37/51 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders

GE.18-00668(E)



Human Rights Council Thirty-seventh session

26 February – 23 March 2018

Agenda item 3

Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,

political, economic, social and cultural rights,

including the right to development

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders

Note by the Secretariat

In the present report, prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolutions 66/164 and

68/181 and Human Rights Council resolutions 16/5 and 25/18, the Special Rapporteur on

the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst, reviews the overall situation of

persons acting to defend the rights of all people on the move. The Special Rapporteur aims

to draw attention to the difficult situation of those who act in solidarity with people on the

move and who seek to promote and to strive for the protection of their rights. He calls upon

all States and other actors to protect and promote the rights of defenders of people on the

move and to address the challenges that they face.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders

Contents

Page

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3

II Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4

III. Definition and normative framework ............................................................................................ 4

A. Definition of people on the move ......................................................................................... 4

B. Human rights defenders of people on the move ................................................................... 5

IV. Background and hostile environment ............................................................................................ 7

A. Background ........................................................................................................................... 7

B. Hostile environment ............................................................................................................. 7

V. Root causes of violations ............................................................................................................... 8

A. Commodification of migrants ............................................................................................... 8

B. Securitization of migration .................................................................................................. 9

C. Citizenship ........................................................................................................................... 9

VI. People on the move as human rights defenders ............................................................................. 10

A. Displacement due to violations of the rights of defenders .................................................... 10

B. Continuing human rights activities after displacement ........................................................ 11

VII. Defending the rights of people on the move ................................................................................. 13

A. Lack of access to people on the move .................................................................................. 13

B. Criminalization and stigmatization of defenders of people on the move .............................. 14

C. Involvement of non-State actors .......................................................................................... 15

VIII. Creating an enabling environment for defending the rights of people on the move ...................... 16

A. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 16

B. Recommandations ................................................................................................................. 16

I. Introduction

1. Just over two years ago, the body of a three-year old boy washed ashore a beach

near Bodrum, Turkey. The boy’s family had been fleeing the bloody armed conflict in the

Syrian Arab Republic, and the little boy had drowned as they sought safety. The image of

the lifeless body of Alan Kurdi galvanized popular opinion around the world, leading to

demonstrations, and culminated in September 2016 in the renewal of the commitment of

the international community to people on the move in the New York Declaration for

Refugees and Migrants, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 71/1. Despite

this renewed commitment, however, individuals, groups and communities defending the

rights of people on the move have faced immense challenges. Defenders of people on the

move face unprecedented restrictions, including threats and violence, denunciation in

public discourse, and criminalization. More specifically, defenders who have taken to sea to

rescue other people on the move have been arrested, had their boats seized and been

accused of smuggling. The right of persons on the move to defend their own rights is even

more restricted. Protests by those fleeing the Syrian Arab Republic about the conditions of

their reception – conditions which often prompt dangerous onward movement – have been

met with media indifference and police violence. Such a hostile environment silences the

voices of those that would seek to keep alive the memory of Alan Kurdi and others that

have died while moving across borders, and ensures that the bodies of people on the move

will continue to be washed ashore, found in unmarked graves, or simply disappear in

unforgiveable numbers.

2. In his report submitted to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-fourth session

(A/HRC/34/52), the Special Rapporteur pointed out his intention to review the situation of

persons acting to defend the rights of migrants. The present report goes beyond the situation

of persons acting to defend the rights of migrants to review the broader situation of persons

acting to defend the rights of all people on the move. The Special Rapporteur has come to

recognize that the narrow categories of “migrant” and “refugee”, and the silos of policy and

activism that they perpetuate, are part of the problem facing defenders in this area. Rather

than working from existing categories, in accordance with the practice of actors ranging

from United Nations agencies, such as the Office of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), to civil society organizations, such as Amnesty

International to academic and legal commentators, the Special Rapporteur will adopt a

category of individuals and communities defined by their shared experience: ”people on the

move”.

3. In the report, the Special Rapporteur intends to draw attention to the difficult

situation of those who act in solidarity with people on the move and who seek to promote

and to strive for the protection and realization of their human rights. These defenders, many

of whom are themselves people on the move, face a constellation of challenges, arising

from both some of the disturbing features of global migration policy and the general trend

towards the closing of civic space to human rights defenders. Importantly, many human

rights defenders become people on the move in response to the risks they face arising from

their human rights advocacy; they move in order to avoid threats and violence by the

perpetrators of human rights violations that they oppose. In entering exile, they often

continue with great difficulty their defence of human rights, and may turn their attention to

the defence of their own rights in exile and the rights of other people on the move.

Meanwhile, their allies and supporters face challenges of their own, arising out of the

geographic location of people on the move, and the increasing criminalization and

stigmatization of both people on the move and their defenders. The rise of non-State actors

in migration processes also creates additional risks for defenders of people on the move.

4. In such a context, as the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights

defenders, the mandate holder calls upon all States and other actors to protect and promote

the rights of defenders of people on the move and to address the challenges that they face in

their exercise of their fundamental right to promote and protect the universally recognized

human rights and fundamental freedoms of people on the move. The Special Rapporteur

hopes that the present report will guide all stakeholders in their efforts to implement the

important objective, while recalling that empowering defenders of people on the move is

crucial to the prevention of further tragedy.

II. Methodology

5. The present report draws from primary and secondary sources of information. It is

informed by a series of consultations with a wide range of stakeholders, including States,

national human rights institutions, international experts, human rights defenders and people

on the move. The Special Rapporteur conducted a multilingual global survey in November

and December 2017 seeking input from all stakeholders. Sixty-one stakeholders, with

experience in 48 States, responded to the survey. In November 2017, the Special

Rapporteur hosted a meeting at the University of York attended by more than two dozen

human rights defenders and international experts with experiences and expertise from

around the world. The report also draws upon a wealth of literature concerning defenders of

people on the move from a range of sources, including civil society and States, and from

within the United Nations system.

