A/HRC/57/60 accepted 290 recommendations, which did not include the latter (A/HRC/56/6/Add.1 paras. 1 and 45). 35. During the reporting period, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and special procedures mandate holders raised concerns about the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, including in relation to its effect on civil society cooperation with the United Nations.14 The Ordinance was adopted by the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on 19 March 2024. 36. On 19 March 2024, the High Commissioner for Human Rights stressed that this Ordinance could have a further chilling effect on engagement with human rights organizations and United Nations human rights bodies.15 37. On 22 March 2024, special procedures mandate holders noted with concern that the Ordinance risked impeding the right and ability of individuals and groups to cooperate with their mandates and other international human rights mechanisms and may thus constitute a form of reprisal for cooperation with the United Nations in the field of human rights. (CHN 5/2024). Specifically, they raised concerns about the definition of ‘colluding with external force’ (clause 5), which appeared capable of encompassing cooperation with the United Nations and its human rights mechanisms, as well as with the definition of “external force” (clause 6) that could affect cooperation with the United Nations. 38. Mandate holders also stated that civil society actors and organizations engaging with the United Nations appeared to be at risk of criminal liability, in light of the classification of the offence of “external interference” (clause 50), “collaboration with an external force” (clause 52) or “bringing about interference effect” (clause 51), when civil society actors participate in United Nations activities or processes, co-organize activities or receive United Nations funding, participate in United Nations fora, meetings, events. Mandate holders also noted that human rights advocacy targeting the authorities, legislative bodies or the judiciary could fall under “using improper means” if perceived as damaging a person’s reputation or misrepresenting information. 39. On 11 July the Government responded to the note verbale sent in connection to the present report noting that the State respected and protected human rights and that it protected individuals and social organizations in their normal exchanges and cooperation with the United Nations, in accordance with the law. The Government noted that it firmly opposed intervention in the normal handling of cases by the judicial organs “on the pretext of false allegations of so-called reprisals” against those who cooperate with the United Nations human rights mechanisms, and that such intervention gives visibility to criminals, runs counter to the spirit of the rule of law and infringes on Chinese judicial sovereignty. 40. The Government stated that that there is no retaliation whatsoever against those who cooperate with the treaty bodies and opposed treaty bodies’ recommendations concerning alleged reprisals against human rights defenders, for being “based on false information” The Government stated that all cases would continue to be handled in a fair, just and impartial manner in accordance with the law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 6. Colombia 41. According to information received by OHCHR, during the reporting period an indigenous woman human rights defender received online threats, including death threats, from an alleged non-state armed group purportedly in connection to her participation in the NGO-organised pre-session of the Universal Periodic Review of Colombia on 31 August 2023 that took place in UN premises in Geneva. She had to relocate temporarily due to protection concerns. Reportedly, her close relatives were also threatened in connection to her 14 15 GE.24-14259 https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/03/rushed-adoption-national-security-bill-regressivestep-human-rights-hong. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/03/rushed-adoption-national-security-bill-regressivestep-human-rights-hong. 23