A/HRC/45/36 representative, Ms. Vanessa Mendoza Cortés, following her engagement with the Committee in the context of the review of the State party. 6. Associació Stop Violències Andorra submitted an alternative report to CEDAW, available on the Committee’s website, 6 and Ms. Mendoza Cortés made a statement in Geneva that was publicly broadcast.7 On 8 November 2019, when CEDAW made public its concluding observations on Andorra, Ms. Mendoza Cortés was summoned by the Andorran police. On 17 November 2019, in a press conference, the Spokesperson of the Government reported that it had asked the Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate Ms. Mendoza Cortés’ statement before the Committee for possible indications of a criminal offence against the reputation of the Andorran administration. 7. On 9 July 2020, the Government responded to the note verbale sent in connection with the present report indicating that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic all judicial process were interrupted, and that the Public Prosecutor’s Office is still carefully analyzing the different statements made by Ms. Mendoza Cortés, as representative of Associació Stop Violències Andorra, in different fora and media, and considering possible infringements of the Andorra Criminal Code. No decision has yet been reported to the Andorran Government. 3. Bahrain 8. Multiple United Nations actors identified alleged intimidation and reprisals from 2017 to 2019 against Bahraini human rights defenders and civil society representatives seeking to cooperate or cooperating with the UN, 8 which reportedly continued. Reprisals included arbitrary arrest, abuse and ill-treatment in detention. Intimidation has allegedly been exerted through travel bans and restrictions to prevent engagement with UN human rights mechanisms. In December 2019, the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights addressed patterns of reprisals and intimidation to the Government in writing. 9. Multiple civil society representatives reported self-censorship, and refrained from directly engaging with the UN, either by not submitting alternative reports to reviews by the treaty bodies, or by not travelling to Geneva for treaty body or Human Rights Council sessions in 2019 and 2020. For example, the Committee on the Rights of the Child had noted in February 2019 “the absence of alternative reports received by the Committee from national civil society organizations on the implementation of the Convention in the State party” (CRC/C/BHR/CO/4-6, para. 13), a trend which reportedly continued into the reporting period. Names of those affected are withheld due to fear of further reprisals. 10. On 9 July 2020, the Government responded to the note verbale sent in connection with the present report, indicating that the allegations lack any legal basis, are politically motivated, and the sources aim at defaming the Government. The Government affirmed the independence and integrity of the National Human Rights Committee and highlighted the other available mechanisms for redress in relevant cases (see Annex II). 4. Bangladesh 11. During the reporting period, OHCHR received allegations of intimidation and reprisals against civil society representatives, including for their engagement with the UN (see Annex II). The Committee Against Torture, in its August 2019 concluding observations following its review of Bangladesh, acknowledged with appreciation the statement given during the constructive dialogue by the Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. In particular, the Committee noted that “the Government wishes to 6 7 8 https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/cedaw/Shared%20Documents/and/int_CEDAW_ CSS_AND_37331_S.docx. http://webtv.un.org/search/informal-meeting-with-ngos-and-nhris-1719th-meeting-74th-sessioncommittee-on-the-elimination-of-discrimination-against-women/6096502522001/?term=&lan=english&cat=CEDAW&page=2. See A/HRC/36/31, paras. 21–23 and Annex I paras. 4–10; A/HRC/39/41, paras. 29–30; A/HRC/42/30, Annex II, paras. 1–2. 21