6. The Special Rapporteur also draws upon his own experience in receiving

communications from human rights defenders at risk working on people on the move and

meeting with human rights defenders at risk during his numerous travels and other

meetings. In the period between June 2015 and May 2017, the mandate received a

relatively small number of submissions concerning defenders of people on the move: nearly

15 of 472 communications sent during that period were issued jointly with the Special

Rapporteur on the rights of migrants. This number is representative of longer-term

underrepresentation of defenders of people on the move in communications. Working with

the Special Rapporteur on the rights of migrants, the Special Rapporteur intends to

investigate further the reasons underlying this low rate, and to develop methodologies to

better identify and increase the number of communications concerning defenders of people

on the move in the coming months. In researching and drafting the present report, the

Special Rapporteur has paid particular attention to the views and situation of women human

rights defenders.

7. The Special Rapporteur expresses his gratitude to the many human rights defenders

that took extraordinary risks to share their testimonies for the report. He is also grateful to

the Special Rapporteur on the rights of migrants, who provided valuable input. He thanks

States and national human rights institutions for their submissions, and the Centre for

Applied Human Rights, University of York, for the assistance and instrumental support in

preparing the report.

III. Definition and normative framework

8. All people have human rights. The Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of

Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders)1

makes no distinction based on nationality or immigration status: “Everyone has the right,

individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and

realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international

levels.” Similarly, the international instruments that set out international and regional

human rights regimes extend their protections to all individuals within the jurisdiction of a

State, regardless of whether they are a national or non-national, regardless of how far they

are from their place of birth.

1 General Assembly resolution 53/144, annex.

A. Definition of people on the move

9. The term “people on the move” is used to capture the diverse populations and

circumstances of individuals and communities that find themselves in new locations.

Sometimes movement has been voluntary, in search of new economic opportunities or new

social horizons; at other times, movement has been forced as a result of armed conflict,

discrimination or human rights violations. In reality, the distinction between voluntary and

forced movement is blurred and challenged by the multiplicity of reasons for movement.

Groups and communities of people on the move are further complicated by a variety of

protection profiles, their reasons for moving and needs.

10. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur uses the term “people on the move”

broadly to cover both individuals and communities who have moved and are already

recognized in international law and policy, as well as those who find themselves in the

same situation but exist outside formally recognized categories. People on the move include

refugees, internal and international migrants, internally displaced persons, victims of

smuggling and trafficking, and the stateless. They also include persons seeking to reunite

with family members, displaced indigenous communities seeking to return to their ancestral

homes, and all others who find themselves for whatever reason somewhere new. People on

the move may be migrating as part of a well-established and predictable pattern, such as

seasonal agricultural labour, or because of an emerging and dynamic phenomenon, such as

climate change.

11. People on the move also fall within many other categories; they can be children,

mothers, workers, or persons with a disability. Some of these categories can bring with

them further legal protections. However, these categories, including gender, can also

intersect to isolate and create further vulnerabilities for individuals, groups and

communities. Nonetheless, all people on the move share a common situation: they find

themselves individually and collectively far away from their previous homes in new

communities on the other side of legal, economic, social or political boundaries. People on

the move is a diverse category of individuals and communities united by their shared

experience of movement.

B. Human rights defenders of people on the move

12. The term “human rights defender” refers to individuals or groups who, in their

personal or professional capacity and in a peaceful manner, strive to protect and promote

human rights. Defenders are above all identified by what they do, and are characterized

through their actions to protect human rights. Their right to exercise such fundamental

rights and freedoms as those to peaceful assembly and association, participation in the

affairs of society and freedom of expression and opinion, are firmly anchored in the

international system of human rights. The international bill of rights2 makes no distinction

with respect to these rights on the basis of nationality or place of birth.3

13. The Special Rapporteur has decided to adopt a broad and inclusive definition of

defenders working on people on the move to include affected communities and individuals,

lawyers, judges and academics. They may also be government officials, civil servants,

members of the private sector (including private sector employees increasingly employed

by States to address the situation of people on the move) and whistle-blowers. Human

rights defenders working on people on the move are often ordinary people who have

themselves been displaced or have chosen to migrate, or who have witnessed the suffering

2 Comprising the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights and the protocols thereto, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights.

3 Only three rights in the international bill of rights differentiate on the basis of nationality: the right to

participate in political affairs and to vote; the freedom of movement; and, in some circumstances,

economic rights. All of these differentiations are to be interpreted narrowly. See for example General

Assembly resolution 40/144.

of people on the move; they may not even be aware that they are acting as human rights

defenders. What this broad and diverse group has in common is the exercise of peaceful

activities to address the situation of people on the move.

14. While States have the sovereign right to determine their migration policies, this right

is constrained by the obligations voluntarily assumed by States under international human

rights law. Although a diverse array of international agreements apply to certain, widely

recognized groups, such as refugees and migrant workers, all people on the move and their

allies share the same universal human rights articulated in the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights. International human rights law prohibits discrimination on the basis of

nationality; the treaty bodies responsible for the interpretation and supervision of the core

instruments of the international human rights regime have issued clear guidance that the

rights articulated in the treaties apply without discrimination between citizens and non-

citizens and, by extension, should be enjoyed by all people on the move. Where limitations

are allowed to the rights of people on the move, international human rights law requires that

such restrictions be in response to a pressing public or social need, pursue a legitimate aim,

and be proportionate to that aim. All too often, restrictions on the rights of people on the

move to defend their rights, or on human rights defenders defending their rights, fail one or

more of these requirements.

15. Some people on the move also benefit from rights accorded by virtue of the cause of

their movement or other categories into which they fall. The former includes refugees,

stateless persons, migrant workers (and family members), internally displaced persons and

victims of smuggling or trafficking. The latter categories include women, children, racial

groups and persons with a disability. These rights are articulated in international and

regional treaties, and are also increasingly recognized as customary international law.

16. While many of the standards relative to the rights of people on the move and

defenders of people on the move are international, important work has been done by

regional organizations. Regional treaties have frequently expanded the protections offered

by international instruments, notably with respect to refugees and internally displaced

persons. In addition, regional human rights institutions have played an important role in

articulating developments in customary international law. In this respect, the Inter-

American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

have issued landmark decisions with respect to the rights of undocumented migrants. The

International Labour Organization has also played a key role in developing international

instruments addressing particular sectors of employment in which migrant labour is

frequently exploited, most recently in its Domestic Workers Convention (2011) (No. 189),

and in articulating global standards on the rights of irregular migrants.

