HRDs planning to participate in CERD sessionCases
- Location of case in SG report
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
- Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
- From Region
- UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
- UN Treaty Bodies: CERD
- Dates of prior UN action
- August 2018
- Type of record
- General situation addressed
- Was the victim a foreign national?
- Was the victim a minor?
- Type of rights defended
- Caste/Ethnic minorities' rights/Racism
- Was the victim a civil servant, member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- Reported trigger of reprisal
HRDs planning to participate in CERD session
- Engagement with UN body
- UN Treaty Bodies: CERD
- Dates of engagement
- Type of attempted engagement
- Participation in meeting on UN premises
- Reprisal information
noted with concern information on travel restrictions placed on human rights defenders, preventing them from participating in the Committee’s session.
- 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?
- Further case development
The Committee expressed regret that Cuba did not acknowledge that these events occurred and had not taken steps to investigate or prevent them. The Committee urged Cuba to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that rights defenders, particularly those working against racial discrimination, are not subjected to arbitrary restrictions that prevent them from participating in meetings by international human rights mechanisms (CERD/C/CUB/CO/19-21, paras. 13–14).
- Government response dates
- 20 June 2019
- Government response content
Government responded denying the allegations, including the alleged pattern of reprisals against those who cooperate with the UN. The Government asserted that allegations are taken by the UN as valid despite information put forward by the authorities that is not taken into account. In the view of the Government, this does not respect the principles of objectivity, impartiality and non-selectivity and contributes to the politicization of the issue, in particular “the selective and arbitrary use of the mechanism against developing countries.” The Government stated that the defense of human rights is a noble cause that it has always supported and will continue to support, and it is not acceptable that it is manipulated as a pretext to violate the right of the peoples to self- determination.
- 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?