Urgent Cases

Generally speaking, the UN human rights machinery is very slow and is therefore unsuitable for very urgent cases.

However, some of the mechanisms can and do act relatively swiftly in very serious cases, and these are explained below. It is worth reading the whole of this section, rather than just looking at one procedure, as no two urgent cases are the same and this section taken as a whole is designed to convey the UN’s general approach to urgency.

Bear in mind that the UN polices activities by governments. You can not use the urgent machinery to complain about the actions of a private person or body, a company, or a terrorist group, although it may be legitimate to complain about the government’s failure to act against them.

It is important not to abuse such urgent processes as are available. Just as it is unhelpful to misuse words like “torture”, it is unwise and unfair to demand urgent action in any except the most grave and pressing of cases. If you do so, you may prevent or delay action being taken in a really urgent case, and if you are found to have wasted UN time you will never succeed in getting any other case accepted as urgent. Also, bear in mind the very limited resources at the disposal of those responsible for implementing the human rights machinery at the UN.

Even where the UN does act swiftly, there is no guarantee that the action taken will succeed. All the human rights machinery is based on the concept that member states voluntarily sign up to the various treaties and declarations etc, and that they will co-operate with any UN committee or official who asks questions about a case. Sadly, the reports of committees, special rapporteurs and working groups are peppered with accounts of total refusal by governments to reply to communications.

In the case of the UK and Ireland, urgent action against them is exceptionally rare, and it is possible that they would respond more positively than some other governments. However, any responsible complainant will already have done their utmost to bring the matter to the attention of the relevant domestic authorities, and already made use of any urgent procedure that may be available locally, such as judicial review. In such a situation, the government is unlikely to be countenancing a major human rights abuse simply because it is ignorant of what, for example, a police officer or prison governor has done, so it will probably be a policy that is being challenged. If so, the government has merely to reply politely to any enquiries made of it by the UN, justifying its position. The UN can criticise the government and call on it to change its policy, but there is no obligation on the government to comply and no method by which the UN can enforce its findings.

As is the case with many of the human rights mechanisms, embarrassment in an international arena in which the government sets itself up as a shining example to others is the most potent remedy the UN can offer. If you are pursuing an urgent action, it is therefore worth combining it with any other pressure that you can bring to bear, including diplomatic pressure and media coverage both at home and abroad. However, it is only necessary to recall the tragic case of Ken Sarowiwa, executed in Nigeria, to realise that even these lengths will not always work.

The following mechanisms have some capacity for urgent action:

• the Special Rapporteur on Torture;
  
• the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention;
  
• the Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions;
  
• the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances;
  
• the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers;
  
• the Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders;
  

• the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief;
  
• the Human Rights Committee.

As a general rule of thumb, these mechanisms will only act urgently in order to prevent a serious human rights violation. Once someone has actually been tortured or killed, the complaint becomes no more urgent than any other case. Inevitably, it is harder to establish the risk of a violation than an actual violation, and it is necessary to make as strong a case as possible. The following factors may help to strengthen a case:

• evidence that the person concerned has suffered violations in similar circumstances in the past;
  
• evidence that s/he is a member of a group that has done so;
  
• evidence that the institution involved has perpetrated violations before; and/or
  
• evidence that an individual responsible for the person’s safety is a habitual violator.

As with any submission to the UN, you need to supply enough information to establish your own credentials and to substantiate your case. Much of the advice contained in MAKING A SUBMISSION will be relevant, the difference being that you will have to work much more quickly than usual. It is no good faxing or e-mailing a brief note and expecting the UN to respond urgently.

In all urgent cases, check that the complaint does fall within the remit of the mechanism in question (see the relevant table), and fax or e-mail your submission. Mark your submission “FOR URGENT ACTION” at the top of the first page. In very serious cases, it is worth considering actually going to Geneva to deliver your petition in person. This will impress the urgency and gravity of the case upon the relevant person, and it will enable you to raise the case with as many appropriate people as possible.

SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON TORTURE

The Special Rapporteur on Torture will act urgently in cases where there is evidence that someone has been arrested and there is a fear that s/he will be subjected to torture. Such evidence may take the form of eyewitness accounts from relatives, lawyers, doctors etc who have seen the detainee’s physical condition, or may spring from the fact that the person is being kept incommunicado, which is recognised as being a situation conducive to torture. The Special Rapporteur will have regard to the following factors:

• the previous reliability of the source of the information;
  
• the internal consistency of the information;
  
• the consistency of the information with information on other cases from the country in question;
  
• the existence of authoritative reports of torture practices from national sources, such as official commissions of inquiry;
  
• the findings of other international bodies, such as UN Country Rapporteurs and representatives, the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture and regional human rights bodies, in particular, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;
  
• the existence of national legislation, such as that permitting prolonged incommunicado detention, that can have the effect of facilitating torture; and
  
• the threat of extradition or deportation, directly or indirectly, to a State or territory where one or more of the above elements is present.
  

Although not identified in this list, which is not in any case intended to be exhaustive, authoritative reports from NGOs, especially those with consultative status such as Amnesty International, ought also to be useful.

The only urgent action taken by the Special Rapporteur is that he will ask the government to give him an assurance that the detainee’s physical and mental integrity will be guaranteed.

THE WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION

Given the availability of habeas corpus in English and Irish law, recourse to this Working Group is likely to be exceptionally rare, although it may be appropriate if such an action has failed.

The Working Group will only act urgently where there is reason to believe that someone is being detained arbitrarily (i.e. for no legitimate reason) and that as a result their health or their life may be in danger, or where there is some other compelling reason for urgent action.

The Working Group has a questionnaire that it uses to assess cases, and wherever possible this should be used in urgent cases. If that is not possible, your fax or e-mail should include at least the following information:

1. the name of the person making the complaint, plus address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address, and details of status (i.e. the individual concerned, a relative, a lawyer, an NGO etc);
   
2. the full name of the person on whose behalf the complaint is made and other details that help with identification, such as date of birth, marital status, gender etc;
   
3. the date and place of the arrest, the identity of those presumed responsible, and any other relevant details;
   
4. the reasons given by the authorities for the arrest;
   
5. any relevant legislation that has been applied;
   
6. any domestic remedies pursued, and the outcome;
   
7. brief reasons why the detention is considered to be arbitrary and why the person’s health or life is in danger.

The Working Group itself can take action or, between sessions, the Chair or Vice-Chair can do so, in consultation with two other members of the Working Party where it is not alleged that the person’s life or health is at risk. The action takes the form of transmitting the communication (sending a copy of the complaint) to the relevant Minister for Foreign Affairs, accompanied by an urgent appeal to the government to safeguard the person’s right to life and physical integrity. Where appropriate, this appeal will include a request to consider releasing the detainee and/or ensuring that adequate medical treatment is administered.

SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON EXTRA-JUDICIAL, SUMMARY OR ARBITRARY EXECUTIONS

Many of the complaints received by the Special Rapporteur take the form of appeals for urgent action where an execution is threatened. Since Ireland has abolished the death penalty altogether and the UK retains it only for the crime of treason, such cases are unlikely to arise in these countries. However, this may be a relevant mechanism where there is a real fear that someone is about to die in custody, either because he or she has been injured during arrest or because he or she is suicidal and receiving inadequate care.