17. As in international human rights law more generally, the rights outlined in the

Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, including the core freedoms of assembly,

expression and association, similarly apply to all individuals. In the first paragraph, the

Declaration reaffirms the importance of the observance of the purposes and principles of

the Charter of the United Nations for the promotion and protection of all human rights and

fundamental freedoms for all persons in all countries of the world. Under the Declaration,

human rights defenders of all backgrounds and working on all issues have the right freely to

discuss and participate in the negotiation of emerging frameworks and to interact with

national and international human rights institutions. International human rights law requires

States to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of defenders. The importance of the right to

defend the human rights of people on the move was recently reaffirmed in the report on

principles and practical guidance on the protection of the human rights of migrants in

vulnerable situations (A/HRC/37/34); according to principle 18, States must “respect and

support the activities of human rights defenders who promote and protect the human rights

of migrants”.

18. An important recent development in the normative framework concerning people on

the move is the aforementioned New York Declaration. The international community is

currently negotiating two global compacts, on refugees and on safe, orderly and regular

migration. These international instruments will seek to consolidate international obligations

to people on the move and to develop more comprehensive, coordinated responses to the

challenges that mass migration poses for both States and people on the move.

Unfortunately, human rights defenders have not figured enough in the discussions with

respect to these instruments, nor with regard to the associated comprehensive response

framework, action plans or monitoring mechanisms. Defenders are an essential

demonstration of the solidarity with people on the move, as proclaimed in the New York

Declaration. The invitation made in the New York Declaration to civil society, including

refugee and migrant organizations, to participate in multi-stakeholder alliances to support

efforts to implement the commitments being made should be taken up both by defenders of

people on the move and by States and other stakeholders in the ongoing negotiations.

IV. Background and hostile environment

19. The number of people on the move is increasing to record levels and shows no sign

of decreasing. While people on the move bring social and economic resources and new

ideas to the communities they join, they are not always welcomed. Furthermore, defenders

of people on the move work in an increasingly hostile environment marked by the closing

of civic space generally, and attacks and threats to human rights defenders more

specifically. In such an environment, defenders of people on the move face particular

challenges owing to the nature of both the issues they champion and the activities they

undertake in doing so.

A. Background

20. The current era has been described as the “age of migration” by a range of actors,

from academic commentators to the Secretary-General. While it is true that the history of

humanity is rooted in migration, the impact of people of the move on both the international

community and local communities around the world has reached unprecedented levels. The

displacement within and flowing out of the Syrian Arab Republic has refocused the

international community’s attention on the predicament of refugees and other displaced

persons, the global numbers of which are now at levels not seen since the end of the Second

World War. The forcibly displaced represent, however, only a fraction of the around 250

million peopple living in a country other than the one of their birth, a number that has risen

by more than 40 per cent since 2000. Migration affects all parts of the world and is

increasingly witnessed inside States in all regions of the world.

21. When international migrants are combined with internal migrants (people who

remain within their country of birth but live away from their region of birth), there are

currently more than one billion people on the move. Some States, such as Colombia, which

counted more than 7 million internally displaced persons even after the recent peace accord,

face protracted situations of internal displacement. Other States, such as China, currently

undergoing significant development and urbanization trends, face growing numbers of

internal migrants. The number of internal migrants is also increasing, as many societies

undertake their own development and urbanization. Communities that were considered

deeply rooted only a few decades ago have been displaced to new locations as a result of

large development projects, environmental damage and climate change. With one seventh

of the world population currently on the move, the experience of migration is becoming

commonplace and having a deep and lasting effect on the organization of society and

culture.4

22. Unfortunately, the response to migration is not always positive. All too frequently,

entrenched interests use migration as a means to reinforce their control by fomenting

distrust of newcomers and xenophobic attitudes. This can increase the risk of sexual and

gender-based violence faced by women people on the move (and women human rights

defenders). Political leaders scapegoat people on the move and blame them for economic

and social problems that are much more deep rooted. Xenophobic violence can be

4 International Organization for Migration, “Migration in the world” (available from

www.iom.sk/en/about-migration/migration-in-the-world).

instrumentally deployed to influence electoral outcomes. The media too often simply

reproduce and amplify these overly simplistic and acutely inaccurate narratives about

people on the move. Some States try to restrict the availability of migration through the

imposition of registration requirements, the restriction of benefits for newcomers, and

border controls, including stringent local residency requirements and international visa

regimes.

B. Hostile environment

23. The challenges that defenders of people on the move face arise within a broader

phenomenon of shrinking space for civil society. Human rights defenders face an

increasingly complex and coordinated web of restrictions on their activities that represent

an existential threat to free and open societies. Although each attack on a defender is made

within a specific context, and can and should receive discrete attention, the Special

Rapporteur is now convinced that such incidents are not isolated acts, but rather betray the

broader, concerted nature of attacks against those who try to embody the ideal of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights of creating a world free from fear and want.

Patterns in tactics are visible, ranging from copy-cat legislation restricting the freedom of

non-governmental organizations to restrictions on access to resources, to threats and violent

repercussions against defenders whose activities threaten vested interests. Moreover, the

international community has failed to respond to the concerns of the Special Rapporteur on

this point, which have been repeatedly expressed since the establishment of the mandate.

24. Certain features of the shrinking civil society space pose particularly large

challenges for people on the move and defenders working their behalf. The characterization

of defenders as “foreign agents”, for example, plays into the discourse that people on the

move and their allies represent a seditious threat. Similarly, foreign funding rules often

restrict people on the move of access to their own or other resources abroad. Many States

complain about the inequitable “burden” created by people on the move, while

simultaneously restricting access to funding from abroad, which could be used by defenders

to better mitigate some of the challenges faced by both people on the move and host

communities.

25. Nor should the discussion of shrinking civil society space obscure the reality that the

repression of civil society, and of human rights defenders, is not uniform. Some defenders

have faced long-standing difficulties and dangers, long predating the recent global trend. In

the context of the present report, people on the move as defenders of their own rights have

long been denied a right to any speaking position, excluded from political discourse as

outsiders and non-citizens. They continue to face threats and violence far in excess of that

faced by their supporters and allies. Civil society space has not only shrunk but is nearly

closed for people on the move seeking to defend their rights.

