Digital Art – Luis Fernando Salazar is a Colombian contemporary artist who captures in his work the colours and sensations, he says: “I like to represent the warmth of bright colours, the beauty of the world around us“.
Writer of verses, he found his inspiration at the age of 8, drawing. At the age of 16, he began to write short verses in classical poetry. A lover of the mountains and nature, he wanted to capture his perceptions of the world around him in painting and drawing.
Image credit: Luis Fernando Salazar (from his Facebook account)
Very skilled since childhood, he began to create decorative objects for Christmas while he also learned pyrography on wood.
Then, in this ever-growing digital era, Digital abstract art has been the focus of his work, without losing his affinity for brushes and canvases. With not too many resources, Salazar decided to continue with his inspiration and creation in Digital Art composing with diverse methods, editing, assemblies, and diverse digital techniques to create a variety and artistic works that express his love, especially, for the colourful forms, many abstract and insinuating, “I love giving the freedom for the observer to interpret my art” he told to The European Times.
For the first time, a newsroom portrays these works and presents them to the public to share for inspiration.
Latvia files a declaration of intervention in the proceedings under Article 63 of the Statute
THE HAGUE, 22 July 2022. Genocide – On 21 July 2022, the Republic of Latvia, invoking Article 63 of the Statute of the Court, filed in the Registry of the Court a declaration of intervention in the case concerning Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation).
Pursuant to Article 63 of the Statute, whenever the construction of a convention to which States other than those concerned in the case are parties is in question, each of these States has the right to intervene in the proceedings. In this case, the construction given by the judgment of the Court will be equally binding upon them.
To avail itself of the right of intervention conferred by Article 63 of the Statute, Latvia relies on its status as a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the “Genocide Convention”). It states that “[a]s a Party to the Genocide Convention, Latvia has a direct interest in the construction that might be placed upon that treaty in the Court’s decision in the [proceedings”, indicating that it “wishes to intervene in order to make submissions on [the] construction of the Genocide Convention on issues relating to merits as well as jurisdiction”.
In accordance with Article 83 of the Rules of Court, Ukraine and the Russian Federation have been invited to furnish written observations on Latvia’s declaration of intervention.
Latvia’s declaration of intervention will soon be available on the Court’s website.
The history of the proceedings can be found in press releases Nos. 2022/4, 2022/6, 2022/7 and 2022/11, available on the Court’s website.
Note. The Court’s press releases are prepared by its Registry for information purposes only and do not constitute official documents.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It was established by the United Nations Charter in June 1945 and began its activities in April 1946. The Court is composed of 15 judges elected for a nine-year term by the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). The Court has a twofold role. first, to settle, in accordance with international law, through judgments which have binding force and are without appeal for the parties concerned, legal disputes submitted to it by States; and, second, to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and agencies of the system.
The fourth annual Ministerial conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) was held in London following a strong impetus to bring awareness of, and action to, the many transgressions against FoRB around the world.
This initiative was first held in Washington DC and the instigation of the US government in 2018, and then again in Washington DC in 2019. Lockdowns cancelled the 2020 conference whilst the 2021 conference, hosted by Poland, was virtual.
One of the most notable aspects of this initiative is that it seeks to go against the current of political interests driven primarily by economic factors – which certainly puts these deliberations on a higher ethical ground.
That the UK administration has embraced this initiative and held such a major conference – taking over the entire QE II Conference Centre in London for two days – is clearly a commitment to FoRB. Today, the state of religious freedom in many parts of the world is in a pretty poor state.
From China to Russia, from Nigeria to India and Pakistan, we find human rights abuses founded in religious discrimination ranging from rape and murder to organ harvesting and banning of innocent religious groups.
The two days of the conference along with many other additional ‘side events’ in Parliament, government buildings, and others around London and the UK were held with the intention to bring focus on the often egregious violations and suppression of this essential human right.
Will this bring about improved conditions for those believers – be it religious or non-religious – remains to be seen? But the signs are promising. A multi-country juggernaut is being built to highlight these issues rather than turn a blind eye.
A number of conference declarations were signed by governments – certainly not enough as we can see, the key declaration was signed by only 30 countries. Led by the United States and the United Kingdom, the remainder were mostly European – though notable omissions were France, Germany and Spain. Whilst outside of Europe, Australia, Canada, Brazil, Columbia, Israel and Japan were also signatories.
Overall statments
The Broad Conference Statement of Freedom of Religion or Belief can be found on the government site (here). It commits governments:
to protect “freedom of thought, conscience, religion, or belief and ensure individuals can freely change their beliefs, or not believe, without penalty or fear of violence”;
to “raise awareness of the current challenges to FoRB across the world, the relevance of FoRB to other human rights, and best practice in preventing violations and abuses and protecting and promoting FoRB for all”;
to “speak out bilaterally, as well as through multilateral institutions, against violations and abuses of the right to freedom of religion or belief” whilst working “more closely together with international partners, civil society actors, human rights experts, academia and faith and belief actors to implement practical solutions to address FoRB challenges, exchange best practice, and build shared commitments” whilst
strengthening “the voices and build the capacity of defenders of FoRB, including religious or belief actors, inspiring future leaders and young people, and building and reinforcing global coalitions for collective action”.
Words versus actions
We know that words are cheap whilst action and commitment can be expensive – but the simple fact that these governments have made such a move in the face of growing intolerance in some parts of the world is a positive sign.
Some actions taken, in particular by the US administration have shown their teeth by declaring the actions taken in Myanmar against Rohingya Moslems as genocide – something the UK government should emulate.
It goes without saying that civil society played a significant role in encouraging and moving this whole process along.
The creation of FoRB Round Tables or Forums are entirely civil society innovations open to any individual or belief group where issues of religious discrimination can be aired and actions taken to urge government or other sectors of civil society to take a stand on different issues.
These processes play an important role in keeping governments both informed and on their toes with regard to abuses occurring in the world. Most notable ones are in the US, UK and in Brussels (convening groups from around Europe) whilst one about to start in Mexico was announced during the conference.
Constructive Criticism
The conference organisation was not without criticism, however.
Many NGOs and even governments complained about the extremely late notification of seat availability and corresponding access passes for attendees which generated a lot of difficulties for attendees.
