A/HRC/36/31 28. Uzbekistan 61. On 1 March 2017, Elena Urlaeva, head of the Human Rights Defenders Alliance of Uzbekistan, was allegedly arrested in Tashkent and taken to a police station, reportedly the day before her planned meeting with representatives of the International Labour Organization and the World Bank. At the police station, Ms. Urlaeva was insulted and mocked by police officers, who told her that she needed psychiatric treatment. She was then forcibly transferred to a psychiatric facility in Tashkent. On 24 March, Ms. Urlaeva was released after 24 days of psychiatric detention. On 5 April, four mandate holders expressed their concern regarding these incidents, which appear to be related to Ms. Urlaeva’s cooperation with international organizations (see A/HRC/36/25, para. 13, UZB 1/2017). 29. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 62. In the previous report of the Secretary-General (A/HRC/33/19), reference was made to the concerns expressed by independent experts with regard to allegations of a pattern of discrediting and intimidating human rights defenders in reprisal for their cooperation with the United Nations and regional bodies on human rights ( paras. 32-37). In a press briefing held on 19 May 2017, a spokesperson of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights referred to the case of Henrique Capriles, who was scheduled to meet the High Commissioner in New York, on the same day, but was prevented from leaving Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to do so. The High Commissioner expressed his hope that the incident was not a reprisal linked to the planned meeting with him. The Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights addressed cases of reprisals with the Government in April 2017. 30. Multiple 63. On 21 October 2016, the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture addressed a letter to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights with regard to its concerns about the increasing number of instances in which State authorities resort to freezing the bank assets of human rights organizations working for victims of torture in order to impede external funding, including from the Voluntary Fund. On 1 November 2016, the High Commissioner expressed in his response concern about the feedback provided on situations of reprisals against a number of the Fund’s grantees, and stated that he would share these observations with the Assistant Secretary-General. VI. Conclusions and recommendations 64. As demonstrated by the number of allegations contained in the present report, acts of intimidation and reprisal against those seeking to cooperate or having cooperated with the United Nations on human rights continue and are of grave concern. While nonState actors are also responsible for acts of reprisal, the majority of cases described in the report demonstrate that these acts are often perpetrated by State officials or at the very least are condoned by the State. 65. The range of intimidation and reprisals has also become broader over the past year, and the means used increasingly blunt. Authorities in a number of States resort to travel bans, often without judicial process or unannounced, to prevent individuals and groups, including human rights defenders and civil society organizations, from travelling to meetings of United Nations human rights bodies and mechanisms. Other States freeze the bank assets of human rights defenders who receive funding from United Nations human rights bodies or who report violations to them. Information has been brought to my attention about legislation aimed at penalizing organizations for contacting human rights mechanisms. As in previous years, people engaging with the United Nations have been subjected to, inter alia, intimidation, harassment, threats both online and offline, derogatory media campaigns, travel bans, arbitrary arrest and detention, enforced disappearance, torture and ill-treatment, disbarment and dismissal from their posts, for attempting to engage with the United Nations on human rights. 14