V. Root causes of violations

26. Beyond the shrinking civil society space, there is a constellation of discrete

economic, social and political phenomena that underpin the challenges that defenders of

people on the move face. The mistreatment of these defenders is inseparable from the

commodification of the people whose rights they champion, the shift in public discourse

towards a securitized, rather than humanitarian, approach to people on the move, and the

repressive utilization of citizenship and status to separate people on the move from the

rights to which they are entitled.

A. Commodification of migrants

27. Migrant labour is an economic resource, both of receiving jurisdictions through the

expansion of the labour market and of sending jurisdictions through the receipt of valuable

remittances. The nexus between migration and development is increasingly recognized by

the international community. The World Bank, other international financial institutions and

international intergovernmental processes, such as the Global Forum on Development and

Migration, actively engage in efforts to promote labour export and migrant guest worker

programmes as a means of development. Viewing people on the move as an economic issue

has led to a series of policies and practices that too often treat them as silent commodities to

be exploited in the national labour market. People on the move are incorporated into the

international labour market in a restricted manner; their capacity to exercise their labour

power may be more fully engaged, as they escape unemployment or underemployment in

their home regions or countries, but the terms of this engagement are circumscribed. They

are, in effect, incorporated into the economy on terms not dissimilar to other inputs in the

production process; their capacity to exercise their labour power is no more than a

commodity.

28. An important consequence of this commodification is precariousness: policies

targeting people on the move often deliberately leave them with only a temporary or

uncertain status. They face conditions of uncertainty, disempowerment, vulnerability and

insufficiency. They are excluded from the hard-won protections of labour and social rights

because of their lack of belonging. Immigration regimes often compound and perpetuate

their precarious situation; for example, the immigration status of a migrant worker is often

linked to his or her employment with a single individual employer, needs to be regularly

reviewed, or is made contingent upon the views of the employer as to whether that person

has been a “good” worker. Receiving societies often capitalize on or engineer the fear that

people on the move have of being detected, detained or deported in order to ensure that they

will not complain, protest or mobilize. People on the move with an irregular status are often

trapped in such a condition by the lack of opportunities to regularizes it, leading to

heightened vulnerability. The prolonged precariousness experienced by many people on the

move poses obstacles both for them, when they defend their own rights, and for traditional

defenders acting on their behalf, such as trade unions.

B. Securitization of migration

29. Migration is increasingly viewed through the lens of national security. References in

discourse to “crisis” and existential threats to the community predispose States and other

actors to responding with urgent or extraordinary measures. The characterization of people

on the move as a security concern is a political act and serves particular interests, including

by affording political legitimacy to unusual actions by the State and supporting partisan

political agendas – the irony being that many individuals become people on the move in

response to threats to their own security, including economic poverty, political repression

and armed conflict. Some States have deliberately pursued the securitization of migration to

further their own political ends; for example, the Government of Hungary prosecuted a

migrant from the Syrian Arab Republic for terrorism for using a megaphone to ask the

police to communicate with refugees and migrants at the border, and after throwing three

solid objects at them. The prosecution both scapegoated an individual for a much larger

issue and sought to depict as dangerous not only people on the move but also those who

seek to defend their rights.

30. It is too often forgotten that these responses, and the related phenomena of

nationalism and xenophobia, can themselves be seen as threats to the State, its interests and

its values. The protection of the rights of people on the move can be an expression of core

national values, a demonstration of solidarity with allies and a response to counter

destructive extremist politics; thus, while security rhetoric can be used to justify a stricter

migration policy, it can also be used to legitimize extraordinary actions in favour of

migrants.

C. Citizenship

31. Even though all human beings have human rights, some States (and private actors)

all too often discriminate between citizens and non-citizens; public discourse and political

debates reproduce this distinction, differentiating between deserving “locals” and

undeserving “newcomers”. The international human rights movement (and often its

national tributaries) traces its roots to national struggles for independence and self-

determination. Despite declarations of universality, it has historically found traction in

discourse that links rights with citizenship and belonging. While such rhetoric can build

support for human rights, it does so at the cost of the rights of non-nationals and other

people on the move who struggle to claim belonging. Furthermore, citizenship laws are, by

their nature, frequently politicized and often drafted by dominant groups. As such, they are

inherently problematic as a basis for denying the rights of non-dominant groups.

32. As many have noted, the idea of citizenship has become in practice a “vast and

proliferating bureaucracy from which flow categories of people marginalized by, excluded

or disqualified from citizenship and the rights which flow from this status”.5 An

unforgiving gap has developed between the ideal of deepening democracy through

citizenship and the abjection of “illegal” populations from the rights and protections of

citizenship through the enforcement of often brutal and inhumane immigration control.

Paradoxically, at a time when citizenship is becoming a tool used to control and exploit

people on the move, financial capital moves almost without restriction. Nonetheless, full

citizenship remains the main goal of much activism by and for people on the move. This

can inadvertently reinforce the correlation between citizens and non-citizens. Some

defenders of people on the move, notably the sans papiers movement, follow a contrary

strategy: engaging in claims for citizenship while also critically questioning citizenship as a

system of governance and control. The struggles of defenders of people on the move cannot

and should not be reduced to advocacy for citizenship, but understood separately as

critiquing the ethical foundations of citizenship.

VI. People on the move as human rights defenders

33. People on the move can themselves be human rights defenders. In some instances,

their journeys result from threats and risks that arise from their activities as human rights

defenders at home. In other cases, people already on the move become human rights

defenders after having suffered or witnessed human rights violations. In either case, people

on the move who are defenders face particular challenges as a result of their displacement

and the restrictions and vulnerability that they endure as people on the move.

A. Displacement due to violations of the rights of defenders

34. The violation of human rights, ranging from the active repression of political

opponents to the more general denial of economic opportunities, is a frequent cause of

migration. Like the members of society within which they operate, human rights defenders

are subject to these violations, and in many cases they subsequently become people on the

move in response to them. More bluntly, some defenders are forced to flee because of

threats and violence.

35. As the Special Rapporteur noted in his previous report (A/HRC/31/55, civil society

and State relocation initiatives have helped defenders to remove themselves from

immediate danger and to have some time for rest and respite. In some cases, defenders find

safety in another location within their own country; at other times, they have to seek refuge

abroad. Relocation initiatives may take different forms: from emergency shelter in safe

houses to temporary hosting arrangements with sympathetic civil society organizations,

shelter city programmes, through to the provision of scholarships and fellowships at

universities. In all such cases, human rights defenders become people on the move in order

to find protection. Such initiatives need greater support and good practices should be

identified and promoted, particularly with respect to the psychosocial well-being of

defenders in such schemes and managing transition, return or more permanent exile. States,

UNHCR and other actors should ensure that their actions and policies support, rather than

undermine, such a bottom-up approach to protection by civil society itself.