Quite a number of NGOs complained about the ‘discrimination’ between civil society and official government delegates as civil society did not have access to any of the main proceedings.
A floor had been assigned to civil society with 12 booths and this was relatively empty most of the time.
Those with limited civil society passes were consigned to stay in isolation whilst the main conference went on without them, with room for many more attendees.
This differentiation was seemingly at odds with the spirit of the whole conference and was not a credit to the organisers. Unfortunately, the successful model used by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Human Dimension Meetings, where all attendees are able to meet each other and attend all meetings was not adopted –creating discontent amongst civil society groups.
Conclusion
Still, whatever the thinking behind excluding sections of civil society, these things are mainly organisational issues which can be easily corrected for future conferences.
Overall, the initiative driven by the UK and US governments to ensure that the vital human right of freedom of religion or belief is raised, exposed, protected and nurtured was an extremely important step in moving the political momentum in the right direction.
On July 4, Pope Francis announced that he had the intention to visit Moscow and Kyiv as soon as possible. The head of the Vatican is regularly speaking to Ukrainian President Zelensky but would like to visit Putin before heading toward Kyiv. He believes that he might be the neutral agent that could convince Putin to put an end to the war.
On the other side of the line, in Moscow, there are different reactions to this idea. In the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, most are in favour of such a visit. Even in the Presidential administration, the reaction is pretty positive, and they view this controversial proposal favourably. But that is not the case within the FSB and the military. There, it is another story, and the intervention of Francis is viewed with at least suspicion and more usually with complete reluctance.
The main actor of this diplomatic move is the head of the World Union of Old Believers Leonid Sevastianov. Sevastianov has access to the Pope and is highly considered by him, and is the one whom the Supreme Pontiff would listen to when it comes to Russia. He is also the one lobbying the Presidential administration in Russia, pushing the idea that the Vatican is the only “neutral” State and then the only one in a position to act as a genuine mediator. Leonid Sevastianov is a strong Christian, who strongly believes that his spiritual mission is to do all in his power to put an end to the war.
But the fiercer opposition is coming from the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) Moscow Patriarch Kirill. Kirill is a strong supporter of the war, and justifies it, as several religious leaders in Russia, by the need of protecting the Christian world from the decadent West corrupted by cults and pagans, a message that is embraced by the Kremlin. His biggest fear is to see the Pope coming into his “territory”, preaching for peace. Even before the war, Kirill opposed the coming of the Vatican’s head, and the reason was then clear: Kirill is poorly considered by the believers, and barely attracts none (or very few) when he publicly appears. If Pope Francis would come to Russia, it’s likely that he attracts thousands of Christians to greet him, which would definitely undermine Kirill’s image in the country.
So Kirill is activating his network behind the scene to prevent Sevastianov to succeed, which is not without risk for the latter. Kirill is a former agent of the KGB and does not back off from dirty tricks to reach his goals. Sevastianov, who in fact is a former colleague of Kirill, and worked for years as the director of the St. Gregory the Theologian’s Charity Foundation, the biggest Orthodox Foundation in Moscow founded by Kirill and Metropolitan Hilarion, has recently declared that the support of the Moscow Patriarch to the war was to be considered as heresy, from a religious point of view. That’s no shy statement by far.
Hilarion himself, who was considered the number 2 of the ROC and was the chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, has recently been demoted and sent to a small diocese in Hungary. There is no clear interpretation of this demotion: some say that Hilarion was opposed to the war and was punished for that. Others say that Kirill saw him as a threat as he was in a position to replace him as Patriarch, and some say that it is to have him in a better position to lobby for the ROC on the international scene after Kirill has been sanctioned by the UK, and barely avoided the EU sanctions thanks to the last-minute intervention of Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary.
Nevertheless, if Sevastianov’s diplomacy is a risky one for himself, it is also a steady one. Sevastianov has kept pushing for it since February, gained the support of the Supreme Pontiff and is now making progress in Moscow. Of course, even if he would succeed in getting Francis to Moscow, the big question is will it have any impact on Vladimir Putin? History will tell.
New Business Integrity Portal launched to bolster anti-corruption efforts in the private sector
16 countries included in the portal thus far.
Vienna (Austria), 30 June 2022 —Tackling corruption requires all parts of society to play their part. One sector, though, has a particularly critical role as the world’s key economic driver: the private sector.
The private sector has a vested interest in curbing corruption. Corruption impedes the economic and financial growth of businesses by distorting markets and increasing costs. The private sector can therefore be a powerful agent for change by contributing to a culture of integrity and transparency and by strengthening the rule of law. It is not only possible but also beneficial for the business community to create stronger economies and more prosperous societies.
For over a decade, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has been fostering dialogue between businesses and governments to find common solutions to a common problem and enhance the capacity of both sectors to prevent and counter corruption. By improving accountability and transparency in industries and supply chains, and by educating and empowering employees to speak up and report corrupt practices, UNODC promotes a culture of integrity in business. Educating youth on fairness and ethics today is key to building generations of integrity business leaders tomorrow.
To ensure forward momentum on business integrity, UNODC has launched its brand-new Business Integrity Portal. Serving as an online one-stop shop, the Portal houses a wealth of resources, tools, and good practices, emerging from a range of anti-corruption projects for the private sector implemented by UNODC and funded by the Siemens Integrity Initiative. The projects, delivered in 16 countries across the globe, are designed to reduce corruption by strengthening legal frameworks, public-private dialogue and private sector capacity in line with the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), the only legally binding universal anti-corruption instrument. Collective action increases the impact and credibility of individual action.
“Addressing corruption in the private sector demands collective action, which can be effective only when we cooperate and coordinate with one another,” commented UNODC’s Brigitte Strobel-Shaw on the launch of the Portal. “The Business Integrity Portal is another crucial step in the right direction. It showcases preventive action in the private and public sectors, a key driver for change and for the establishment of a culture of integrity.”
The Portal provides users with an overview of how governments and other stakeholders such as civil society and academia have joined forces with the corporate world to develop practical solutions to prevent and counter corruption in specific countries and sectors.
In addition to providing users with an in-depth look at UNODC activities in the area of business integrity, the Portal also offers opportunities to connect with the Office and participate in events. More details can be found here.
