Viewing entries tagged
geneva

IFOR addresses SDGs 2030, civil disobedience and conscientious objection at the UN 46th HRC

Comment

IFOR addresses SDGs 2030, civil disobedience and conscientious objection at the UN 46th HRC

UN global-goals.png

International Fellowship of Reconciliation - IFOR submitted the following statement to the ongoing 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council.


Human Rights Council, 46th Session Geneva, 9th March 2021
Item 3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights
Oral statement submitted by the International Fellowship of Reconciliation.

unnamed.png

Madam President,

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 2030)[1] are a universal call to action to protect the planet and improve the lives and prospects of everyone, everywhere. There are interconnections between all those goals and there is no way we can achieve them unless member States are willing to address injustice, social injustice, climate injustice and to stop wars.

We would like to highlight the concerning links between climate change, hunger, economic sanctions and exploitation, and armed conflicts.[2]

We hear of wars in too many places such as Syria, for instance, as well of violence against protesters such as in Myanmar, Hong Kong and Belarus.

Civil disobedience is a nonviolent tool to resist to violence and injustice; many groups around the world are engaging in nonviolent actions to ask their governments or regimes to respect and restore their human rights. Protesters cannot be shot.

We would also like to draw the attention of this Council to the protection of the right of those who refuse to kill which is still seriously lacking.

The European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO)[3], highlighted in its annual report[4], that in 2020 conscientious objectors to military service continue to be persecuted and imprisoned in various countries.

In Turkey, Eritrea and Singapore, for instance, the right is not recognized. Turkish objectors are facing a situation of “civil death”[5] which excludes them from social, cultural and economic life.

[In other countries, like Turkmenistan, there is no alternative to compulsory military service[6]. 

In some countries where the right is formally recognized, like in Finland, Israel and Greece, the alternative service provided is often punitive in nature and the decision-making procedures are in contrast with the international standards.]

IFOR calls on all member States to protect the right to conscientious objection to military service in all countries. 

Thank you.


[1] https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
[2] http://www.ifor.org/news/2020/5/19/ifor-open-letter-to-the-un-secretary-general.
[3] https://ebco-beoc.org/.
[4] EBCO’s annual report, covering the region of Council of Europe (CoE), is available at https://ebco-beoc.org/node/491.
[5] The situation of conscientious objectors is defined as “civil death” by European Court of Human Rights. (Ulke v. Turkey, application no. 39437/98).
[6] https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2025552.html.

You can download the complete statement here


IFOR actively collaborates with EBCO which is the European network for groups and organizations dealing with conscientious objection. EBCO offers support to objectors and engages on advocacy initiatives within the Council of Europe.

IFOR provides assistance at the UN and is currently collaborating with the EBCO's board for related issues.

The European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO) was founded in 1979 as an umbrella organisation for national associations of conscientious objectors, with the aim of promoting collective campaigns for the release of the imprisoned conscientious objectors and lobbying the European governments and institutions for the full recognition of the right to conscientious objection to military service.

EBCO, on an yearly basis, releases an Annual Report on the situation of conscientious objection in the Council of Europe geographical area.

You can find details on the 2020 Annual Report here

IFOR has been closely involved in the redaction of such Reports in the past years as part of the ongoing IFOR project on conscientious objection funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust - JRCT.

You can find more information on EBCO here

EBCO_logo (1).jpg

Comment

IFOR at the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council: "immediate and unconditional release of all imprisoned conscientious objectors"

Comment

IFOR at the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council: "immediate and unconditional release of all imprisoned conscientious objectors"

International Fellowship of Reconciliation - IFOR has delivered an oral statement on conscientious objection to military service at the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council during the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of religion or belief which was held on March 4th 2021.

The statement, delivered by the Main representative of IFOR at the UN Z. Zafarana, refers to the need of immediate and unconditional release of all imprisoned conscientious objectors.
You can download the original version of the statement here.


possible title image (2).png

Human Rights Council, 46th Session

Geneva, 4th March 2021 

Item 2: Interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion or belief 

Oral statement delivered by the International Fellowship of Reconciliation.

Madam President,

IFOR thanks the Special Rapporteur for his thematic report[1].

The right to Conscientious objection to military service is inherent to the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 

However, conscientious objectors continue to be imprisoned in various countries, such as Turkmenistan[2], Singapore[3], Eritrea[4], Tajikistan[5], Israel[6], for instance, and this constitutes a violation of international human rights law.

We encourage and support the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief in his long-standing efforts for the immediate and unconditional release of all imprisoned conscientious objectors.

IFOR urges the respect of international standards for the exercise of the right to conscientious objection.

In Colombia, for instance, the competence to recognise the right to conscientious objection lies with the same authority that carries out military recruitment, which denotes a lack of objectivity and impartiality that delegitimizes its exercise through a process that prioritises evidence over substance. This procedural treatment generates gaps of inequality and discrimination between those who can provide evidence backed by an ecclesiastical authority and those who do not have this possibility. An example is given by the response[7] to the conscientious objector Sergio Sáenz[8], who based his declaration on non-religious beliefs.

Thank you.


  1. Report on Countering Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred to Eliminate Discrimination and Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/HatredAndDiscrimination.aspx.

  2. https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2025552.html.

  3. https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/singapore/jehovahs-witnesses-in-prison/.

  4. ttps://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspxNewsID=26439&LangID=E.

  5. https://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2629.

  6. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-conscientious-objector-released-from-militaryprison/.

  7. Response to File No. 531228 dated 26 January 2021. “A través del cual le exigen (i) número de resolución de la entidad emitida por el Ministerio del Interior. (ii) certificado de existencia y representación de la Institución a la que pertenece; (iii) certificado de vinculación del líder religioso que emite certificación, (iv) no se indica fecha ni certificados de sacramentos recibidos en el marco de la religión católica;  (v) sede donde regularmente se congrega, actividades específicas que realiza, horarios, programa de estudios, (vi) números telefónicos de feligreses que indiquen bajo la gravedad de juramento que han sido testigos de sus actividades religiosas (iv)  demás documentos y elementos de prueba (fotos, videos etc..) que acrediten la sinceridad de sus convicciones; es decir, que sean claras, profundas, fijas y sinceras en que fundamenta su solicitud.”

  8. His request was not processed because he had to belong to a legally constituted church that would certify it, and he had to have the testimony of two or more members of the congregation who, under oath, would certify his status as a conscientious objector within the church."


You can watch here the UN interactive dialogue referred to above. IFOR statement is at 02:04:17 [insert the hyperlink http://webtv.un.org/.../id-sr-on-religion.../6237146868001


IFOR has recently submitted a report on the issue of conscientious objection in Singapore for the 38th UN UPR. You can find it here.


IFOR follows closely the issue of conscientious objection in Colombia and collaborates with ACOOC - Colombian Collective Action of Conscientious Objectors.

ACOOC works in the field of accompaniment of conscientious objectors; it supports conscientious objectors in their struggle against discrimination and to achieve recognition by the Colombian government, advises young people who are victims of illegal recruitment practices by the military and is working towards the full implementation of the right to conscientious objection by the Colombian government.

Comment