Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain, in coordination with the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, Index on Censorship, PEN International, and the International Federation of Human Rights, hosted a discussion at the 28th Session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The event, entitled, “Religious Discrimination in Bahrain,” discussed government discrimination against the Shia majority in Bahrain, and additionally unveiled ADHRB, BIRD, and BCHR’s latest report, “Apart in Their Own Land: Government Discrimination against Shia in Bahrain.”
Husain Abdulla, the Executive Director of ADHRB, opened the panel by explaining that the idea of a Shia genocide is a popular but hyperbolic sentiment in Bahrain. He continued by stating that, while genocide does not apply in Bahrain, the situation in the country closely approaches that of another crime against humanity – that of apartheid. He then introduced the event’s esteemed panelists, allowing them to continue the argument.
Saman Naquvi, the grassroots advocacy associate for ADHRB, presented ADHRB’s report. “The Bahrain government is guilty of systemic discrimination against the majority Shia population,” said Saman Naquvi, continuing by stating that sectarianism does not exist in Bahrain except insofar as the government commits sectarian acts. “Our report covers state violence against Shia, the disclusion of Shia from the political process, and direct attacks against the Shia religious establishment, literally setting the Shia discrimination apart in their own land… Were the Shia considered a race instead of a religion, their situation would almost directly mirror the Apartheid Convention.”
Nabeel Rajab, a prominent human rights defender in Bahrain, joined the panel via Skype, as he could not travel to Bahrain on account of a travel ban imposed upon him in retaliation against a tweet he authored in which he criticized the government. “It’s not considered to be a crime here,” said Rajab, speaking about government violence committed against Shia. “The village in which I live is surrounded by government troops. It is tear gassed on a nightly basis, and government violence occurs daily. Yet if I wanted to move, I would have to receive government permission to leave the violence.” Rajab continued by emphasizing that the Sunni population is not implicated in the discrimination, and that the Shia and Sunni live in harmony in the country. “It is the system that is the problem,” explained Rajab. “We have an apartheid system here in Bahrain… If the government were to change its apartheid-like policies, violence against the Shia would disappear overnight.”
Fatima al-Mutawa, a Bahraini human rights and criminal defense lawyer, spoke about her personal experience as a legal practitioner in Bahrain. “We often can’t even find the defendants,” said al-Mutawa, stating that the government often disappears victims and interrogates them without notifying or allowing them to retain counsel. “When they’re in the trial, we can see the prejudice against our Shia defendants… the way the judge speaks to them, the way that the police handle them, it all reveals systemic prejudice in the government.” Al-Mutawa continued by stating that the government often does not even accept legitimate evidence of innocence. “In one trial, we submitted a video showing that the Shia defendant was playing in a basketball match at the time of the crime. The government still found him guilty, without explaining how he could be in two places at one time.”
Josh Colangelo-Bryan, a U.S. attorney specializing in human rights, continued the conversation. “In 2012, the King of Bahrain accepted the findings of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry and promised that political trials would stop. Based on the government’s own words, however, it’s indisputable that they haven’t.” Colangelo-Bryan went on to describe a case in which the court ruled against Shia defendants, quoting that the court’s reasoning included that “the goal of changing a monarchical system is itself illegal.” “If you ask for democracy in Bahrain, you are a criminal,” concluded Colangelo-Bryan.
Mohammed al-Tajer, a human rights lawyer and the President of the Bahrain Human Rights Observatory, concluded the panelists’ remarks. “I remember maybe 15 years back, when the new King Hamad began his reform projects… As a Shia, I was hopeful for a true democracy in Bahrain… but that hope no longer exists today.” He argued that the entire system is balanced against the Shia. “In the last few years, I haven’t seen more than one or two Shia become public prosecutors, and there are only seven Shia judges in Bahrain. The government needs to incorporate Shia into its structure in order to truly represent all of Bahraini society.”
Tor Hodenfield, the Policy and Advocacy Officer from CIVICUS, moderated the panel, opening by stating the importance of documenting human rights violations and engaging the United Nations. “In light of the unprecedented legal restrictions being brought upon civil society across the globe, it is increasingly important to identify innovative strategies to monitor and document human rights violations at the national level.”
Safir Syed from OHCHR’s Civil Society Office joined the panel to provide information on UN mechanisms, explain how OHCHR promotes civil society’s role in the international community, and show how OHCHR protects the space in which civil society operates. Hodenfield asked Syed how best civil society can use international avenues to engage with the Human Rights Council and OHCHR. “Everything that [NGOs are] doing, it’s going to carry on whatever the Human Rights Council or the UN does,” stated Syed, continuing by saying that promoting human dignity and inclusive participation should be a priority regardless of UN action. “In the UN Human Rights System,” he continued, “we have three methods to engage civil society: OHCHR, the treaty bodies, and intergovernmental bodies such as the Human Rights Council.” He also described the Special Procedure system, stating that the UN in this instance maintained about 60 entry points for civil society to engage by addressing individual human rights complaints. “All of these mechanisms rely on documentation,” said Syed. “It’s what feeds the system,” he continued, stating that these mechanisms cannot function without civil society providing them with useful information and reporting.
Hodenfield asked Syed to follow-up on documentation for countries that don’t have an OHCHR regional presence. “For national actors to share information with the system, we rely upon transmissions through email, electronically, or through the post in places where we don’t have national offices. This is the best way to reach us.”