To support States parties’ efforts to fully implement the United Nations Convention against Corruption, UNODC delivers technical assistance in various corruption-related thematic areas, including prevention, education, asset recovery, and integrity in the criminal justice system, among others. Learn more here.
UNESCO says that hate speech is on the rise worldwide.
Hate speech incites violence, undermines diversity and social cohesion and “threatens the common values and principles that bind us together,” the UN chief said in his message for the first-ever International Day for Countering Hate Speech.
“It promotes racism, xenophobia and misogyny; it dehumanizes individuals and communities; and it has a serious impact on our efforts to promote peace and security, human rights, and sustainable development,” underscored Secretary-General António Guterres.
Dangerous words
He explained that words can be weaponized and cause physical harm.
The escalation from hate speech to violence, has played a significant role in the most horrific and tragic crimes of the modern age, from the antisemitism driving the Holocaust, to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, he said.
“The internet and social media have turbocharged hate speech, enabling it to spread like wildfire across borders,” added the UN chief.
Fighting back
The spread of hate speech against minorities during the COVID-19 pandemic has further shown that many societies are highly vulnerable to the stigma, discrimination and conspiracies it promotes.
In response to this growing threat, three years ago, Mr. Guterres launched the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech – a new framework to support Member States in countering the scourge, while also managing to respect freedom of expression and opinion.
It was undertaken in collaboration with civil society, media, technology companies and social media platforms.
And last year, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling for inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue to counter hate speech – and proclaimed the International Day.
“Hate speech is a danger to everyone and fighting it, is a job for everyone,” said the UN chief.
“This first International Day to Counter Hate Speech is a call to action. Let us recommit to doing everything in our power to prevent and end hate speech by promoting respect for diversity and inclusivity”.
Hate fuelling hostilities
In a sign of how the phenomenon is becoming an increasing problem, UN rights chief Michelle Bachelet and UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Alice Nderitu, expressed their “deep alarm” on Friday, over the hate speech that is fuelling violence against civilians, in long-running clashes between the M23 rebel group and Government forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
The two top officials called for the uptick in attacks against civilians to stop immediately.
“We call on all parties to respect international human rights law and international humanitarian law,” they stressed.
The UN senior officials singled out that hate speech and “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence nationwide” – directed specifically against Kinyarwanda speakers – was an important factor, as the DRC Government has accused Rwanda of supporting the M23.
“Hate speech fuels the conflict by exacerbating mistrust between communities,” they said.
“It focuses on aspects that have previously mattered less, incites a discourse of ‘us vs. them’, and corrodes social cohesion between communities that have previously lived together”.
Spreading hatred
So far, the UN has documented eight cases of hate speech and incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and it has been spread by political party figures, community leaders, civil society actors, as well as the Congolese diaspora.
“Times of heightened political tensions and armed conflict tend to correlate with increased use of hate speech and incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence,” the two top officials stated.
“Hateful messages heighten the risk of violence, including atrocity crimes targeting specific groups of people [and] should be roundly condemned by the highest national authorities and curbed.”
Both women encouraged Parliament to expedite the adoption of the bill on “racism, xenophobia and tribalism” to strengthen the legal framework to address and counter hate speech.
In a time where peace has become more than the lack of war, war has hit what is considered the “civilized” world, there are few who willingly misinterpret the time, context, and text to justify the killing of other human beings, forgetting all lessons learned from history.
What is religion?
Religion is a social and cultural system that includes predetermined behaviours and rituals, morals, world-views, books, holy locations, prophecies, ethics, and organizations. It connects humans to mystical or spiritual components of the supernatural world. Religion is a combination of religious attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours that can be personal or institutionalized.
The different types of religions
There are many religions in the world, but we will only discuss the six major religions in this text. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, Scientology and Hinduism are the 7 of the most known religions. We’ll look at each religion’s scriptural views about peace and the importance thereof.
Buddhism
Buddhism, unlike the first four religions, does not believe in an external God. Buddhists, on the other hand, seek personal enlightenment and adhere to the teachings of Buddha, a former prince who attained enlightenment after renouncing his life of luxury. According to Buddhists, the Four Noble Truths were discovered by Buddha.
Peace, according to Buddhism, is an inner condition of mental tranquillity that flows outward. Attaining a level of inner calm could serve as an example for everyone. Meditation helped Buddha achieve inner serenity, which encouraged him to work for world peace.
Christianity
Photo by Daniele Franchi
Christians adhere to the Christian faith. Christianity is one of the six major faiths. Christians, like Jews and Muslims, believe in one God: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They study the Bible and attempt to follow Jesus Christ’s teachings. Churches are where the vast majority of Christians worship.
The Old Testament‘s definition of “peace” largely alludes to completeness, total health, and total welfare. It refers to the totality of God’s benefits bestowed on a member of the covenant community.
This is what the Bible says about peace in its verses. “I leave my peace with you; I give you my peace.” I do not give to you as the world does. Don’t let your hearts be worried, and don’t be terrified. “As a result, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, because we have been justified by faith.”
Hinduism
Hinduism, like Buddhism, is an Indian religion that is not monotheistic. Rather, it is based on a set of traditions and beliefs that were not established by a single person.
Hinduism emphasizes the importance of peace. Because of the eschatological implications, peace is not only necessary within oneself in Hinduism, but it is also extremely important to act peacefully toward others.
Islam
Muslims are people who adhere to the Islamic religion. They believe in the power of Allah, the Arabic word for God, which is another monotheistic faith. Muslims adhere to Islam’s five pillars, read the Qur’an, and pray in mosques.
Peace in Islam is defined as submission to Allah’s will through sharia, Allah’s holy and eternal rule, and the expansion of the Dar al-Islam, or ‘House of Islam,’ to encompass the entire globe. In the absence of sharia, there is no peace. Muslims believe that the only way to acquire inner peace is to completely surrender to Allah.
Judaism
The earliest religious group, Judaism, is the first of these world faiths. Jews believe in a single, all-powerful God who has made a specific deal with people, known as a covenant. To thank God for His protection and direction, Jews devote their lives to following God’s laws.
The Hebrew Bible mentions the well-known commandment to “love thy neighbour as thyself,” which is echoed throughout Judaism’s sacred literature. As a matter of fact, one of the primary concepts of Jewish law is the love of peace and the pursuit of peace.
