scourge of war, which... has brought untold sorrow to mankind."

Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), considered the most influential normative document in the world, confirms that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and that recognition of dignity is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace.

The inclusion of respect for human dignity in constitutions of countries from civil and common law traditions, accompanied by robust court jurisprudence generated by courts of records, is a testament to the UDHR's unparalleled normative influence and inspiration.

For example, Article 9(f) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977, as amended occasionally, obliges the state to ensure that "human dignity is preserved and upheld in accordance with the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

READ MORE: Indigenous Peoples Call for Delisting of Ngorongoro as World Heritage Property

Broadly, dignity entails respecting the inherent worth of every member of the human family and calls for treating everyone equally, irrespective of race, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.
Stock-taking exercise
However, as the world celebrates the International Day of Forests and the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, it is important to reflect on the perceived universality of human dignity, including the protection of equality and non-discrimination in the context of establishment and management of forests and other protected areas in Africa.

Three reasons justify the urgency of this stock-taking exercise. First, it aligns with the timeless advice of the Greek philosopher Socrates: "The unexamined life is not worth living."

Secondly, while human dignity is firmly grounded in authoritative international instruments and is currently inscribed in almost all national constitutions, protected areas legislation and their implementation underscore a growing body of evidence contending that lives of marginalised communities self-identifying as indigenous peoples all over the world are not valued the same way as the lives of mainstream communities concerning conservation, and this contravenes the assumed universality of human dignity.

Thirdly, the present reflection is crucial in today's revitalised concerns globally about conservation and Indigenous peoples' rights. The heightened concerns result from, among other things, a report submitted to the UN General Assembly, a body comprising heads of state and governments by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Jose Francisco Carlí Tzay, on July 19, 2022.

READ MORE: World Bank Will Investigate Human Rights Violations in the Bank-Funded REGROW Project in Tanzania

Titled 'Protected Areas and Indigenous Peoples' Rights: Obligations of States and International Organizations,' the report followed that by Mr Carlí Tzay's predecessor, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, titled 'Conservation and Indigenous Peoples' Rights ' dated July 29, 2016.

The 2016 report brings to the attention of heads of state and governments under paragraph 51, "large scale violations of the rights of indigenous peoples in the context of conservation measures", resulting from forceful evictions from their lands.

It lists the impacts of the forceful evictions to include "marginalisation, poverty, loss of livelihoods, food insecurity, extrajudicial killings, and disrupted links with spiritual sites and access to justice and remedy."

Unfortunately, these impacts disproportionally target communities on the margin, those self-identifying as indigenous peoples, hence calling to question and casting doubts on the perceived universality of human dignity, including protection of equality and non-discrimination.
Custodians of biodiversity
Paradoxically, as authors Marjo Lindroth and Heidi Sinevaara-Niskanen confirm, there is an overwhelming consensus globally that indigenous peoples play pivotal roles as custodians of global biodiversity. Hence, leaving them to steward their lands makes ecological sense rather than forcefully evicting them from it.

READ MORE: Villagers Clash With Rangers in Arusha's Mto wa Mbu. Two People Die

Building on the situation above, the current mandate holder UN Special Rapporteur Jose Francisco Carlí Tzay, while agreeing with the findings of his predecessor, adds under paragraph 18 of his 2022 report that "such violations have had particularly negative impacts on women and girls, who are primarily responsible for gathering food, fuel, water and medicine and are therefore exposed to risks of sexual violence at the hands of militarised security forces, park rangers and law enforcement."

He advances seven recommendations under paragraph 70 (a) to (g) for consideration by States. They include "applying a strict rights-based approach to creating or expanding existing protected areas." How can this be done in practice? I offer some suggestions in the paragraphs that follow.

Framework environmental protection legislation in most African countries contains key provisions on "principles of environmental management" to guide implementing and interpreting the laws in question. These provisions also mandate that the principles strictly guide anyone implementing the laws.

For example, South Africa's National Environment Management Act 1998 states in section 2(2) that "environmental management must place people and their needs at the forefront of its concern and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural, and social interests equitably."

In contrast, laws governing protected areas do not have similar "guiding principles," including a commitment to respecting human dignity. This finding is based on a comprehensive review of legislation for protected areas in six selected Southern and Eastern African countries.

READ MORE: Samia Irked by Activists Defending Indigenous Peoples' Right to Remain in Ngorongoro

The six countries this author studied are Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa for Southern Africa and Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda for Eastern Africa.

Since most of these countries' laws are available in English, the linguistic criterion is that the selection of the six countries is attributable to their being in the international limelight for allegations of indigenous peoples' rights violations in conservation.

For example, the UN Special Rapporteur's report indicates that most of these countries are "among the African countries in which large parts of the protected areas are located on the indigenous people's ancestral domains."
Human dignity
The choice of 'human dignity' as a reference framework underscores its foundational and all-encompassing usage under international human rights law, including equality and non-discrimination.

