Environmental human rights defenders and members of the public seeking to participate in COP24Cases
- Location of case in SG report
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
- Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
- 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?
- Was the victim a minor?
- Type of rights defended
- Land rights/environment
- Was the victim a civil servant, member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- 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
- 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
- Alleged/likely perpetrators
- State actors
- Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
- Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
- 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?
- Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
- Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
- How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?