5 Imogen Tyler, “Designed to fail: A biopolitics of British citizenship”, Citizenship Studies, vol. 14,

No. 1, pp. 61-74.

36. Becoming a forced migrant is a choice embraced by few, including human rights

defenders at risk. As one defender consulted by the Special Rapporteur noted, “I do not like

the idea of being a refugee. I do not want to leave the country because I wanted to make it

better.” Defenders, like others, often see displacement as a last resort, and unfortunately as

a pathway to poverty, insecurity and irrelevance. Human rights movements struggle to find

a place for the voices of the displaced, and colleagues who remain too often view those who

seek refuge abroad with disdain and suspicion. Even in exile, threats may persist from

home governments and other agents of persecution; family, friends and colleagues who

remain can all come under pressure.

37. Protection regimes for people on the move, including the protection offered by the

international refugee regime, are often too uncertain and individualized, afflicting defenders

with lengthy periods of insecurity and failing to accommodate the broader needs of their

communities. Defenders in exile often take on low-skill jobs in an effort to reconstruct their

lives; often this also has the consequence of forcing them to abandon their human rights.

When such circumstances unfold, it is not only a personal defeat for defenders but for the

entire human rights movement, given that their valuable knowledge, resources and

advocacy are lost. Although national and regional guidelines on the protection of human

rights defenders often offer the facilitation of international protection abroad for defenders

at risk, in practice these promises are slow and overly discretionary. State visa regimes also

pose obstacles to civil society temporary international relocation initiatives. States may

impose blanket bans on visas for particular nationalities or discourage civil society

institutions from participating in such initiatives, by, for example, requiring lengthy

processes that make relocation through such an initiative an impractical response to an

immediate threat, or charging high application costs for visas. Visa policies may also

discriminate against women human rights defenders seeking temporary relocation with

their families.

38. Too often, human rights defenders who flee into exile are denied registration by

UNHCR and States for months, years or even indefinitely, and face decision-makers who

are unfamiliar with the basis of their claim as a human rights defender at risk. Decision-

makers almost invariably lack specific guidance and training on how to respond to requests

for protection from human rights defenders at risk. Only a handful of reported asylum

decisions mention defenders; reference to the situation of human rights defenders in

country of origin material used in asylum decisions is haphazard, and UNHCR has not

issued any global guidance on protection by the international refugee regime of human

rights defenders at risk. The uncertainty created by both the lack of status and the process of

refugee status determination can be mitigated by a commitment by UNHCR and States to

prompt registration followed up by fair and accurate decision-making with respect to status.

B. Continuing human rights activities after displacement

39. Human rights defenders who become people on the move face challenges and

threats to their continued agency and ability to do human rights work. These include

heightened vulnerability, restrictions on their rights as human rights defenders and, in some

cases, heightened risks even in exile.

1. Vulnerability as people on the move

40. People on the move face many restrictions. They often only possess temporary status

or are forced to live with an irregular status, under constant threat of arrest, detention and

deportation. They also frequently face restrictions in the employment they may seek and the

locations where they may live and to which they may travel. Cultural and linguistic

differences may separate them from the host community, and they may lack social capital

and networks in their new home. All of these factors make continuing to work as a defender

in exile extremely difficult; for example, defenders who have fled from Central Africa to

Uganda have reported feeling isolated from both human rights defenders and refugee

protection mechanisms because they are from a different country or region of origin, and

because of their lack of fluency in the local language.

41. People on the move, particularly those with a precarious status (such as temporary

migrant workers or asylum seekers), usually do not protest or mobilize to challenge the

exploitation that they endure, as they fear retaliation from humanitarian agencies,

recruitment agents, employers and the State; they cannot afford being refused recognition

as a refugee, fired, sent back home or barred from future work abroad, as this would mark

the end of the migration project in which they have already invested so much. Defenders

who have fled face a particular risk of refoulement, as their country of origin may seek the

return of dissidents, either formally through diplomatic pressure or surreptitiously through

the overseas actions of State security agents.

42. Defenders who continue their activities in exile face a chronic lack of protection.

State police and officials can project the same xenophobia and hostility to people on the

move that plagues host communities; defenders in exile may lack social networks and

capital and local knowledge about policies and practices to ensure that local authorities

offer them protection. UNHCR and humanitarian organizations, which are often the target

of the advocacy of such defenders, can see them at best as being of relative significance and

at worst, as undeserving of status or services. Although the protection activities of UNHCR

are overstretched, defenders in exile can face particular problems in their access to

protection owing to the belief that their risk is less worthy of a response because it is either

self-inflicted or self-interested. Women human rights defenders are particularly vulnerable

to lack of protection.

43. Many such people living in chronic insecurity are, as a result, unwilling to speak out

about their individual circumstances, although the media’s constant need for a “human

story” will rarely them publicize an issue without a personal account at its centre. The

outcome of this is the further stifling of public discussion regarding the treatment of people

on the move. The vulnerabilities of defenders in exile can lead to them losing control of

their stories, even when working with sympathetic journalists or local human rights

defenders. The conditions they face, particularly if in detention, can deprive them of their

dignity and bias popular discussion of their situation. As one defender working in

extremely difficult circumstances informed the Special Rapporteur, “They have tried to

suppress me because they know that if I were seen in this light, things would be different…

If I had been granted the respect I deserve from others at an earlier stage, I would’ve been

able to resist a lot stronger, I would’ve been able to fight a lot fiercer.” More broadly,

people on the move are often insufficiently involved in deciding which stories should be

published, which narratives should be presented and which images should be used.

Defenders of people on the move need to be willing to discuss the ethics of their practice,

and to listen to and support the voices of defenders in exile.