The choice is also premised on key findings of the two UN Special Rapporteurs' reports and numerous literature, which show that violation of human rights in the context of protected areas disproportionately targets indigenous peoples, hence implicating the perceived universality of human dignity as a foundation for equality and non-discrimination.

READ MORE: Biodiversity: Call of Action to Save Wildlife Corridors

A key finding of the study is that, unlike framework environmental legislation, most protected areas laws are human-dignity blind. The spirit of the laws in question is still largely the relics of the countries' colonial past. Consequently, the laws replicate the "Yosemite Model" of fortress conservation as evidenced by recurring forceful evictions of stewards of the lands.

Prof Esme Murdock describes the "Yosemite Model" that it aims to foster "incredible violence, hardship and harm not only through the loss of land through dispossession but also through the interruption of indigenous lifeways that are tied to the lands themselves."

Accordingly, to implement the UN Special Rapporteurs' recommendation mentioned above, here is a practical starting point: enshrining laws in all protected areas in Africa, reference to human dignity as an interpretive principle. A leaf can be borrowed from framework environmental laws in this case.

A model provision, to paraphrase section 7(3) of Tanzania's Environmental Management Act of 2004, would read like this, "in achieving the objectives of this Act, every person exercising powers under this Act shall observe the principle that everyone is entitled to respect for human dignity, including non-discrimination and equality, irrespective of one's race, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status."
Elifuraha Laltaika is a visiting professor at the Peter Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia, Canada, and a former UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues member. He can be reached at Elifuraha.laltaika@ubc.ca. The opinions expressed here are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect those of . If you are interested in publishing in this space, please contact our editors at editor@thechanzo.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Foregrounding Human Dignity Is Key to Protect Indigenous Peoples' Rights in Protected Areas - The Chanzo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The choice of 'human dignity' as a reference framework underscores its foundational and all-encompassing usage under international human rights law, including equality and non-discrimination.

# data[].attributes.body
News 1: Armenia and Azerbaijan: effective human rights protection of all persons affected by the conflict over the Karabakh region is key to the success of the peace process

link: https://www.coe.int/pt/web/commissioner/-/armenia-and-azerbaijan-effective-human-rights-protection-of-all-persons-affected-by-the-conflict-over-the-karabakh-region-is-key-to-the-success-of-the-peace-process

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Armenian and Azerbaijani authorities should ensure focus on human rights protection in their peace talks and establish strong human rights safeguards for all persons affected by the conflict", said the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, as she published her Observations following her visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan, including the Karabakh region, from 16 to 23 October 2023. It was the first time in decades that a human rights mission of this kind was able to visit the Karabakh region.

The visit was prompted by the mass displacement of over 101,000 Karabakh Armenians who fled to Armenia in the space of only a few days at the end of September. It followed Azerbaijan's military action on 19 and 20 September, its subsequent full control over the region and the prolonged disruption in the movement of people and access to essential goods, services and energy supplies experienced by Karabakh Armenians as a result of a nine-month blocking of the road along the Lachin corridor by Azerbaijan. In Armenia, the Commissioner spoke with Karabakh Armenians who had left and were staying in shelters provided by the authorities. In Khankendi (referred to as Stepanakert by Karabakh Armenians) in Azerbaijan, following the departure of its population, the Commissioner witnessed empty streets, abandoned premises and almost no sign of the presence of civilians. On the basis of what she could hear and see, the Commissioner concluded that at the end of September 2023, Karabakh Armenians found themselves abandoned without any reliable security or protection guarantees by any party, and that, for them, leaving home was the only reasonable option available.

While welcoming the efforts made by the Armenian authorities to provide all those in need who arrived from the Karabakh region with the first basic assistance, the Commissioner stressed that Karabakh Armenians who fled to Armenia, and in particular those belonging to vulnerable groups, should be guaranteed access to all necessary support in the immediate, medium and long term. "Council of Europe member states should maintain a focus on providing financial support to ensure that the humanitarian needs of displaced persons and their host populations can be fully met", added the Commissioner.

The Commissioner stressed that recently-displaced Karabakh Armenians in Armenia should be given the possibility of returning in safety and dignity - even if it seems hypothetical for most at the moment - including by finding flexible solutions, in particular as concerns their citizenship and legal status. Pending a possible return, ways should be promptly found, including by establishing security guarantees, for Karabakh Armenians to temporarily access their homes or places of habitual residence, and visit graveyards where loved ones are buried. It is incumbent on the Azerbaijani authorities to ensure that property left behind by Karabakh Armenians is protected from looting, theft or being taken over. The few ethnic Armenians who have stayed in the Karabakh region should also benefit from all human rights protection, including by having their freedom of movement secured.

Welcoming the steps taken by the Azerbaijani government to facilitate the return of internally displaced persons to the Karabakh region, the Commissioner expressed the hope that all internally displaced persons who so wish will be able to return as soon as possible in safety and dignity. More generally, the Commissioner stressed that all persons displaced by the long-lasting conflict have the right to return to their homes or places of habitual residence voluntarily and under conditions of safety and dignity, regardless of whether they have been displaced internally or across borders.

