Foreign funded NGOs
Cases- Location of case in SG report
- 2019-047-001
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- 2019
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
Latitude: 47.162494
Longitude: 19.5033041
- Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
- Hungary
- From Region
- UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
- UN Special Procedures: Thematic
- Dates of prior UN action
- 10 September 2018
- Type of record
- General situation addressed
- 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
deterring civil society actors from cooperating with the UN, resulting in self-censorship in some cases.
for example around the consultations for the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration
- Engagement with UN body
- Other
- Unclear
- Type of attempted engagement
- Unclear
- Reprisal information
stigmatize foreign funded NGOs; stigmatizing public discourse; Certain sectors of civil society report having been denied cooperation by Government agencies and some have lost access to foreign funding. Their ability to provide services to groups in need, to collect reliable data and gather information has reportedly been affected, as well as their capacity to conduct research, advocacy and reporting to UN human rights bodies. Further, civil society organizations have reported being called “traitors” serving foreign interests for their engagement with the UN. The mandate holders observed that “Threats against human rights defenders in Hungary are now regular and widespread, evidently encouraged by the Government.” The mandate holders expressed concern in particular about the public discourse on migration in this context (HUN 7/2018). Hostile rhetoric and billboards against civil society and the UN, for example around the consultations for the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration on 13 July 2018, was previously reported (A/HRC/39/41, Annex I, para. 59).
- 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?
- Yes
- Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
- Yes
- Government response dates
- July 2018
- Government response content
Government informed OHCHR that its “rhetoric did not target any organization or individual for cooperating with the UN, but took a position and shared its view on the draft of a UN document related to migration” (A/HRC/39/41, para. 59).
- 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
- How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?
- 0