Environmental human rights defenders and members of the public seeking to participate in COP24

Cases
Location of case in SG report
2019-086-001
Relevant SG report
Year of the report
2019
Country Geolocation

Latitude: 51.919438

Longitude: 19.145136

Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
Poland
From Region
UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
  • UN Special Procedures: Thematic
Dates of prior UN action
23 April 2018
Type of record
General situation addressed
Was the victim a foreign national?
No
Was the victim a minor?
No
Type of rights defended
  • Land rights/environment
Was the victim a civil servant or member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
No
Reported trigger of reprisal

environmental human rights defenders and members of the public seeking to participate in COP24

Engagement with UN body
  • UN thematic world conference
Dates of engagement
December 2018
Type of attempted engagement
  • Participation in meeting on UN premises
Dates of mentioned reprisals
Unclear
Reprisal information

addressed the adoption of a law related to the organization of the COP24 by Poland (POL 3/2018). They expressed serious concern that the law could enhance the surveillance powers of the police and secret services, allowing them to collect, obtain, process and use personal electronic and digital data without the necessary safeguards, and consequently, unduly restrict the right to privacy on environmental human rights defenders and members of the public seeking to participate in COP24

Types of reprisals suffered
  • Surveillance
Alleged/likely perpetrators
State actors
Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
Yes
Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
No
Government response dates
23 May 2018
Government response content

Government addressed the allegations that related to the law, providing a detailed explanation of preparatory measures the law was foreseen to facilitate in the organization of COP24. The Government noted that principally the law was aimed at efficient organization and financing of the conference and the regulation of how state institutions will cooperate to ensure full security. It also noted that the Ministry of Environment gave the assurance of the right of social partners to manifest their views freely at the conference and noted the important role of non-governmental organizations, per the Paris Agreement.

Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
No
Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
No
Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
No
How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?
0