"All allegations of breaches of international humanitarian law and serious human rights violations reported in relation to the conflict need to be effectively and promptly investigated, the perpetrators brought to justice and if found guilty after a fair, independent and impartial trial, sentenced and punished. This includes allegations relating to the circumstances of the blocking of the Lachin corridor, the mass displacement of Karabakh Armenians and the military operation of 19 to 20 September", said the Commissioner. She added that this must be done through a victim-centred approach that treats the victims and their families with sensitivity and compassion. A comprehensive approach to dealing with the past and addressing the serious human rights violations committed in the context of the conflict over the Karabakh region should also be put in place.

Other human rights issues addressed in the Commissioner's Observations include the need to protect people from mines and explosive remnants of war; the situation of persons detained in connection with the conflict, including the conditions of their detention and level of contact with their families; and the importance of clarifying the fate of missing persons throughout the region and to provide answers to their families. Lastly, the Commissioner called on the authorities in both countries to combat hate speech and promote mutual understanding and trust, including by involving civil society in establishing human rights-compliant memorialisation and reconciliation processes.

Strasbourg

Diminuer la taille du texte

Augmenter la taille du texte

Imprimer la page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Armenia and Azerbaijan: effective human rights protection of all persons affected by the conflict over the Karabakh region is key to the success of the peace process

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Observations "Armenian and Azerbaijani authorities should ensure focus on human rights protection in their peace talks and establish strong human rights safeguards for all persons affected by...

# data[].attributes.body
The easiest category to find was the rights that are being violated. There is a lot of violence and political problems right now. So there is a lot of examples that reflect this violence.

The hardest was the rights that are enjoyed. I think that this category falls under the assumption that these fragments are for the already priviledge people and mostly the information that I could find was about the LGBTQ community.

As I mentioned before, we are under a lot of violence. There are several cases every day that show the horrific situation that people are living. Specally in the Middle East for some years now and also newer cases from Ukraine, Israel and Palestine.

In every article I opened, most of the articles were referenced to the human rights but that exact word was not used. Words like violation, problem, affair and confrontation were used instead. I think this effect is caused by the difference in opinion between the readers. There is so much misleading information that society has a lot of sides and to be aquainted as a neutral newscast, people are afraid what to say.

In Mexico, the most concerning problem is the violence against the female sex. There are daily cases of these violence that the “mexicanas” suffer every day. Mexican society is still far away to fully comprehend the damage we are causing and the effects that will carry on for the future years.

As for the ones that are taking initiative, the non-gubernamental organizations such as ONU, UNESCO, HRF, Save the Children and many more are taking action. But for the most part, the counterparty of each country is having a rebellion against the way the country is being controlled. These people suffer it everyday and they are the ones that are making the most noise. This is the exposure we need for Organizations to come in and intervene.

# data[].attributes.body
News 2: Alarming increase of human rights violations against Palestinians in the occupied territory and against Palestinian citizens of Israel

link: https://www.fidh.org/en/region/north-africa-middle-east/israel-palestine/alarming-increase-of-human-rights-violations-against-palestinians-in

# data[].attributes.body
News 2: Protecting the human rights of sex workers

link: https://www.coe.int/nb/web/commissioner/-/protecting-the-human-rights-of-sex-workers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Umbrellas at a sex workers demonstration with the slogan: "Only rights can stop the wrongs". ©Juno Mac

The lived realities of sex workers across Europe raise serious human rights concerns. It is crucial to approach this important and complex issue with a full understanding of the human rights consequences of the experience of high levels of violence and inadequate protection from law enforcement and the justice system; stigma; and multiple layers of discrimination that result in isolation and limited access to essential services, including housing and healthcare. All these factors pave the way for a persistent culture of impunity for crimes committed against sex workers, which in turn leads to even more violence.

After having consulted with sex workers across Europe, their representative organisations, relevant international organisations and experts, I call for an approach to sex work[1] that is firmly based on human rights and focuses on the effective protection of sex workers' rights, prioritising their safety, agency and bodily autonomy over stereotypes and misconceptions. Sex workers, like all individuals, are entitled to protection against discrimination based on their occupation. They should have equal access to basic human rights, services, and legal protections, regardless of their chosen profession.
Exposure to violence and inadequate protection from law enforcement and the justice system
Across the continent, sex workers often face high levels of violence and abuse. This is mainly due to their marginalisation and unsafe working conditions, as well as harmful attitudes which persist in society. Violence can take different forms, ranging from verbal abuse and threats, stalking and harassment, including online, to robberies, physical attacks, rape and sexual violence, hate crimes and even killings. For the same reasons, sex workers are also at high risk of falling prey to other serious human rights violations such as trafficking in human beings and exploitation.