In Judaism, peace is a very important belief. Jews will greet one another with the Hebrew phrase “Shalom,” which means “peace and happiness.” It evokes feelings of happiness and well-being. Within Judaism, peace between man and God, as well as between organizations and individuals, is highly valued and must be practised.
Scientology
The one that is considered probably the newest world religion due to its fast growth is Scientology, founded by American author L. Ron Hubbard, who is very well known also for his secular work in drug rehabilitation, values and education. It is in one of his fiction books (Battlefield Earth) that we find a very interesting call for Peace.
HEAR ME!!Out of a hell of shot and shell,// Out of this chaos of contention,// Let us bring peace to pointless fight.// Why do we court the whore called war?// Why make of Earth a shattered night?// There is no ecstasy in killing.// Love alone can make man willing.// So hear me warriors, hear me mothers.// There is no pay in slaughtered brothers. Attention, if your sense is fair,// heed that which we now declare.// PEACE! You races far and wide. PEACE!// Abandon your blood-soaked suicide// and now abide in peace!// Echo me!// As in your hearts you yearn for love, not death!// PEACE, we have declared it.// Snarls and strife must be at end!// In peace alone can this Earth mend.// And now find ecstasy in love, love for Earth, for all.// The gods of peace have now spoken.// OBEY!
Sikhism
Sikhism, founded by Guru Nanak, is another religion that believes in a single God. Sikhs believe that there is only one God, who is present everywhere and in all things.
They don’t really believe that war is always sinful, but that it should only be used as a last resort. As Guru Nanak, Guru Arjan, and Guru Tegh Bahadur demonstrated, peaceful techniques include discussion and non-violence.
Conclusion
Religious tolerance is an important component of every peaceful community, and religious freedom is a global human right that all countries must protect. It is critical to respect one’s religion. No one should be judged because it is everyone’s right to worship whatever they believe in.
Farmer Ali Aiden, who lives in the village of Akpanar in the Harmandzhik region, found unusual purple stones in his field. He became curious and brought them for expertise in the regional city of Bursa. As a result of their research, it was established that the stones found in his field were made of purple jade.
These purple colored stones are a mixture of the colors of basic jadeite, quartz, phlogopite, chlorotoid, epidote and six orthoclase minerals. They are known to occur only in this region.
In the past, villagers in the region were unaware of the value of the stones and sold them cheaply as a cladding material. Foreign traders bought them by truck, and some of them were even simply stolen or taken without money.
It turns out that purple stones are used in jewelry design. So Ali Aidan, who has about 1 ton of stone left, is really lucky. Now he is considering selling the stones for a large sum if he finds a buyer.
He complained to the Anatolian State Agency:
“It was too late until I realized the fact that the purple stones found in my field were the purple jade gemstone. I have missed a great fortune so far, but I now aim to make money with the last stones I have left.”
Aiden added: “I understand that this stone cost $ 1,600. He was known in Japan to bring happiness. He brought happiness to me too. It turned out that I have a treasure in my field. At first I couldn’t believe it. “
Although the green and white “jade” found in many regions of the world has been known since ancient times, the rich mineral deposit containing purple jade with the quality of precious stones has not been registered elsewhere. Therefore, the only known source of purple jade in the world is located in this geologically studied region. The most typical raw blocks of purple jade are obtained from the deposit near the village of Akpanar. This bulky material is known for its “very suitable for cutting various objects and gemstones”.
Minister of State Lord Ahmad looks forward to the UK hosting the International Ministerial Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief in London in July 2022.
The conference will bring together government, civil society, faith and belief groups to agree on actions to:
prevent Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) violations and abuses
protect and promote freedom of religion or belief internationally
The conference programme will be wide-ranging and inclusive, involving a diverse set of participants and speakers with the overarching aim of promoting respect for FoRB around the world.
Statement from Lord Ahmad
I’m sincerely looking forward to welcoming our partners and friends from around the world to London in early July for the United Kingdom-hosted Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
This will be the first international ministerial conference on this theme since 2020 and the first to take place in person since 2019.
Together with our international partners we share a collective commitment to freedom of religion or belief for everyone, everywhere.
This is an issue that we all should care about. Although the right to freedom of religion or belief is enshrined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it is regrettable, indeed tragic, that too many people around the world continue to live in fear of persecution on the basis of what they choose to believe or not to believe, or indeed how they choose to practice those beliefs.
Being denied the fundamental human right of freedom of religion or belief can be devastating for individuals and communities.
At the conference we’ll therefore hear from survivors directly on the impact that persecution has had upon them, on their lives, on their communities.
As individuals suffer from being denied this human right, societies, countries where survivors live suffer too. They become smaller, diminished culturally and spiritually by this lack of freedom. Therefore, let us strengthen all of our communities by driving forward the collective importance of not just promoting this important issue, but strengthening freedom of religion or belief for all.
This conference in London will bring together ministers, but also importantly other representatives from government, from faith and belief group leaders, and indeed importantly from civil society as well.
Alongside the official ministerial conference, an associated conference fringe will see a series of events organized directly by civil society.
These will be taking place around the United Kingdom and provide further opportunities for all to join this important debate and discussion and learn from each other about this important issue.
I therefore hope that you will take this opportunity to really get involved and share our collective commitment to promoting and protecting, and indeed strengthening freedom of religion or belief for everyone across the world.
Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights delivered a statement for the launch of an unheard “Quality Rights” e-training that will help, among other things, put an end to systemic abuses in psychiatry and mental health.
Michelle Bachelet:
Greetings to all. Thank you to the World Health Organization for inviting UN Human Rights to take part in the launch and rollout of this vital e-training. It is an honour to participate.
Today’s launch of the Quality Rights e-training is timely, and its focus on mental health, recovery and community inclusion could not be more crucial.
As we are all aware, the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the devastating social impacts of global health crises. The years of neglect and underinvestment in mental health has been heavily exposed, as has the longstanding stigma of mental health conditions and discrimination against people with psychosocial disabilities.
Their human rights are continuously under threat.
We urgently need a paradigm shift. My Office’s recent report on mental health and human rights highlighted that people with mental health conditions and with psychosocial disabilities face all kinds of discrimination. They are often denied legal capacity on the basis of their disability, forcibly admitted to institutional settings, and coerced into treatment.
