View previous stories
	Rio + 20 missed an opportunity to bolster human rights by Jan Egeland, Jessica Evans Human Rights Watch   June 27, 2012   "They come every day … four or five cars usually – 20 to 60 soldiers. They say, ''We need this land for sugar, so you shouldn''t be here'' … We say, ''We don''t want [sugar]'', but that is not the right answer. They hit us or they take us to jail."   These are the words of a Mursi man, an indigenous pastoralist in southern Ethiopia, describing to Human Rights Watch how he and his community have been forced to move from the Lower Omo Valley in southern Ethiopia to make way for sugar plantations.   The rights of these indigenous people to be consulted and give their free, prior and informed consent before relocation were cast aside. Instead, local government and security forces carried out arbitrary arrests and detentions, used physical violence, and seized or destroyed the property of indigenous communities. More forced evictions in the Omo Valley are threatened in the near future.   In a speech in Jinka, the capital of the South Omo region, in January 2011, Meles Zenawi, the prime minister, said: "Even though this area [the Lower Omo] is known as backward in terms of civilization, it will become an example of rapid development." This is just one example of a government misusing development goals as an excuse for sacrificing human rights.   Last week,world leaders had a unique opportunity to bridge the false divide between human rights, development and environmental protection when they met in Brazil at the Rio+20 UN conference on sustainable development. But rights language was whittled down in the final document, The Future We Want, which was negotiated ahead of the arrival of more than 100 heads of state and signed by them without further debate.   When we asked the Brazilian delegation about the inadequacy of the rights commitments made at Rio, they told us that rights were "extremely delicate" in the discussions. Although rights are a "key issue" for Brazil, Rio was not the place to press forward on it, the ambassador said. But human rights are not a side issue.   Development initiatives without a clear commitment to non-discrimination and addressing the needs of marginalizedand vulnerable communities are wrong in that they violate human rights. But they can also drive injustice, poverty and conflict, and are ultimately unsustainable.   As the World Bank has recently found, gender equality is not only right, it is smart economics. But rather than recommitting in Rio to actively respect, protect and promote women''s sexual and reproductive rights, governments caved under the Holy See''s pressureby deleting references to reproductive rights, leaving only reproductive health language.   In the wake of the Arab spring, the importance of the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly cannot be denied. People need to be able to participate effectively in the development process, which means having access to relevant information, transparent processes and protection of free speech. But during negotiations, governments deleted references to freedom of assembly and association, while freedom of expression never even made a draft.   It is not just governments that violate rights in the name of development. Development agencies, including the World Bank and other international financial institutions, should effectively assess potential impacts of projects on human rights and design them to mitigate any rights risks. This means not proceeding with projects that will violate rights and remedying any rights violated despite preventive measures.   Businesses too have a responsibility to respect human rights, wherever they operate, to exercise due diligence to assess, prevent and mitigate their impact on human rights and the environment, and to provide an accessible remedy if abuses occur. And states have a responsibility to ensure compliance by requiring companies to put in place strong due diligence procedures and to publicly report on the human rights impacts of companies'' actions.   Governments missed the opportunity in Rio to recognizeunequivocally what common sense already tells us: development by force is not only wrong, it is unsustainable. They failed to reinforce the rights obligations of businesses and international financial institutions. And they failed to recommit to protecting women''s sexual and reproductive rights.   Governments need to resist pressure from interest groups – whether business or the Vatican – and show leadership. They need to stand with the indigenous people in southern Ethiopia and elsewhere whose rights are being sacrificed in the name of development.   * Jan Egeland is Europe director and deputy executive director for Human Rights Watch; Jessica Evans is senior advocate/researcher for international financial institutions. Visit the related web page
	UN expert calls for justice for all victims of human trafficking … even the ‘imperfect’ ones by Joy Ngozi Ezeilo Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons   The United Nations Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, Joy Ngozi Ezeilo, said that the human rights of trafficked persons are not yet the primary consideration when it comes to effective criminal justice responses to trafficking, and urged world governments to adopt clear and enforceable laws based on respect for the rights of trafficked persons.   In her annual report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, Ms. Ezeilo offered a list of observations and recommendations to States, including the enactment and enforcement of clear and comprehensive legislation criminalizing trafficking and related acts, the proper identification of victims of trafficking, the provision of protection and support to victims of trafficking, and making traffickers pay for their victims’ restitution and compensation.   “While many States have made important progress in prosecuting and punishing traffickers,” the human rights expert said, “many challenges remain in terms of commitment and capacity in implementing a rights-based approach to prosecuting the crime of trafficking.” These are some of her observations:   Criminalization of trafficking and other related acts:   “Criminalization per se is not an end in itself. It must be accompanied by the effective enforcement of the law and the imposition of appropriate punishments for trafficking and related offences.”   “In addition to criminalizing trafficking in persons, States must ensure the criminalization of other crimes relating to trafficking in persons, including – but not limited to – corruption, money-laundering, debt bondage, obstruction of justice and participation in organized criminal groups.”   Proper identification of trafficked persons:   “Timely and accurate identification of victims is crucial for effective criminal justice responses to trafficking, as it affects the ability of law enforcement officials to prosecute traffickers and allows the provision of necessary support services to trafficked persons.”   “The identification of trafficked persons is often complex and in practice, trafficked persons are often arrested, detained and charged as smuggled or undocumented workers.” She also noted that efforts to distinguish victims from perpetrators are often complicated by the problem of ‘imperfect’ victims, who may have committed crimes, whether willingly or as a result of force, fraud or coercion, in the process of becoming a trafficking victim.   Protection of trafficked persons:   “Victims of trafficking play a critical role in the criminal prosecution of traffickers and their accomplices” and are “entitled to immediate protection and support” by virtue of their status as victims of trafficking.   “Criminalization and/or detention of victims of trafficking is incompatible with a rights-based approach to trafficking because it inevitably compounds the harm already experienced by trafficked persons and denies them the rights to which they are entitled.”   Cooperation between criminal justice and victim support agencies:   “Any effective anti-trafficking effort must involve close collaboration between criminal justice agencies and victim support agencies, including non-governmental organizations”. “Working at the forefront and on the ground, victim support agencies will often be the first to come into contact with trafficked persons; they thus serve a fundamental function by referring victims to the appropriate authorities for assistance, helping to file complaints and reporting illegal activity to law enforcement”.   Improving investigations and prosecutions:   “Training is an important component of anti-trafficking strategies, and the development of specialized anti-trafficking units may assist States to strengthen capacity to investigate and prosecute trafficking. Such units must be bound by clear mandates to address anti-trafficking matters, and be adequately equipped and funded.”   Having the traffickers pay for their victims’ restitution and compensation:   “Asset recovery plays an important role in effective criminal justice responses to trafficking, not only because it undermines the financial gain of traffickers, but also linking asset seizure to victim support is in line with a rights-based approach to human trafficking.”   “While I commend laws in some States which explicitly provide that restitution and compensation be made to victims of trafficking out of the proceeds of assets seizure, such proceeds have reportedly failed to be distributed to victims in some instances.” Visit the related web page
	View more stories