In many member states, there is a lack of official disaggregated records that would allow the identification and numbering of violent crimes committed against sex workers. The available data is largely based on information shared by NGOs to which sex workers report incidents confidentially to warn others. According to the available information, the range of perpetrators varies. In many countries, sex workers report that police and law enforcement authorities may themselves engage in or perpetuate violence against them. Cases of police harassment and heavy-handed policing against sex workers are reportedly so common that sex workers tend to see the police as a threat rather than guardians of their safety and most have little trust in the police's ability or willingness to protect them. Sex workers are also often reluctant to report violence and other human rights violations that they have been subjected to or witnessed due to fear of stigmatisation, prosecution, sanctions, or deportation, even in countries where the sale of sexual services itself is not illegal. Therefore, authorities should prioritise the protection of sex workers by ensuring they can report crimes without fear of legal repercussions, and that those who perpetrate violence against them are held accountable.

As noted by GREVIO, the monitoring body of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention), harmful stereotypical attitudes also persist in prosecution services and the judiciary, based on notions implying that " only innocent women and girls can be victims of rape ", which may adversely impact decisions taken in the justice system with respect to sex workers.
Stigmatisation and multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination
Sex workers suffer from the persistent stigma of sex work as shameful and dishonourable. The ensuing high level of socially accepted disrespect, intimidation and discrimination on the basis of their perceived failure to conform to social and gender-based norms of sexual behaviour is obstructive to their efforts to lead self-determined lives. Stigmatisation often leads to sex workers hiding their involvement in sex work and living under constant fear of being outed and exposed to public shaming for themselves and their families. It also prevents them from obtaining adequate health services and can influence their access to housing, education, or childcare.

Particularly concerning is the human rights situation of sex workers who belong to groups facing multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination, including migrants, persons facing racial discrimination, transgender (trans) people or persons with disabilities or long-term illnesses. The way their identities or status are perceived place them in a situation of even more acute isolation and helplessness. Persons belonging to these groups are often already marginalised in society and have difficulties in accessing the regular labour market.
Criminalisation of sex work
In many countries, sex work or the involvement by third parties, i.e., the so-called "procurement services", such as the purchase of sex, "pimping", "brothel-keeping", renting out flats to sex workers and advertising, is criminalised or such criminalisation is being considered. Available evidence submitted by international human rights organisations, relevant UN bodies and the accounts from sex workers themselves indicate, however, that the protection of sex workers and their rights cannot be assured via the criminalisation of sex work.

In 2016, the UN Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice ("the UN Working Group"), noted that criminalisation of women in sex work "places them in a situation of injustice, vulnerability and stigma and is contrary to international human rights law." It underscored that the enforcement of punitive provisions to regulate women's control over their own bodies, such as those governing sex work, is a severe and unjustified form of state control and infringes women's dignity and bodily integrity by restricting their autonomy to make decisions about their own lives and health.

According to sex workers' organisations and rights defenders, the criminalisation of third parties - even in the absence of criminalisation of sex work itself automatically and directly affects sex workers themselves as their working space overall becomes criminalised, with increased stigmatisation of their work and greater risks of violence. In this respect, the European Court of Human Rights ("the Court"), in its admissibility decision in the case of M.A. and others v. France, found that the applicants, 261 people of various nationalities lawfully engaged in sex work in France, were entitled to claim victim status under the European Convention on Human Rights. In this case, the applicants claim that the 2016 French law, which criminalises the purchase of sexual relations between consensual adults, pushes them to work in a clandestine manner and in isolation, exposing them to greater risks for their physical integrity and lives. They also claim that it affects their freedom to define how they live their private lives, in violation of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture) and 8 (right to private and family life) of the Convention. The judgment of the Court on whether such violations occurred is pending.

The results of a survey of 185 individuals engaged in sex work across England in 2019 and 2020 show that third-party criminalisation also has an impact on persons such as family, friends, and colleagues who wish to provide assistance to sex workers. In this respect, Front Line Defenders found that such laws further endanger and undermine the work of human rights defenders, including those carrying out anti-trafficking work, as they make it dangerous or illegal for activists to organise health and human rights outreach in brothels or to contact victims for fear of being arrested and accused of criminal activity.

In 2023, the UN Working Group found that "there is now sufficient evidence on the harms of any forms of criminalisation of sex work, including criminalisation of clients and 'third parties' related activities".
Sex work in relation to sexual exploitation and trafficking in human beings
As also recently pointed out by the UN Working Group, highly polarised views on the relationship between sex work, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation, feminism and human rights have restricted any real progress in protecting the human rights of sex workers.

The argument, often advanced in favour of the criminalisation and suppression of sex work, or some aspects of it, which equates sex work involving consenting adults with violence against women, disregards the distinction between sex work and violence in sex work. It also disregards the fact that gender-based violence is already criminalised and that member states are under the human rights obligation to prevent and combat this form of violence, whether the victims are engaged in sex work or not. In addition, it overlooks the diversity of people who engage in sex work and of their lived realities and contexts, without respecting their autonomy and agency in making choices about their bodies and lives.