This is happening because of outdated laws, policies and practices.
Restoring the dignity and rights of people with mental health conditions and with psychosocial disabilities needs to be our priority. We need to discontinue the use of discriminatory laws and practices and advance towards approaches with equality and non-discrimination at their core. Such approaches must conform with international human rights standards as set out in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Quality Rights e-training will play an essential role in transforming attitudes and practices in mental health. It will provide vital support to countries in their implementation of a rights-based and recovery-oriented approach to mental health services.
I am particularly pleased that the e-training is being integrated and delivered in the context of the Special Initiative for Mental Health. Dr Tedros, I commend you for your vision in creating and accelerating the implementation of this initiative and WHO’s commitment to keep mental health high on the human rights, sustainable development and humanitarian agendas.
My Office is committed to continue our collaboration and to support this excellent initiative. I will be inviting all staff to undertake the training, and – through our web and social media channels as well as at high-level events – to actively disseminate it to relevant audiences throughout the world.
As we recover from the pandemic, we have a crucial opportunity to find the path towards better, more inclusive, sustainable societies. Tools such as this can help us take the steps on that path.
Washington, D.C. – The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) today released its 2022 Annual Report documenting developments during 2021, including significant regress in countries such as Afghanistan and the Central African Republic (CAR). USCIRF’s 2022 Annual Report provides recommendations to enhance the U.S. government’s promotion of freedom of religion or belief abroad.
Cover-2022-USCIRF-Annual-Report
The report covers discrimination and oppression against members of the following faiths: Baha’i, Buddhist Hoa Hao, Buddhist Tibetan, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witness, Orthodox, Protestants, Erfan-e Halgheh Practitioner, Falun Gong, Hindu, Humanist, Jewish, Muslim Ahmadiyya, Muslim Shi’a, Muslim Sufi, Muslim Sunni, Church of Scientology, and others.
The report also notes USCIRF recommendations implemented by the U.S. government—including the designation of Russia as a country of particular concern, the imposition of targeted sanctions on religious freedom violators, and genocide determinations for atrocities perpetrated by the Chinese government against Uyghur and other Turkic Muslims and by the Burmese military against Rohingya Muslims.
“We are disheartened by the deterioration of freedom of religion or belief in some countries— especially Afghanistan under the Taliban’s de facto government since August. Religious minorities have faced harassment, detention, and even death due to their faith or beliefs, and years of progress toward more equitable access to education and representation of women and girls have disappeared,” USCIRF Chair Nadine Maenza said.
“Meanwhile, USCIRF is encouraged by the Biden administration’s continued prioritization of international religious freedom during its first year. To continue this progress, we strongly urge the administration to implement USCIRF’s recommendations—in particular, to expand its Priority 2 refugee designation to grant access for at-risk religious groups in Afghanistan, and to designate Nigeria as a country of particular concern.”
USCIRF’s independence and bipartisanship enables it to unflinchingly identify threats to religious freedom abroad. In its 2022 Annual Report, USCIRF recommends 15 countries to the State Department for designation as “countries of particular concern” (CPCs) because their governments engage in or tolerate “systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations.” These include 10 that the State Department designated as CPCs in November 2021: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan—as well as five others: Afghanistan, India, Nigeria, Syria, and Vietnam.
For the first time ever, the State Department designated Russia as a CPC in 2021, which USCIRF had been recommending since 2017. Regrettably, the State Department removed Nigeria as a CPC though it had been added the previous year and religious freedom conditions remain dire.
The 2022 Annual Report also recommends 12 countries for placement on the State Department’s Special Watch List (SWL) based on their governments’ perpetration or toleration of severe violations. These include three that the State Department placed on that list in November 2021: Algeria, Cuba, and Nicaragua—as well as nine others: Azerbaijan, CAR, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Turkey, and Uzbekistan. In 2021, USCIRF removed CAR from its SWL recommendations because incidents of religious targeting and violence had decreased during 2020, but these trends have since been reversed.
The 2022 Annual Report further recommends to the State Department seven non-state actors for redesignation as “entities of particular concern” (EPCs) for systematic, ongoing, egregious violations. The State Department designated all seven of these groups as EPCs in November 2021: al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, the Houthis, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS), Islamic State in West Africa Province (ISWAP or ISIS-West Africa), and Jamaat Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin (JNIM).
“Throughout the past year, the U.S. government continued to condemn abuses of religious freedom and hold perpetrators accountable through targeted sanctions and other tools at its disposal. Moving forward, the United States should take additional steps to support freedom of religion or belief around the world. USCIRF’s 2022 Annual Report makes recommendations on how Congress and the Executive Branch can further advance this universal, fundamental human right,” USCIRF Vice Chair Nury Turkel stated.
In addition to chapters with key findings and U.S. policy recommendations for these 27 countries, the annual report describes and assesses U.S. international religious freedom policy overall. The report also highlights important global developments and trends related to religious freedom during 2021—including in countries that do not meet the criteria for CPC or SWL recommendations. These include: the COVID-19 pandemic and religious freedom, blasphemy and hate speech law enforcement, transnational repression, religious intolerance in Europe, deteriorating religious freedom conditions in South Asia, and political upheaval that raises religious freedom concerns.
The report also includes sections highlighting key USCIRF recommendations that the U.S. government has implemented from USCIRF’s 2021 Annual Report, discussing human rights violations perpetrated based on the coercive enforcement of interpretations of religion, and providing details on individuals included in USCIRF’s Freedom or Religion or Belief (FoRB) Victims List and Religious Prisoners of Conscience Project.
Religious movements included in the report, being the target of religious discrimination by states are:
Baha’i – Buddhist Hoa Hao – Buddhist Tibetan – Catholics – Jehovah’s Witness – Orthodox – Protestant – Eckankar – Erfan-e Halgheh Practitioner – Falun Gong – Hindu – Humanist – Jewish – Muslim Ahmadiyya – Muslim Shi’a – Muslim Sufi – Muslim Sunni – Santeria – Church of Scientology – And others
In a resolution on 7 April 2022 about the increasing repression in Russia, including the case of Alexei Navalny, the European Parliament condemned the role of Moscow Patriarch Kirill in Russia’s war against Ukraine. Item 6 of the resolution states:
(See full resolution at the bottom of the article):
“Condemns the role of Moscow Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, in providing theological cover for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine; praises the courage of the 300 priests of the Russian Orthodox Church who signed a letter condemning the aggression and expressed their grief over the ordeal of the Ukrainian people, calling for an end to the war.”