2. Restrictions on the rights of people on the move

44. The ability of people on the move to protest through free expression, association or

peaceful assembly is too restricted. For example, under s. 7 of Singapore’s recently revised

Public Order Act, a permit for public assembly may be refused if it involves the

participation of any individual who is not a citizen of Singapore. This has forced organisers

to establish what are in effect immigration checkpoints at the entrances to spaces of protest

and has silenced the voices of the quarter of the residents of Singapore who are not citizens

on issues that pertain to their daily life in that country. To be clear, there is no basis in

international law for completely divesting non-citizens of their assembly rights.

45. Often local labour laws fail to recognise the claims of people on the move,

particularly when they are irregular, and take so long to resolve that people on the move are

forced to agree to settlements or withdraw complaints. In some countries, contrary to

international labour standards, collective bargaining and union membership is effectively

restricted to citizens.

46. People on the move as human rights defenders often face extra barriers to

participating in international discussions and consultations. The continuation of defender

activities while in exile is tied to their continued membership and participation in regional

and international movements or organizations. However, full participation in meetings and

advocacy opportunities, including before the Human Rights Council, may be impossible

due to visa restrictions or renewal of expired travel documents. Human rights defenders in

exile are also disproportionately affected by exit controls in their country of residence

which may result in sanctions if any irregular status is discovered or prevent their return.

3. Particular vulnerability of some defenders in exile

47. Some defenders who become people on the move face heightened risk because of an

aspect of their identity or the issues on which they work. Women human rights defenders

who are forced to flee often face a dilemma: they face heightened vulnerability and social

stigma if they flee alone but flight into exile with their children may be even more difficult

and will almost certainly curtail their ability to continue their human rights activities.

LGBTI defenders may also face particular vulnerability in exile, particularly in refugee

camp settings where their sexual orientation and gender identity brings with it social stigma

and risk and the general lack of privacy makes it impossible to maintain secrecy. State

officials, humanitarian organisations and even defenders in the new host community may

be indifferent or actively hostile to the particular vulnerabilities of these defenders who

become people on the move.

48. The expansive use of cessation provisions for refugee protection by some States

paralyses human rights defenders in exile and prevents them from continuing their

activities. Such policies undermine the ability of defenders in exile and create needless

obstacles to their work for the betterment of their communities. Human rights defenders

who protest their treatment or the treatment of other people on the move often face reprisals

including the loss of status, expulsion from refugee camps and refusal of access to

resettlement.

49. Some people on the move are particularly vulnerable due to their circumstances in

their new place of residence. Live-in domestic workers, who in many places are exclusively

drawn from the ranks of international migrants, face particular vulnerability to monitoring,

control and coercion predicated on their isolation from each other, heightened dependence

on their employer, the private location of their work and interrelated restrictions on their

freedom of movement. Moreover, migrant domestic workers who seek to defend their

rights risk reprisals that can instantly strip them of status and simultaneously render them

homeless.

VII. Defending the rights of people on the move

50. People on the move have many allies, both old and new. With the surge in the

number of people on the move, a growing number of defenders are seeking to address the

human rights violations they face. Unfortunately, defenders of people on the move also face

a number of barriers: difficulty in access to people on the move, and the sites of human

rights violations against them; the criminalization and stigmatization of their work, and of

people on the move; and the growing involvement of non-State actors in violations against

people on the move.

A. Lack of access to people on the move

51. People on the move are often forced to confront peril when they transit militarized

border zones or cross dangerous seas. More than 5,000 people on the move are reported to

have died in the process of migration towards an international destination over the past

year. Unfortunately, defenders who seek to assist people on the move in such spaces often

face dangers themselves. Some have been charged with smuggling while trying to rescue

refugees on the high seas, or have been subjected to a growing number of regulatory

restrictions on their actions.

52. Access to people on the move in border areas is often controlled by military

authorities, who simultaneously are unable to meet the needs of people on the move in

these areas and restrict access and humanitarian assistance to them. In a number of

countries, the authorities have ordered soup kitchens to be closed, rescue boats to be

impounded and temporary accommodation to be demolished. They have forced defenders

to be accompanied in their activities in border areas by police officers, deliberately blurring

the line between the State and civil society and undermining the perceived neutrality of

defenders. Defenders seeking to provide humanitarian assistance to people on the move

without State permission within these spaces are subject to criminalization (despite the

suffering that this generates) and the clear protections that international human rights law

offers such activities. In Italy, for example, some defenders working in border areas have

been issued a foglio di via, an order to leave the town and not to return there for a specified

period.

53. Even inside a State, people on the move are often confined to isolated locations

ranging from refugee camps to construction sites, labour camps and agricultural plantations.

Many of these are located in remote locations difficult to reach. Information about whom is

being detained where is often kept from defenders, or provided when it is already out of

date. Employers, private land owners and camp management authorities can restrict access

to these locations. Asylum seekers in need of support from the State may be particularly

vulnerable to policies of dispersal. Even where access is allowed, defenders working in

such locations can be subject to intense surveillance, while people on the move working

with defenders have to face suspicion and reprisals. All too frequently, places of detention

are deliberately located in this way so as to increase the precariousness of people on the

move and to isolate them from communities offering support.6 At the extreme, a place of

detention can (as in the case of Australia) be on the high seas, on a remote offshore island

or even outside the territory of the State. Judicial proceedings are sometimes even moved to

within detention centres, further frustrating access by human rights defenders, including

those seeking to provide legal counsel and representation.

B. Criminalization and stigmatization of defenders of people on the move

54. Defenders working on issues faced by people on the move are often subject to

criminalization and to restrictions above and beyond those usually faced by civil society

more generally. States have expanded the troubling practice of requiring registration with

the police and supervision and control by State authorities when working in particular

geographic areas hosting large numbers of people on the move or close to border crossings.

Even outside of these areas, defenders providing assistance to and expressing solidarity

with people on the move have faced criminalization. While criminalization is often

legislated nationally, it can also be the product of local bylaws that seek to prevent

defenders from providing support to people on the move or otherwise interfere in the

activities of defenders.

55. The irregular status of some people on the move may cause defenders working with

them to be charged with “harbouring” irregular people or otherwise facilitating their

irregular presence. Some defenders (such as Helena Maleno Garzón), have even been

accused of the international crime of trafficking as a result of their advocacy against illegal

practices, such as “hot returns”, and solidarity with people on the move.7 The simple act of

giving tea and biscuits to an irregular migrant has triggered criminal prosecution. Such

prosecutions have a chilling effect, making mainstream civil society organizations and

private individuals more hesitant to engage with people on the move or to take action in

relation to the challenges they face. In some States, severe penalties have been legislatively

mandated for whistle-blowers who reveal information about the mistreatment of people on

the move. These laws place individuals in conflict with their own personal and professional

ethics and are in clear violation of the freedom of expression guaranteed by international

human rights law.