GREVIO has noted that the Istanbul Convention does not define sex work (prostitution) in itself as a form of violence against women. Instead, it focuses on the support and protection of women who engage in sex work for any instances of gender-based violence that they may experience. In this line, GREVIO has called on states to take into account in their policies and measures addressing violence against women, the specific risk of multiple and intersectional discrimination to which women sex workers are exposed, as well as their challenges in accessing general and specialist support services, including access to shelters. In the same line, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have stressed that the conflation of human trafficking with sex work can result in over-reaching initiatives that can make sex workers and people who have been trafficked more vulnerable to violence and harm. In addition, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that such approaches are successful in addressing trafficking in terms of preventing, identifying and protecting victims and supporting the prosecution of perpetrators.

As far as third-party criminalisation is concerned, proponents argue that such legislation reduces demand, helps decrease the volume of sex work overall and contributes to the fight against gender-based violence and human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation. However, there are consistent reports showing that, in some states, not only have commercial sexual services not been reduced but they have possibly even increased in the period following the criminalisation. Moreover, several anti-trafficking organisations, including the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women and La Strada International, consider that the criminalisation of the purchase of sex has no proven impact on preventing and combating human trafficking and may even undermine the identification of victims of trafficking among sex workers and their protection.

These divisive debates and misconceptions also stem from the lack of consultation of the major stakeholders. The sex workers and their representatives I spoke with explained to me that they are either not consulted at all before decisions concerning their work and lives are taken or, even when they are consulted, their views are not seriously considered.
Multiple barriers in accessing rights
A human rights based approach to sex work also means that access to rights of sex workers should be proactively facilitated, whether it concerns access to shelter for victims of violence or trafficking in line with the relevant Council of Europe standards or access to social rights, including health, housing, education and labour rights.

As already stated in the Commissioner's Issue Papers on the right to health and on women's sexual and reproductive health and rights in Europe, sex workers face important obstacles to securing their right to health, despite their increased health care needs. This results in significantly diminished health outcomes. Alarmingly, sex workers across Europe also face a range of coercive practices and confidentiality infringements that undermine their sexual and reproductive health and rights, with many member states still failing to take effective measures to ensure their equal and unhindered access to these rights.

Even where sex work is not criminalised, the regulation of sex work in some countries can be so restrictive that it causes harm to sex workers' access to rights and results in most sex work occurring outside the legal framework. This means that sex workers are at risk of sanctions or fines, similar to countries where sex work is criminalised. In Greece, for instance, specific requirements such as being "single, divorced, or widowed" and adhering to regular health testing to work in the few licensed brothels have reportedly resulted in most sex work taking place illegally. Sex workers' rights defenders report that mandatory health checks in such regulatory models are often perceived as a violation of sex workers' human rights. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has expressed concern over the mandatory character of health tests for sex workers in Austria, which are carried out by public health officials and have to be paid for in some provinces. In Germany, the extensive and complex regulations in place are reported to lead to the repression and exclusion of many sex workers, in particular migrants, trans people, and otherwise particularly marginalised individuals.

As regards access to employment and labour rights, the particularly high proportion of migrants, trans people and persons with disabilities or long-term illnesses among sex workers appears to reflect the considerable difficulties of persons with specific needs in finding alternative gainful employment that is suited to their conditions. While some member states offer support structures to help those sex workers who wish to find alternative employment, access to these support mechanisms is reportedly often difficult, particularly for the most marginalised sex workers, as support is often subject to special conditions and inadequate. To facilitate access to labour rights and social protection systems for sex workers, all support measures should centre around the sex worker's specific needs and situation, including with respect to adequate financial support and access to relevant education services.

In a landmark change in legislation adopted in consultation with sex workers, Belgium became the first European country to decriminalise sex work in 2022. As a result, sex workers became able to legally work as self-employed workers and build up social rights. Since summer 2023, a new law has extended labour rights also to sex worker employees, including rules around working hours and payment, the right to refuse clients and the mandatory availability of emergency buttons in every room. The new law also decriminalises third parties, who will no longer be penalised for opening a bank account for sex workers or renting out accommodation, and it allows sex workers to advertise their services.
The way forward: a human rights based approach
Council of Europe member states should adopt a human rights based approach to sex work. Such an approach must ensure sex workers' protection from violence and abuse, their equal access to health and other social rights, as well as their rights to private life and to participate in public and political life.

All policy measures must consider the distinctive exposure of sex workers to discrimination, including on intersecting and multiple grounds, such as ethnic origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics, migration status and disability.

Member states should take action to ensure that everyone can enjoy access to an adequate standard of living, health and education, to safe and non-exploitative work environments, as well as to guarantee equal access to social protection and to the full range of other social rights.

Member states should also strengthen training programmes for law-enforcement officials, judicial authorities, public health professionals and social services on the need to address stigma against sex workers and to protect sex workers' rights, to guarantee equal access to these services, while promoting the implementation of programmes that eliminate prevailing stigma against sex workers in society.