In parallel, priests of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate decided to appeal to the Cathedral of the Primates of the Ancient Eastern Churches with a lawsuit against the Russian Patriarch Kirill for “committing moral crimes”. Priests of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine demand an international tribunal for the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill.
The statement of the priests was published by Fr Andrei Pinchuk on his Facebook page.
Excerpt:
“Today, when Patriarch Kirill of Moscow frankly supports Russia’s war of conquest against Ukraine, we, the priests of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, have decided to appeal to the Council of Primates of the Ancient Eastern Churches with a lawsuit against Patriarch Kirill.
Our main accusations:
1. Cyril preaches the doctrine of the “Russian world”, which does not correspond to Orthodox teaching and should be condemned as heresy;
2. Kirill committed moral crimes by blessing the war against Ukraine and fully supporting the aggressive actions of Russian troops on the territory of Ukraine.
We hope that the Council of Primates of the Ancient Eastern Churches will consider our appeal and make its fair decision,”
the appeal says.
See full resolution of the European Parliament below the video.
UATV interviewed on video a priest on the suit against Kirill
UATV, a Russian-language channel of the state foreign broadcasting of Ukraine, addressed to a wide foreign audience and designed “to convey to the whole world objective, relevant and interesting information from Ukraine and about Ukraine the first hand”, launched an interview with a high ranking orthodox priest. The video is presented with the following message:
“Russian World” – an ideology that laid the foundation of Russian hatred of Ukraine. Ukrainian priests of Moscow Patriarchate “filed a suit” to the highest church judicial authority calling to condemn the doctrine spread by the Russian Orthodox Church and its heretical leader – Patriarch Kirill
See the full resolution here:
(if reading the article in our non-English site, find below an automatic translation of the resolution)
Increasing repression in Russia, including the case of Alexey Navalny
European Parliament resolution of 7 April 2022 on the increasing repression in Russia, including the case of Alexei Navalny (2022/2622(RSP))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to its previous resolutions on Russia,
– having regard to the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders,
– having regard to the Constitution of the Russian Federation,
– having regard to the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) Josep Borrell of 28 March 2022 on the Russian independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta,
– having regard to the declaration by the High Representative on behalf of the EU of 22 March 2022 on the ruling to extend Alexei Navalny’s politically motivated imprisonment by an additional nine years,
– having regard to the statement by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights of 24 March 2022 expressing appreciation for the courageous work of journalists and human rights defenders, including those from the Russian Federation and Belarus,
– having regard to the statement by the Media Freedom Representative of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe of 3 March 2022 on the serious infringement of the right to freedom of expression and media freedom in Russia in the context of the country’s military attack against Ukraine,
– having regard to the statements by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the latest developments in Russia and Ukraine,
– having regard to Rules 144(5) and 132(4) of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas the Russian Federation has repeatedly breached international law and its international commitments and has launched an illegal, unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine and perpetrated massacres against its citizens; whereas legislative restrictions, media bans, the criminalisation of independent reporting and free opinion, and other political prosecutions have reached a totalitarian scale in recent months, resulting in the disintegration of independent and pluralistic civil space in Russia;
B. whereas the Russian regime has intensified, in an unprecedented manner, its crackdown on peaceful protesters, independent journalists and bloggers, human rights defenders and civil society activists in an effort to silence any criticism of and opposition to its illegal, unprovoked and unjustified military aggression against Ukraine; whereas thousands have fled Russia due to the drastically increased risk of arbitrary arrest and prosecution; whereas this crackdown has had a devastating effect on the lives and freedoms of minorities, LGBTQI+ persons, women, and all people branded by the government and society as deviating from the behavioural or normative rules and expectations imposed or for criticising the regime and the policies of the Russian authorities;
C. whereas fundamental human rights, including freedom of association and freedom of expression, are enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as in numerous international legal instruments to which Russia has committed itself; whereas the Russian authorities are responsible for years of systematic propaganda campaigns against Ukraine, Europe and liberal democratic values, culminating in the eradication of any vestiges of a vibrant, politically active and independent civil society;
D. whereas since 24 February 2022, Russian authorities have arbitrarily detained more than 15 400 peaceful anti-war protesters across the country, subjecting some to severe ill‑treatment and other human rights violations; whereas more than 60 criminal cases have already been brought since then;
E. whereas numerous laws imposed over the past few years, such as the ‘foreign agents’ law and its variations, the regulation of and adjudication over so-called ‘extremist organisations’ and countless decrees by the regulator responsible for media oversight (Roskomnadzor) have been used by Russian authorities for their concentrated crackdown on independent civil society and media active in Russia, targeting in particular non-governmental organisations (NGOs), human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, as well as women’s rights, LGBTQI+ and environmental activists, and activists of ethnic and cultural minorities; whereas the imposition of all of this legislation, regulation and judicial and administrative burdens is forcing civil society actors to refuse foreign funding, engage in self-censorship and reduce both their public visibility and their activities for fear of state retaliation;
F. whereas on 4 March 2022, the Russian Parliament amended the Criminal Code to impose a penalty of up to 15 years in prison for spreading allegedly ‘fake’ information about the war in Ukraine; whereas on 22 March 2022, the law was broadened to criminalise the sharing of ‘fake news’ about any activities of Russia’s official bodies abroad; whereas on 4 March 2022, the Russian Duma banned demonstrations against the war in Ukraine; whereas the Russian legal reforms have introduced administrative and criminal offences for Russian nationals and legal entities who call for international sanctions against the Russian state, its nationals or any Russian legal entities;
G. whereas Russian authorities have forced several independent media outlets to suspend their activities, close down, or move their activities abroad, while blocking access to others in the context of growing internet censorship, control and isolation, thereby depriving the Russian population of unbiased information about Russia’s war against Ukraine and the war crimes being committed there in the name of the Russian Federation; whereas these include, most notably, the radio station Echo of Moscow, the TV station Dozhd and the newspaper Novaya Gazeta; whereas the authorities have blocked foreign social media in Russia and blacklisted Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, labelling it as ‘extremist’;
H. whereas since the beginning of Russia’s war in Ukraine, hundreds of journalists, human rights defenders, activists and others have left Russia due to the drastically increased risk of arbitrary arrest and prosecution, including after President Putin referred to those standing up against the war as ‘national traitors’ and a ‘fifth column’;