Sayed Yusuf al-Muhafdah, Vice-President of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, continued the conversation. Hodenfield asked al-Muhafdah to provide the context of documenting human rights abuses. “We’re in a very critical situation for human rights in Bahrain,” said al-Muhafdah. “There are 3,500 prisoners of conscience in Bahrain, and Bahrain arrests the highest number of journalists per capita in the world.” He emphasized that there is no space for civil society to work without fear of reprisal, framing that his work in documenting human rights abuses is always impacted by the possibility of government retaliation. “Most of the human rights NGOs aren’t even allowed to be registered in the country. BCHR had its organizational status revoked by the government and had to incorporate in Copenhagen, while ADHRB operates in Washington.”
Hodenfeld followed up by stating that, despite these issues, Bahraini civil society has managed to continue a robust documentation structure, and asking al-Muhafdah how that was possible. “It’s certainly not easy,” said al-Muhafdah. “We have a number of volunteers working for us, and on a daily basis they’re interviewing victims, taking informative photos, taking videos… They know the potential consequences, but they’re brave enough to face them.” He went on to emphasize the importance of informed consent, stating that victims of human rights abuses who have already experienced retaliation are often intimidated against cooperation with documentation teams. “We always get permission from victims and family members to publish their information. That’s extremely important.” He went on to speak about engagement with UN mechanisms. “BCHR and ADHRB have a team on the ground that helps us get information from victims, and we take that information, process it, and submit it in the form of a complaint to the Special Procedures. It’s a great way to get our documentation in front of UN experts… We also engage in public advocacy, by publishing victims’ stories and pictures online.
Hodenfield asked al-Muhafdah a second question regarding how best civil society can coordinate in situations such as that present in Bahrain. “We coordinate via email, via Whatsapp. But we know they’re spying on us, so we also use a lot of anonymous social media to coordinate.
Roland Chauville, the Executive Director of UPR Info, spoke on the UN mechanism known as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Hodenfield asked Chauville to provide information regarding the UPR’s entry points, and how best civil society can use the UPR to enhance its advocacy. “The best way for NGOs to engage the UPR process is to directly lobby State missions in Geneva,” said Chauville, explaining that the UPR process allowed human rights-observing states to make periodic comments and recommendations on the human rights situation in abusing countries. “NGOs can also submit mid-term reports,” he said, highlighting ADHRB’s mid-term report as an example of an excellent tool for keeping the spotlight on a country’s poor human rights record. “In other countries, we’ve actually seen the UPR bring NGOs and governments together,” he continued, stating that the UPR can even push governments to honor their human rights commitments when a government is willing.
Hodenfield followed up by asking Chauville to discuss what steps NGOs can take to advocate for the implementation of UPR recommendations. “The first thing is to make the UPR known in the country,” Chauville stated, describing that governments are often ignorant of the UPR outside of their foreign affairs ministries and departments. “Documentation is also essential,” he continued, saying that it is necessary for the UN to receive information regarding implementation in order to engage in further action.
Hodenfield then opened up the floor for questions. Michael Payne from ADHRB asked that, with the Third Cycle of the UPR approaching, what changes Chauville anticipated for the process. He also asked what role parliamentarians could play. “We’ll need to first see how governments respond to the second cycle… I feel there’s an effort to be made to incorporate the second cycle into the third.” Regarding the role of parliamentarians, Chauvulle said, “They must inform themselves. There needs to be communication between parliaments and NGOs to come to a consensus on what the situation actually is.” He added that parliamentarians have a responsibility to ratify international human rights treaties and conventions.
James Suzano from ADHRB asked a question regarding treaty bodies, querying Syed about how best civil society can engage treaty bodies when countries haven’t ratified the optional protocols or even the treaties. “It’s difficult to engage the treaty bodies when a treaty hasn’t been ratified,” said Syed. “However, oftentimes the same kind of content can be brought to other treaties that have been ratified. For example, if ICCPR [International Convention on Civil and Political Rights] hasn’t been ratified, but the CRC [Convention on the Rights of the Child] has, perhaps bringing information under the second body might be a solution.”
Fatema al-Mutawa, a lawyer from Bahrain, asked a question about whether al-Muhafdah had ever seen retaliation against victims for cooperating with his documentation team. “Yes, we have seen this in Bahrain, and it does have a negative effect on the documentation process.”
Mohamed al-Tajer, a Bahraini human rights lawyer, questioned the panel as to how the UPR mechanism can be effective when States themselves refuse to implement the recommendations. Syed defended the system, stating that the progress is debatable but that, “it’s really about being better at communicating ideas and countering misinformation.” Chauville also responded, stating that States created the rules and States have to obey them.
Ahmed Ali from BIRD asked Syed about reprisals, asking him how OHCHR might react against government action against human rights defenders. “The work you’re all doing takes a long time. It’s slow and sometimes dangerous… States, when they run out of ideas, will use violence and force.” He added that OHCHR can help minimize risk, but can’t stop them entirely. “OHCHR has adopted a policy of protecting human rights defenders… the High Commissioner speaks out, the treaty bodies speak out…” continued Syed, stating that OHCHR does what it can but again emphasizing OHCHR requires documentation in order to do so.
Michael Payne added an additional question to Syed, querying him on how civil society mechanisms without UN accreditation can engage OHCHR, and asked Chauville about seeing progress on recommendations that were not implemented in previous cycles. “The UPR can target anything,” said Chauville. “Repetition shows systemic problems.” Syed addressed the question of ECOSOC status, saying, “All it is is a ticket to get into this building [Palais des Nations]. The rest of the system does not require it.”
Hodenfield then closed by asking the panelists to describe concrete steps that civil society can take. Syed echoed his previous remarks, stating that change is difficult but important. “In order to use the UN, you need to be informed of its language, its structure, and how it works,” Syed continued. “For Bahrain in particular,” said al-Muhafdah, “we need to continue to pressure the government to let the Special Rapporteur into the country.” Chauville closed by stating that NGOs need to understand how the UN works and invest in its mechanisms.
/129