A human rights based approach also means that consensual sexual relations between adults for remuneration should not be criminalised. Criminalisation and the enforcement of punitive provisions against sex workers, clients or third parties has significantly reduced sex workers' access to rights and essential services and has led sex workers to live and work in a clandestine manner and in isolation, in fear of the justice system. Conversely, decriminalisation of consensual adult sex work has had positive effects on the safety of sex workers and on their access to social protection and health services, resulting in improved health outcomes. The UN working Group also noted that a decriminalised framework is most conducive to the protection of sex workers' rights to participate in public and political life.

Consensual adult sex work should not be conflated with violence against women or trafficking in human beings. Instead, sex workers should be protected from violence, human trafficking and exploitation. As noted by Amnesty International, the decriminalisation of sex work does not mean the removal of laws that criminalise exploitation, human trafficking or violence against sex workers. On the contrary, these laws must remain, and should be strengthened. To better address the protection needs of victims of human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation and of gender-based violence, whether or not they are engaged in sex work, member states must ensure that their laws are in line with the European Convention on Human Rights (in particular, Article 2 on the right to life, Article 3 on the prohibition of torture and Article 4 on the prohibition of slavery) as interpreted by the Court, and with the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and the Istanbul Convention, and effectively implement them in accordance with the recommendations provided by their respective monitoring bodies.

Finally, no-one can speak better for sex workers than sex workers themselves, no-one knows the environment better, nor the reasons that lead individuals to engage in sex work. For effective and truly empowering and protective human rights based policies to be developed and implemented, it is indispensable that greater attention and visibility is given to their voices and rights. To do so, sex workers in all their diversities and their representative organisations must be duly consulted and included in the policy-making process, as their experiences and perspectives are essential for developing effective policies and interventions that support their human rights and dignity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Protecting the human rights of sex workers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human Rights Comment Umbrellas at a sex workers demonstration with the slogan: "Only rights can stop the wrongs". ©Juno Mac The lived realities of sex workers across Europe raise serious human rights concerns.

# data[].attributes.body
News 2: Empowering women in fragile and conflict-affected states: navigating land rights and protections from violence

link: https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/developmenttalk/empowering-women-fragile-and-conflict-affected-states-navigating-land-rights-and

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Empowering women in fragile and conflict-affected states: navigating land rights and protections from violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Implementing women's land rights in practice: A challenge in fragile and conflict-affected situations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fragment: Rights that are enjoyed or practiced

# data[].attributes.subject
Fragment: Rights that are enjoyed or practiced

# data[].attributes.body
News 2: El acceso al aborto es un derecho humano

link: https://www.hrw.org/es/news/2022/06/28/el-acceso-al-aborto-es-un-derecho-humano

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
El acceso al aborto seguro y legal es una cuestión de derechos humanos y su disponibilidad es la mejor forma de proteger la autonomía y reducir la mortalidad y morbilidad maternas ¿El aborto es una cuestión derechos humanos?
El acceso al aborto seguro y legal es una cuestión de derechos humanos. Diversas interpretaciones reconocidas del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos consideran que negar a las mujeres, niñas y otras personas embarazadas el acceso al aborto constituye una forma de discriminación y atenta contra una variedad de derechos humanos. Los órganos creados en virtud de tratados de derechos humanos de las Naciones Unidas hacen llamados periódicos a los gobiernos para que despenalicen el aborto en todos los casos, y para que, como mínimo, garanticen el acceso al aborto seguro y legal en algunas circunstancias.
¿Cuáles son las consecuencias de derechos humanos de restringir o prohibir el acceso al aborto?
Los países tienen la obligación de respetar, proteger y hacer realidad los derechos humanos, incluidos los relativos a la salud y la autonomía sexual y reproductiva. Cuando los servicios de aborto seguros y legales están restringidos sin justificación o no se encuentran plenamente disponibles, esto puede poner en riesgo una variedad de otros derechos humanos protegidos internacionalmente, que incluyen el derecho a no sufrir discriminación y a la igualdad; a la vida, la salud y la información; a no sufrir tratos crueles, inhumanos o degradantes; a la privacidad y la autonomía e integridad física; a decidir sobre número y espaciamiento de hijos; a la libertad; a disfrutar de los beneficios del avance científico, y a la libertad de conciencia y religión.

Estos derechos se establecen en la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos y se protegen a través de numerosos tratados internacionales, como el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (PIDESC), el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos (PIDCP), la Convención contra la Tortura (CCT), la Convención sobre la Eliminación de Todas las Formas de Discriminación contra la Mujer (CEDAW) y la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño (CDN), así como en tratados regionales en África, América y Europa.