If NGOs in Britain and Ireland want to raise such cases here or in other countries, they need to follow the advice given for the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention above. The Special Rapporteur also has a questionnaire, available from the UN website – see page 59 for site map. If you are unable to obtain a copy quickly, you should send at least the following information:

1. the name of the person making the complaint, plus address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address, and details of status (i.e. the individual concerned, a relative, a lawyer, an NGO etc);
   
2. the full name of the person on whose behalf the complaint is made and other details that help with identification, such as date of birth, marital status, gender etc;
   
3. his or her profession, especially if it is relevant to the situation, e.g. trade unionist, politician, minister of religion, human rights defender etc;
   
4. whether there is a link to any other case;
   
5. the date, time and place of the incident (e.g. when a person disappeared) and its nature, and why an imminent threat to the person’s life is feared;
   
6. why the government or its agent is responsible;
   
7. all available evidence, including witnesses;
   
8. details of any action taken on the person’s behalf and the outcome.

As with other mechanisms, all that the Rapporteur can do is communicate the complaint to the government and appeal to it to safeguard the person’s right to life.

WORKING GROUP ON ENFORCED OR INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCES

As with the urgent mechanisms, neither Ireland nor the UK is likely to be the subject of complaints to this Working Group, although NGOs based in either country may wish to draw attention to disappearances in other jurisdictions.

However, it is possible that someone who has been arrested here, perhaps by immigration officials, or under anti-terrorism laws, disappears for a few days before the authorities divulge his or her whereabouts, in which case it may be appropriate to invoke this mechanism, although it will be necessary to act very swiftly.

As with all the other mechanisms, it is necessary to give the fullest possible details and a cogent explanation of why you think the case falls within the Working Groups’ remit (see table). It is only suitable in cases where the state is responsible for the person’s detention and disappearance; ordinary cases of kidnapping and custody battles over children will not be taken up.

Once again, all that the Working Group can do is transmit your complaint urgently to the government and seek information as to the location and wellbeing of the missing person.

SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON JUDGES AND LAWYERS AND SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE ON HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS

These two experts play similar roles in relation respectively to lawyers and non-lawyers. The Special Rapporteur on judges and lawyers has been around for longer, and has been known to respond rapidly to reliable information that a lawyer’s life is under threat, faxing letters to governments. It is anticipated that the Special Representative on human rights defenders will also be prepared to act rapidly in serious urgent cases.

The Special Representative has issued guidelines for making ordinary submissions, which are available on the UN website – see page 59 for site map. Any request for urgent action should contain at least the following information:

1. the name of the person making the complaint, plus address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address, and details of status (i.e. the individual concerned, a relative, a lawyer, an NGO etc);
   
2. the full name of the person (or organisation) on whose behalf the complaint is made and other details that help with identification, such as date of birth, marital status, gender etc;
   
3. the nature of the human rights work that the individual or organisation performs;
   
4. the name of any human rights group to which an individual is affiliated, plus details about that group and how to contact it;
   
5. details about the alleged violation of human rights and how that violation is connected with the human rights work of the individual or organisation;
   
6. who is responsible for the alleged violation, e.g. the police, the army etc, and details concerning their names, rank, functions and so on;
   
7. if the incident complained of is an arrest, full details, included the legal basis invoked and where and since when the person has been detained;
   
8. details of the person’s or organisation’s lawyers, if any, and whether they have access to their client;
   
9. details of any action taken on the person’s behalf and the outcome.

SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF

In particularly serious or urgent cases, the Special Rapporteur will fax the government concerned. He has indicated that he would like to receive a reply by fax within two weeks.

This urgent procedure was introduced in 1994. Examples of cases where it has been used include the murder of a member of the clergy, threats of death because of blasphemy against human rights advocates and priests, and a declaration that a writer was a heretic.

Since many cases that fall within the Rapporteur’s mandate may also fall within that of others, such as the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial etc Executions, it may be worth faxing the complaint to them as well. However, make sure that you tell everyone you fax or e-mail who else you have contacted, so that they can work together.

THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

The Human Rights Committee does not have an urgent procedure as such. However, while a case is going through its procedures, the Committee can inform the government that in its view interim measures are required to avoid irreparable damage to the victim, regardless of its final views on the complaint. This might be very useful in cases of, for example, deportation or extradition. It can also be invoked in cases of execution arising in other parts of the world.