I. whereas on 16 March 2022, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe decided to revoke the membership of the Russian Federation in the Council of Europe, effective immediately; whereas the Russian Federation, for its part, decided to leave the Council of Europe on 15 March 2022, depriving Russian citizens of the protection enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and denying them access to judicial remedies before the European Court of Human Rights;
J. whereas Alexei Navalny, a Russian lawyer, opposition politician and anti-corruption activist, and laureate of the 2021 Sakharov Prize, was arrested in January 2021 and has been in prison since February 2021, where he has been serving an arbitrary, politically motivated sentence and has been repeatedly subjected to torture and inhumane treatment; whereas the EU has condemned the poisoning and politically motivated imprisonment of Alexei Navalny in the strongest possible terms, imposed targeted sanctions and continues to demand an independent investigation into his poisoning;
K. whereas on 22 March 2022, Moscow’s Lefortovski Court, following an extraordinary session staged in a prison camp and thus outside regular court facilities, sentenced Alexei Navalny to nine years in a maximum security prison and issued him with an administrative fine of RUB 1,2 million (approximately EUR 12 838); whereas this judgment clearly contravenes international law and the Russian Constitution and is as unlawful, arbitrary and politically motivated as the previous judgment;
L. whereas a number of activists have been threatened with or subjected to arrest and prosecution for supporting or working with Alexei Navalny or for supporting his ideas, like the smart voting strategy; whereas they were accused and prosecuted for such support based on the retroactive application of new laws or administrative decisions on the basis of their social media statements, and many of them have left Russia after facing criminal charges; whereas Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation was labelled ‘extremist’;
1. Condemns the Russian regime’s domestic repression, which has worsened in the wake of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; demands that Russian authorities stop the harassment, intimidation and attacks against all anti-war protesters, independent civil society organisations, NGOs, human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, as well as women’s rights, LGBTQI+ and environmental activists in Russia; expresses its solidarity with the democratic forces in Russia committed to an open and free society, and underlines its support for all individuals and organisations which have been the target of attacks and repression;
2. Condemns the neo-totalitarian, imperialist ideological stance cultivated by the Russian Government and its propagandists; emphasises that the assault against democracy and disregard for the rights of other nations has paved Russia’s path towards despotism, international aggression and war crimes; underscores that an undemocratic Russia is a constant threat to Europe’s security and stability;
3. Deplores Russian legislation, including on ‘foreign agents’, the changes to the Criminal Code introduced on 4 March and 22 March 2022, and the Mass Media Law, which are used to engage in judicial harassment against dissenting voices in the country and abroad and to undermine independent media; underscores that these developments are in blatant contradiction with the commitments Russia has voluntarily undertaken under international law and written into its own Constitution;
4. Denounces the continuous and increasing censorship by Russian authorities, including of the internet, and urges them to immediately put an end to their control and censorship;
5. Condemns Russian authorities’ behaviour in persecuting the mothers of Russian soldiers and their established organisations, depriving Russian parents of information on the whereabouts of their children and refusing to cooperate with Ukrainian authorities in order to return the remains of Russian soldiers killed in action;
6. Condemns the role of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, for providing theological cover for Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; praises the courage of the 300 priests of the Russian Orthodox Church who have signed a letter condemning the aggression, grieving over the ordeal of the Ukrainian people and asking to “stop the war”;
7. Strongly condemns the imprisonment of the Sakharov Prize laureate Alexei Navalny and reiterates its call for his immediate and unconditional release, as well as of the hundreds of other Russian citizens baselessly detained merely for having the courage to demonstrate in favour of democracy and peace or to improve their rights, including the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly; calls on the Russian authorities to improve conditions in prisons and detention facilities in order to meet international standards; considers Alexei Navalny’s humanitarian, health and safety situation a priority concern for the EU; calls on the Russian authorities to take all necessary measures to fully secure his rights during his unlawful detention; condemns the fact that the trial against Alexei Navalny did not respect his right to a fair trial and reiterates its call for a transparent investigation into the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, without delay;
8. Considers the repression against Alexei Navalny, his supporters, the media and civil society, all intended as part of a prelude to Russia’s criminal war of aggression, and reiterates that political pluralism and free media are the best safeguards against and obstacles to international aggression by an undemocratic government; considers that our efforts to support freedom of opinion and the media for Russian citizens are an intrinsic part of our efforts to combat the war and aggression in Ukraine;
9. Forcefully condemns the decisions by Russian courts leading to the closure of International Memorial and the Memorial Human Rights Centre, together one of Russia’s oldest and most prominent human rights organisations and a Sakharov Prize laureate; condemns the continued warnings by Roskomnadzor against Novaya Gazeta concerning censorship and alleged violations of the ‘foreign agents’ law, resulting in the newspaper’s announcement to cease operations until the end of the war in Ukraine; equally deplores the Russian Prosecutor-General’s request for Roskomnadzor to restrict access to Echo of Moscow and Dozhd due to their coverage of the war in Ukraine; commends the role played by these outlets, as well as so many other independent organisations and news outlets that have since been closed down, in uncovering the truth and providing facts about the crimes of the Soviet regime and the Russian Government, as well as their commitment to human rights; calls for an end to the systematic repression of journalistic institutions and independent media, which constitute the fundamental pillars of freedom and democracy;
10. Calls on the UN Human Rights Council to investigate in full and as a matter of urgency the abuses of the right to information and freedom of expression perpetrated by the Russian regime;
11. Expresses deep concern over how the crackdown on Russian civil society, human rights defenders, women’s rights activists, sexual and reproductive health and rights activists and LGBTQI+ communities is further exacerbating the situation of already vulnerable and targeted groups in the country;
12. Reiterates that the free and independent work of civil society organisations and the media is a cornerstone of a democratic society; calls on Russia, therefore, to establish a clear legal framework as well as a safe environment for civil society organisations, protesters, media and political actors in line with Russia’s Constitution and international obligations and with international human rights standards, enabling them to carry out their legitimate and useful work without interference; stresses the need to guarantee efficient legal recourse for protesters, civil society activists and journalists whose fundamental rights have been violated;
