Civil society organizations cooperating with entities abroad; 31 individuals
Cases- Location of case in SG report
- 2020-042-001
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- 2020
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
Latitude: 26.820553
Longitude: 30.802498
- Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
- Egypt
- From Region
- UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
- Assistant Secretary-General
- Dates of prior UN action
- October 2019
- Type of record
- Unnamed individual/group/organization
- Was the victim a foreign national?
- No
- Was the victim a minor?
- No
- Was the victim a civil servant or member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- No
- Reported trigger of reprisal
In October 2019, 31 individuals were reportedly still under a travel ban and remained unable to engage in the UPR-related sessions and other UN events in Geneva. Other representatives of civil society decided not to travel to Geneva to participate in the UPR due to legislative impediments to their organizations and due to a fear of reprisals
- Engagement with UN body
- UN Human Rights Council: UPR
- Dates of engagement
- November 2019
- Type of attempted engagement
- Participation in meeting on UN premises
- Dates of mentioned reprisals
- October 2019
- Reprisal information
In October 2019, it was reported to OHCHR that the prosecution of civil society organizations under the “foreign funding case” (Case No. 173/2011), which has targeted those cooperating with entities abroad through asset freezes and travel bans, was ongoing despite many individuals having been acquitted. 23 In October 2019, 31 individuals were reportedly still under a travel ban and remained unable to engage in the UPR-related sessions and other UN events in Geneva. Other representatives of civil society decided not to travel to Geneva to participate in the UPR due to legislative impediments to their organizations and due to a fear of reprisals
- Types of reprisals suffered
- Administrative reprisal
- Threats/Intimidations (incl. "fear of reprisal")
- Travel restriction
- Charge/Investigation/Prosecution: Trial
- Alleged/likely perpetrators
- State actors
- Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
- No
- Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
- Yes
- Further case development
As of May 2020, it was reported to OHCHR that 15 defendants had filed a motion to lift the travel ban. Due to the COVID-19 situation, hearings for the ruling on the motion were adjourned several times. To date, none of those under a travel ban has reportedly been allowed to travel.
- 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