- Location of case in SG report
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
- Country Geolocation (linked Countries)
- From Region
- Dates of prior UN action
- 8 July 2016
- Type of record
- Named individual
- Was the victim a foreign national?
- Was the victim a minor?
- Type of rights defended
- Unclear in SG Report
- Was the victim a civil servant, member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- Reported trigger of reprisal
cooperation with the United Nations Human Rights Council, in particular their participation in the 32nd session of the Human Rights Council
- Dates of engagement
- Between 13 June 2016 to 8 July 2016
- Type of attempted engagement
- Participation in meeting on UN premises
- Dates of mentioned reprisals
- Reprisal information
- Types of reprisals suffered
- Travel restriction
- 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
- 15 August 2016; 9 September 2016
- Government response content
Government informed that the travel ban was imposed pursuant to a decision by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, based on the provisions of article 159 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which authorizes the imposition of a travel ban on an accused person if it is considered that such action is in the interest of the investigation. The Government’s response did not address the allegations of possible reprisals.
- 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?
4 relationships, 3 entities