13. Calls on the Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the Member States to closely monitor the human rights situation in Russia, to provide emergency assistance and to increase support for the civil society, independent NGOs, human rights defenders and independent media which remain active in Russia, including sustainable and flexible financial assistance; calls on the EU Delegation and the Member States’ representations in Russia to publicly show solidarity with those persecuted;
14. Urges the Commission and the Member States to strengthen protection for the rights and physical integrity of activists, independent journalists and human rights defenders targeted by the Russian authorities’ repression, and to provide them with emergency visas to enable them to leave the country and find temporary shelter in the EU, as well as to allow threatened or banned Russian NGOs and media to immediately continue their work from EU territory if needed;
15. Calls on the VP/HR and the Council to make effective use of the EU’s global human rights sanctions mechanism and impose restrictive measures on all Russian officials involved in the crackdown against independent civil society and media and peaceful protesters, as well as in this latest case against Alexei Navalny;
16. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to prevent and counter the spread of disinformation, including propaganda, and strengthen independent media; welcomes, therefore, the development of specific platforms and news in Russian and Ukrainian; calls for EU strategic communications to be improved and for an exploration of effective ways to counter war propaganda originating in Russia from outlets such as Rossija, Channel One Russia and NTV, which disseminate content approving of the war of aggression and misinforming people about it; calls on the Member States, the Commission and the EEAS to continue to enhance alternative online Russian-language information on the unfolding developments to counter disinformation, to continue to ensure that public statements from the EU and the Member States are translated into Russian and to address Russian-speaking audiences and platforms;
17. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to host banned media teams in the EU and to develop a joint platform for media in exile, as well as to support technologies that enable people to use the internet to exercise their fundamental rights, in particular the freedom of information and expression, and to support the pursuit of democracy and the rule of law, by establishing technological means to circumvent communication surveillance and the blocking of websites and applications in Russia, including low-tech via M-waves, a VPN Russia platform, anonymisation networks and satellite TV;
18. Calls on the EU Delegation and national diplomatic representations in Russia to closely monitor the situation on the ground and how trials are handled and to offer those concerned any support that they may need, including direct financial assistance to pay for lawyers and experts; calls on all governments to refuse any future extradition requests for Russian nationals for offences under the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Offences;
19. Urges the Member States, the Council and the Commission to secure humanitarian status and create safe migration possibilities for threatened Russian opposition, civil society and media representatives, including securing opportunities for them to enjoy long-term residence and work in the European Union; calls on the Member States to devise a mechanism to protect Russian soldiers who decide to defect; calls on financial institutions, banks, credit card companies and government authorities to introduce screening procedures for the tailored application of sanctions against Russian citizens in the EU in order to allow opposition activists, independent civil society and media representatives to retain access to their financial assets necessary to secure their existence in the European Union;
20. Recalls that academic and cultural collaboration at an individual level, even in times of conflict, may help to strengthen pluralistic voices in anti-democratic circumstances and serve as a basis for facilitating the re-establishment of relationships after the conflict; underlines that the Russian scientific community has been a primary target of repression by Putin’s regime;
21. Stresses the strategic value of the input of Russian academics who oppose the war in order to better analyse Putin’s regime and how to counter it; calls for an EU strategy to allow Russian students and professors to officially continue their studies and work in European universities, particularly in humanitarian disciplines, and to receive their corresponding diplomas;
22. Asks the EEAS, the Commission and the Member States to mainstream human rights and civil society consultation across all dialogues between the EU, its Member States and Russia, and to abide by their commitment to gender mainstreaming;
23. Calls for the EU and the Member States to continue to engage with the people of Russia and with Russian civil society in exile; urges the EU to demonstrate its readiness to support Russian civil society in its efforts to build a democratic Russia, and to welcome a democratic and responsible Russia back into the international community;
24. Calls for the EU to appoint a special envoy for a democratic Russia, who should be responsible for relations with the Russian people, in particular with democracy defenders in exile and those who have remained in Russia and want the country to return to the path of democracy;
25. Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the EEAS, to help establish and support a Democratic Russia Hub for continuous dialogue with the democratic Russian community, in particular the anti-war committee established by Russian democratic opposition activists, in order to provide direct communication with the Russian people, to develop together with civil society an EU strategy for a future democratic Russia, to improve the integration of new emigrants from Russia through educational programmes, and to organise annual EU summits with democratic Russia in exile;
27. Notes that according to the Levada Center, 83 % of Russians support Putin’s war in Ukraine, while the percentage of Russians who say the country is moving in the right direction has risen from 52 % to 69 %, the highest level ever recorded since 1996; applauds, in this regard, those brave individuals who openly protest and oppose Russian imperialism in its newest form – the invasion of Ukraine – despite the brutality of the rioting policy, as well as media and social pressure; urges EU citizens, nevertheless, not to equate all Russian citizens with the brutal actions of their leadership and military in Ukraine; calls on the Commission and the Member States to support and protect the critical voices within the Russian diaspora who are facing threats from Russian authorities; condemns rallies organised by Russian diasporas in support of the war or in protest against the acceptance of Ukrainian refugees;
28. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the President, Government and Parliament of the Russian Federation.
Thirty years after the siege of Sarajevo, the UN team in Bosnia and Herzegovina reiterated the importance on Wednesday of pursuing justice and reparation for victims, survivors and their family members.
The siege began after Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence in the wake of the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia.
Bosnian Serbs largely opposed independence, while the other two large ethnic groups, Muslim Bosniaks and Croats, favoured the split from Belgrade.
Bosnian Serb troops started bombarding the capital city in April 1992, a sustained assault which lasted for nearly four years.
This was the longest blockade since the Second World War, with more than 12,000 people killed, and marked a key moment in the Bosnian War.
Fighting denial of atrocities
The UN Resident Coordinator for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ingrid Macdonald, has met with survivors’ associations across the country.
“She said that such rhetoric perpetuates the suffering of survivors and families of victims and has no place in a democratic society,” Mr. Dujarric told journalists.