6 Lauren Martin, “Noncitizen detention: spatial strategies of migrant precarity in US immigration and

border control”, Annales de géographie, vol. 702-703, No. 2 (2015), pp. 231-247.

7 International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), #Defending Maleno, press release, 4 December

2017.

56. Criminalization of defenders of people on the move reinforces the social stigma that

people on the move and their allies face. One defender in Italy noted that “criminalizing

solidarity threatens to promote, in public opinion and among political forces, an indifferent

attitude towards migrants and refugees, or even overtly racist and nationalist positions.” It

seeks to delegitimize the work of defenders and threatens their activities by discouraging

private donors and volunteers. In such a hostile environment, it is important that funders

recognize the challenges that defenders face, and adopt flexible and appropriate funding

mechanisms. Often as part of policies directed at deterring people on the move, States have

cut government funding for civil society working with people on the move, most notably

organizations working against racism and xenophobia and legal centres supporting people

on the move in claiming their rights.

57. In some locations, the stigma associated with people on the move has been actively

countered by interventions from locally respected institutions, including religious figures

and organizations. Religious leaders around the world have condemned the rise in

xenophobia and urged followers to provide assistance to people on the move without

prejudice, regardless of their cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds. Local religious

leaders have welcomed people on the move and publically demonstrated support of their

journeys to safety. A striking example of this is along the southern border of Mexico, where

the assistance provided by the Catholic Church to migrants both responds to their

humanitarian needs and mitigates the marginalization and stigma faced by the recipients of

their assistance. In Australia, the “Let them stay” campaign represented a coalition that

drew upon the broad-based community membership and local facilities of religious

organizations.

58. As irregular and vulnerable migrants are not part of the local polity, by and large

they have no voice in the political arena, and rarely dare to protest. In the face of the

increasingly strident anti-immigration sentiment in political discourse, it is often the

judiciary that can best protect migrants’ rights. Access to justice becomes a key factor in

imposing sanctions for human rights violations and reducing migrants’ vulnerability.

C. Involvement of non-State actors

59. As with the rest of society, people on the move interact with private individuals and

companies in a range of domains, from housing to employment, through to banking. These

interactions can result in abuse, breaches of contract and exploitation, which further

heighten the vulnerability of people on the move. International migration is in every sense a

difficult undertaking; as a result, many people on the move often rely on smugglers to cross

borders. Even regular migrant workers are often required to obtain visas through State-

sanctioned private recruiters. People on the move often face challenges in seeking remedies

to such mistreatment, particularly when the availability of the remedies is tied to having

regular immigration status or a lengthy period of time to obtain it.

60. Defenders of people on the move may also face risks and exploitation as a result of

the involvement of organized crime, for example, in the transportation of people on the

move. The Mafia and other criminal networks have become involved in the exploitation of

groups of people on the move, while defenders seeking to expose their criminal activities

are left without adequate protection, especially when they themselves are people on the

move. In Mexico, people on the move face violence, extortion and trafficking from criminal

gangs: “Few make it to the border without having suffered any human rights abuse; many

go missing on the way, never to be found again.”8 In Italy, people on the move who seek to

resist human trafficking can be subject to horrendous abuse.9 Traffickers have threatened

and killed defenders seeking to expose their activities; victims of trafficking who do seek to

expose or prosecute their traffickers face lengthy periods of detention in safe houses,

8 Amnesty International, “Mexico’s gruesome war against migrants”, 21 August 2015.

9 Lorenzo Tondo and Annie Kelly, “Raped, beaten, exploited: the 21st-century slavery propping up

Sicilian farming”, Guardian, 12 March 2017.

uncertain immigration status and threats against their family and community that prevent

any return home.

61. Contractual relations with non-State actors can also restrict the rights of people on

the move to defend their rights. Private employment contracts may prohibit people on the

move from engaging in political activity, free expression or peaceful assembly. Although

these contracts are private, the State has an important and pivotal role to play in prohibiting

such restrictions by rejecting their validity as contractual terms under national law.

62. Non-State actors also have a growing role in the regulation of people on the move

and the defenders who advocate on their behalf. States outsource some of their core

functions with regard to migration, including the inspection of travel documents, the

provision of social housing and, in some cases, the management of detention facilities.

These practices expose people on the move and their allies to a range of new challenges and

risks. Outsourcing often restricts the access of defenders to information insofar as non-State

actors fall outside legislation and policies regulating freedom of information. The

involvement of non-State actors may also limit the ability of defenders to seek redress

through the courts. By removing the State from the situation, outsourcing removes the usual

methods of accountability and advocacy for human rights defenders. Private actors have

responded to advocacy by defenders of people on the move by filing defamation lawsuits

that are, in effect, strategic litigation against public participation suits intended to censor,

intimidate and silence critics.

VIII. Creating an enabling environment for defending the rights of

people on the move

A. Conclusions

63. Defenders of people on the move seek to make concrete the commitments of the

international community to people on the move. As noted in the report of the

Secretary General on addressing large movements of refugees and migrants (A/70/59)

(prior to the adoption of the New York Declaration), “there has been an outpouring of

support from civil society, and in every region countless individuals have

spontaneously welcomed new arrivals, often literally opening the doors of their homes

to them. […] These positive examples can serve as a basis for strengthened collective

action.” Although the number of people on the move is increasing, States too often

remain hostile to movement across borders, whether internal or international. The

hostility of States towards people on the move and their defenders is a result of the

confluence of the desire to maximize economic development through the

commodification of people on the move, the securitization of discussions of all types of

migration, and the problematic role of citizenship in discourses on rights.