Por casi dos décadas, Human Rights Watch ha documentado el menoscabo para los derechos humanos que supone la restricción o prohibición del acceso al aborto en países de todo el mundo, incluidos EE. UU., Ecuador, Argentina, Brasil, la República Dominicana e Irlanda.
¿Cuál es la postura de Human Rights Watch con respecto al aborto?
Human Rights Watch entiende que los derechos reproductivos son derechos humanos, incluido el derecho a acceder al aborto. Los Estados tienen la obligación de brindar a mujeres, niñas y otras personas embarazadas acceso al aborto seguro y legal como parte de sus responsabilidades centrales de derechos humanos.

Como lo ha explicado Human Rights Watch a través de memoriales presentados en calidad de amicus curiae ante altos tribunales en todo el mundo -desde Brasil y Colombia hasta Corea del Sur y, más recientemente, con organizaciones asociadas en Estados Unidos - el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos y la jurisprudencia relevante abonan la conclusión de que las decisiones sobre aborto corresponden únicamente a la persona embarazada, sin injerencia ni restricciones irrazonables por parte del Estado o de terceros.
¿El derecho a la vida se encuentra en riesgo cuando se restringe o prohíbe el acceso al aborto?
Sí. Restringir legalmente el aborto a menudo provoca que haya más abortos practicados de manera ilegal, que pueden resultar inseguros y generar una mayor mortalidad y morbilidad maternas. Como resultado, la falta de acceso al aborto seguro y legal pone en riesgo las vidas de las personas embarazadas.

La Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) ha indicado que las complicaciones en el embarazo y el nacimiento son la causa principal de muerte de niñas y mujeres jóvenes de entre 15 y 19 años, y que las niñas de entre 10 y 14 años tienen un mayor riesgo de sufrir problemas de salud y de muerte debido al embarazo que las personas adultas. La OMS también ha concluido que eliminar las restricciones al aborto redunda en una reducción de la mortalidad materna.

El Comité de Derechos Humanos (CDH) de la ONU, que monitorea el cumplimiento por los estados del PIDCP, ha señalado la relación entre leyes restrictivas de aborto y amenazas a la vida de las mujeres y las niñas. Ha aclarado en forma expresa que los Estados Parte no pueden regular el acceso al aborto de un modo que obligue a las personas embarazadas a recurrir a abortos inseguros, y que los Estados deben garantizar el acceso seguro, legal y efectivo al aborto para prevenir riesgos para la vida y la salud de las personas embarazas, y para asegurar que no sufran dolor ni padecimientos profundos, particularmente en casos en los que el embarazo sea resultado de violación sexual o incesto, o el embarazo sea inviable.
¿Las políticas restrictivas sobre aborto reducen las tasas de aborto?
Las restricciones al aborto no impiden que haya abortos. Múltiples investigaciones demostraron que cuando se prohíbe o se restringe el aborto, la cantidad de abortos no disminuye. Los abortos simplemente pasan a ser clandestinos. Esto aumenta el riesgo de procedimientos inseguros y de que se denuncie a las personas a la policía o se las procese penalmente en relación con presuntos abortos.

La tasa de abortos inseguros es casi 45 veces mayor en países con leyes sobre aborto sumamente restrictivas que en los países donde el aborto es legal y no existen restricciones a esa práctica.

Las políticas restrictivas sobre aborto expulsan a las personas embarazadas que intentan obtener abortos, sobre todo aquellas que viven en la pobreza o en zonas rurales, del sistema de salud y las obligan a recurrir a entornos inseguros y sin regulación. La OMS también ha señalado que la falta de acceso a una atención del aborto segura, asequible, oportuna y respetuosa, así como la promoción del estigma asociado con el aborto, pone en riesgo de por vida el bienestar físico y mental de quienes solicitan abortos.
¿Quiénes se verán más perjudicados por las restricciones al acceso al aborto?
Es probable que no todas las personas embarazadas experimenten de igual manera los perjuicios para los derechos humanos y la salud que implican las restricciones al aborto. Las personas jóvenes y los grupos marginados, incluidas las personas negras, indígenas y otras personas de color, las personas que viven en la pobreza económica y las minorías sexuales y de género tienen más probabilidades de resultar perjudicadas. El Comité de Derechos Humanos de la ONU ha determinado que la falta de disponibilidad de información y servicios de salud reproductiva, incluido sobre aborto, menoscaban el derecho de las mujeres a no ser discriminadas.

El Comité de Derechos Humanos de la ONU, como así también el Comité para la Eliminación de la Discriminación contra la Mujer, también ha destacado que las restricciones al aborto generan una práctica desproporcionada de abortos ilegales e inseguros entre mujeres de sectores pobres y rurales o mujeres que no pueden viajar fuera de una jurisdicción donde se prohíbe el aborto. El Comité de los Derechos del Niño también ha señalado que las leyes punitivas sobre aborto violan el derecho de las niñas a no ser discriminadas.

Incluso en contextos en los que, técnicamente, el aborto es legal, la presencia de restricciones severas puede hacer que resulte inaccesible para las personas de sectores marginados. Esto obliga a las personas embarazadas, sobre todo de grupos marginados, a buscar oportunidades de abortos inseguros y clandestinos y exponerse a sanciones penales o civiles, incluso si sus circunstancias se encuadran en los supuestos en los cuales el aborto está permitido legalmente.

