Centre for Social Justice (CSJ)

Cases
Location of case in SG report
2023-092-001
Relevant SG report
Year of the report
2023
Country Geolocation

Latitude: 30.375321

Longitude: 69.3451159999999

Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
Pakistan
From Region
UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
  • UN Special Procedures: Thematic
Dates of prior UN action
6 February 2023
Type of record
Named organization
Was the victim a foreign national?
No
Was the victim a minor?
No
Individual's/organization's activity

A civil society organization advocating for human rights

Type of rights defended
  • Unclear in SG Report
Was the victim a civil servant or member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
No
Reported trigger of reprisal

Engagement in UPR

Engagement with UN body
  • UN Human Rights Council: UPR
Dates of engagement
July 2022, 30 November 2022
Type of attempted engagement
  • Participation in meeting on UN premises
  • Submission of information to UN
Dates of mentioned reprisals
21 August 2022, 12 September 2022, 27 September 2022, 8 and 21 October 2022,
Location of mentioned reprisals
Lahore, Pakistan
Reprisal information
  1. On 6 February 2023, special procedures mandate holders addressed allegations of intimidation and reprisals against the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), a civil society organization advocating for human rights, following its engagement in the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Pakistan, which took place during the 42nd session of the UPR Working Group on 30 January 2023 (PAK 1/2023).
  2. In July 2022, CSJ submitted a joint report with information about the situation of minority and religious groups in Pakistan. On 21 August 2022, while the UPR submission had not yet been made public, a news item appeared in one of the most widely circulated national newspapers claiming that CSJ’s UPR report was not accurate, was against national interests, and defamed the country on issues such as blasphemy laws and forced conversions. On 12 September 2022, the same newspaper published another article asking the Ministry of Interior to act against the CSJ for its involvement in “negative propaganda against Pakistan”. Following the second article, CSJ closed its office in fear of reprisals by State and non-State actors and one of its staff members resigned due to safety concerns (PAK 1/2023).
  3. On 27 September 2022, the Lahore Office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and Firms sent a notice to CSJ convening a hearing and requesting documentation for its periodic renewal of registration. This notice referred to CSJ’s report to the UPR and the United Nations, claiming that CSJ went beyond its mandate. On 8 and 21 October 2022, CSJ received two more notifications from the Registrar concerning the scope of its work and activities and referring to the Societies Registration Act (1860). Following a petition by CSJ, on 16 December 2022 the Lahore High Court issued an order for interim relief, and scheduled a new hearing to be held on 19 January 2023 which sought a restraining order vis-à-vis the Registrar’s Office from taking coercive actions against CSJ On 30 November 2022, Mr. Suneel Nasir (Malik), a representative of CSJ, participated in the UPR pre-session for Pakistan, an NGO-led event that took place in UN premises in Geneva (PAK 1/2023).
  4. Mandate holders expressed concerns at the reported acts of intimidation and harassment against CSJ allegedly in reprisal for its participation in the UPR process. They stated that the attempted restrictions on CSJ’s scope of activity not only violated international standards on freedom of association, but also risked deterring other civil society actors from engaging in human rights advocacy, including with United Nations bodies and mechanisms (PAK 1/2023).
Types of reprisals suffered
  • Administrative reprisal
  • Defamation / Defamation campaign
  • Threats/Intimidations (incl. "fear of reprisal")
Alleged/likely perpetrators
Both state and non-state actors
Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
No
Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
No
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?
Yes