64. In a submission to the Special Rapporteur, the Government of Greece

highlighted the importance of the situation of defenders of people on the move, given

that, “in most cases, people on the move, having no vote or other means to make their

voices heard, depend on advocates and defenders to a higher than normal degree to

make their concerns known.” Defenders of people on the move are also often less

visible than other types of human rights defenders owing to a number of factors,

including the location of their work and the fact that people on the move are

themselves marginalized. Other identities or occupations that defenders have may

prevent them from being seen as human rights defenders working with people on the

move. They may see themselves as medical doctors or humanitarian workers, or as

working within the refugee rights movement rather than as human rights defenders.

65. The challenges that defenders face cannot be separated from those confronting

those whose rights they defend, not least because many of the latter are also the

former. Just as people on the move too frequently face policies designed to create a

hostile environment, so too do defenders acting in solidarity with and advocating for

the rights of people on the move face a growing number of restrictions and controls.

These challenges dangerously reinforce each other, leading to a downward spiral of

marginalization and the posing of ever greater obstacles to the effective exercise of

their rights. Such restrictions and controls must be reconsidered in ongoing

discussions on the rights of people on the move and sustainable approaches to

migration. The role of human rights defenders advocating for the rights of people on

the move must be a core element of renewed commitments to, and action plans and

monitoring regimes for, people on the move.

B. Recommendations

66. The Special Rapporteur recommends that States:

(a) Take all measures to protect the right to life, liberty and security of

person of people on the move and those who defend their rights;

(b) Recognize publicly the important role played by defenders of people on

the move and the legitimacy of their work; and condemn publicly all instances of

violence, discrimination, intimidation or reprisals against them, and emphasize that

such practices can never be justified;

(c) Enable people to promote and protect human rights regardless of their

immigration status; in particular, people on the move and those who defend their

rights should be able to exercise, inter alia, their right to freedom of information,

freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of assembly;

(d) Ensure that perpetrators of crimes against people on the move and those

who defend their rights – including employers, law enforcement officials, traffickers,

and criminal gangs – are held accountable for their actions and brought to justice;

(e) In relation to the rescue of persons at sea specifically, observe legal

provisions as contained, inter alia, in the International Convention for the Safety of

Life at Sea, the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, and the

Convention on the Law of the Sea; ensure that people are not criminalized for

rescuing people at sea, and that masters of vessels sailing under their flag observe

rules regarding rescue at sea; and allow vessels in distress to seek haven in their

waters, granting those on board at least temporary refuge;

(f) Ensure that all human rights defenders in exile benefit from the

prohibition of refoulement to persecution, as articulated in the Convention relating to

the status of refugees and other international instruments and customary

international law;

(g) Ensure that national protection mechanisms for human rights defenders

at risk are accessible to defenders of people on the move, including by increasing

training of staff involved in protection about and outreach to defenders of people on

the move;

(h) Ensure that visa regimes and other policies and practices do not

undermine temporary international relocation initiatives for human rights defenders,

and more fully operationalize policies that provide for humanitarian visas for human

rights defenders at risk;

(i) Ensure that people on the move and those who defend their rights have

access to justice and to effective remedies through national courts, tribunals and

dispute-settlement mechanisms, regardless of their immigration status; ensure that

they are not threatened with or subject to arrest, detention or deportation when

reporting crimes, labour rights violations, and other forms of human rights violations;

and ensure they have the necessary support for pursuing remedies through effective

access to justice in national courts, tribunals and dispute-settlement mechanisms, with

the support of unions (where applicable), interpreters and legal assistance;

(j) Ensure that national law and administrative provisions and their

application facilitate the work of all actors providing humanitarian assistance to and

defending the human rights of people on the move, including by avoiding any

criminalization, stigmatization, impediment, obstruction or restriction thereof

(including in assistance provided by local authorities, such as regional or municipal

bodies) that is contrary to international human rights law.

67. States offering resettlement should recognize the importance of providing a

durable solution to people on the move who suffer serious threat or imminent harm as

a result of their defence of human rights by affording access to emergency

resettlement and expanding the opportunities for their resettlement more generally.

68. The Special Rapporteur recommends that United Nations agencies, funds and

programmes and related organizations, including the Human Rights Council, its

special procedures, the United Nations Development Programme, UNCHR and the

International Organization for Migration recognize publicly the important role

played by defenders of people on the move and the legitimacy of their work.

69. The special procedures of the Human Rights Council should more closely

monitor the concerns of people on the move, including by better tracking the number

of communications received about their concerns.

70. UNHCR should establish guidelines on international protection recognizing

how people on the move have the right to promote and protect their own rights and

the rights of others, and ensure that UNHCR staff are appropriately trained on the

guidelines and how these rights should be protected (including by being made aware

of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders), especially in camp situations and in

advocacy towards UNHCR.

71. The Special Rapporteur recommends that national human rights institutions:

(a) Ensure that the situation of defenders of people on the move is fully

included in the monitoring of the situation of human rights;

(b) Recognize publicly and support the role of defenders of people on the

move.

72. The Special Rapporteur also recommends that regional and international

organizations, including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,

the Council of Europe, the Organization of American States, the African Union and

the Association of Southeast Asian Nations develop and share existing good practices

in regional organizations with regard to the normative development of the right to

defend the rights of people on the move and the rights of people on the move

themselves.

73. Special procedures for human rights defenders should more closely monitor the

concerns of people on the move, including by better tracking the number of

communications received about their concerns.

74. The Special Rapporteur recommends that civil society, including international

and local non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations and

private and State funders of civil society:

(a) Further explore, strengthen and expand the availability of temporary

relocation initiatives, including both within the States of residence of human rights

defenders at risk and internationally, through the sharing of good practices and the

strengthening of support available for such schemes, which should follow the seven

principles underpinning the protection of defenders (see A/HRC/31/55, para. 111),

namely, that they are rights-based; inclusive of defenders from diverse backgrounds;

gender-sensitive; based on a holistic understanding of security; oriented to the

protection of individuals and collectives; involve the participation of defenders in the

choice of protection measures; and are flexible, in order to meet the specific needs of

defenders;

(b) Address the barriers to the continued activity of human rights defenders

who become people on the move for which it is responsible by adopting non-

discriminatory approaches to recruitment and welcoming human rights defenders

who are people on the move and their organizations into local advocacy networks.

75. The Special Rapporteur recommends that journalists, media organizations,

bloggers, social media activists and other persons who express themselves through

artistic means develop new tactics for reporting on the situation of defenders of people

on the move that more fully recognize their vulnerabilities and realize their agency.