Asimismo, el Comité de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales ha destacado que "[h]ay muchas leyes, políticas y prácticas que socavan la autonomía y el derecho a la igualdad y la no discriminación en el pleno disfrute del derecho a la salud sexual y reproductiva, por ejemplo la penalización del aborto o las leyes restrictivas al respecto". También señaló que las restricciones al aborto afectan en particular a las mujeres que viven en la pobreza o que tienen un menor nivel o ningún tipo de educación formal. En este sentido, seis expertos de la ONU expresaron en un comunicado de prensa conjunto de 2015 que, en El Salvador, "la prohibición absoluta del aborto afecta en mayor medida a las mujeres pobres".
¿Qué ha señalado la ONU sobre la falta de acceso al aborto y su criminalización?
Los órganos de tratados, que monitorean el cumplimiento de los países con los tratados relevantes y que informan u orientan sobre derechos humanos relacionados con temas o países específicos, han instado de manera constante a que se despenalice el aborto y se asegure la plena efectivización de los derechos sexuales y reproductivos, incluido el acceso al aborto seguro y legal.

Algunos ejemplos de declaraciones de estos mecanismos relacionadas con el aborto incluyen:

El Comité CEDAW, que monitorea el cumplimiento de la CEDAW, indicó que:

Los abortos en condiciones de riesgo son una de las principales causas de morbilidad y mortalidad materna. Por este motivo, los Estados deberían legalizar el aborto, cuando menos en casos de violación sexual, incesto, amenazas a la vida y/o salud de la mujer embarazada o malformación fetal grave, y además brindar a las mujeres acceso a servicios de atención de calidad después de un aborto, especialmente cuando se presenten complicaciones a raíz de un aborto en condiciones de riesgo. Los Estados Partes deberían además eliminar las medidas punitivas para las mujeres que se someten a abortos.

El comité ha formulado recomendaciones similares a numerosos gobiernos, paralelamente a evaluar su cumplimiento del tratado. Estas recomendaciones suelen instar a los gobiernos a despenalizar el aborto en todos los casos, legalizar el aborto en las circunstancias antes señaladas y garantizar el acceso.

El Comité de Derechos Humanos, que realiza un seguimiento de si los estados cumplen con el PIDESC, ha señalado la relación entre las leyes restrictivas sobre aborto y los riesgos para la vida de mujeres y niñas, y ha aclarado el alcance de las obligaciones de los Estados Partes de proteger el derecho a la vida. En particular, las "restricciones a la capacidad de las mujeres o las niñas de recurrir al aborto no deben, entre otras cosas, poner en peligro su vida". En reiteradas ocasiones el comité ha manifestado preocupación por la criminalización del aborto y ha instado a que se amplíe el acceso a esta práctica.

Al igual que el Comité CEDAW, el Comité de Derechos Humanos, el Comité de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (que supervisa el PIDESC) y el Comité contra la Tortura, (que monitorea el CCT), han exhortado a que se eliminen las sanciones para supuestos de aborto y a que se implementen medidas que garanticen el acceso seguro y legal al aborto. Cuando el aborto seguro no está disponible, esto puede implicar riesgos para la salud mental, incluida la angustia severa y el riesgo de suicidio. El nexo entre salud mental y restricciones al acceso a la salud reproductiva es tan evidente que el Comité de la ONU contra la Tortura ha expresado preocupación por la angustia y el padecimiento físico y mental severos que experimentan mujeres y niñas debido a las restricciones al aborto, y concluyó que la criminalización y la inaccesibilidad del aborto pueden ser incompatibles con el deber de un gobierno de reconocer el derecho a no sufrir torturas ni otros tratos o castigos crueles, inhumanos o degradantes.

A su vez, el Comité de la ONU sobre los Derechos del Niño ha exhortado a los Estados "a que despenalicen el aborto para que las niñas puedan, en condiciones seguras, abortar y ser atendidas tras hacerlo, así como a que revisen su legislación para asegurar que se atienda el interés superior de las adolescentes embarazadas y se escuche y se respete siempre su opinión en las decisiones relacionadas con el aborto". En muchas evaluaciones individuales sobre el cumplimiento del tratado por estados individuales, que se denominan observaciones finales, el comité pidió expresamente que se despenalice el aborto "en todas las circunstancias".

El Relator Especial de la ONU sobre el Derecho a la Salud señaló que las leyes penales que castigan y restringen el aborto inducido son "barreras inaceptables que impiden a las mujeres ejercer su derecho a la salud y, por consiguiente, deben eliminarse".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
El acceso al aborto es un derecho humano

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
El acceso al aborto seguro y legal es una cuestión de derechos humanos y su disponibilidad es la mejor forma de proteger la autonomía y reducir la mortalidad y morbilidad maternas