(C) Freedom House
This story was originally published by Freedom House and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Defending Latin American Human Rights and Democracy Activists [1]

[]

Date: 2023-12

Supporters of slain Honduran environmental and Indigenous rights activist Berta Caceres protest during the trial against Roberto David Castillo Mejia in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, on July 5, 2021. Castillo Mejia was found guilty in participating in the killing of Caceres, who was shot in her home in 2016. (Image credit: Elmer Martinez/AP/Shutterstock)

Defending the Defenders: Trends, Models, and Patterns

This assessment’s findings point to different levels of commitment by countries to the protection of defenders in Latin America. First, there are countries with no government commitment to protection, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, all classified as “Not Free” by Freedom House in its Freedom in the World report. Second, there are countries that have begun to respond to risks HRDs face by constructing national protection mechanisms, such as Costa Rica and Colombia (see section IV below). These countries have been classified as Free and Partially Free, respectively, by Freedom House.

The results of the assessment also confirmed that the defense and protection of HRDs and pro-democracy CSOs in Latin America is a relatively new area of study, research, and practice, emerging in Latin America only a decade ago. This assessment found that the expectation emerging from the Latin America region as it faces new challenges is that the defense and protection of HRDs at home or abroad has to be multi-level and multi-actor. While the national and local actors are expected to play a key role, regional and international actors are expected to complement and support protection programs. This aspiration provides the basis to move towards an ideal system of protection for HRDs in the region (see box to the right). It also offers a unique opportunity to strengthen and more importantly to build effective protection systems.

Who provides assistance and what does it consists of?

This assessment found that there are new and growing efforts to protect and support HRDs in Latin America. For example, the region is seeing rising numbers of new initiatives to strengthen national measures and expand shelters for HRDs to seek a safe haven in the face of immediate risk. In addition, findings reveal growing efforts include the perspective of indigenous communities in designing protection mechanisms. This has begun to shift the focus of some protection mechanisms from a focus on protecting the individual toward a more community-based model that accounts for the collective nature of human rights defense within indigenous and other HRD communities. While some examples of collective protection experiences exist in places like Honduras and Mexico, many of these processes are not being led by civil society or local authorities, but rather by external actors. The assessment revealed an opportunity to leverage this budding shift in protection strategies to pilot new collective protection initiatives, born more organically from the way the human rights movements, communities, collectives and networks organize themselves.

In spite of these emerging opportunities, evidence collected for the assessment suggests that HRDs in Latin America do not receive key HRD support services such as, emergency funds, physical security support, psychosocial and psycho-emotional support, medical assistance, digital security installation, support and training, legal advice and assistance for criminalization, from the State. Moreover, in some instances, State officials have even been involved in perpetrating the threats and attacks against HRDs. Lack of support and instances of complicity have sown frustration and anger among HRDs in Latin America and distrust in State-run systems. Additionally, formal State mechanisms will not work in the face of rampant corruption and impunity. The efficacy of any State mechanism of protection is fully undermined in authoritarian and closed environments, where access to justice in nonexistent, crimes are not investigated, identification and arrest of perpetrators are delayed, and those convicted escape. Ineffective justice systems fly in the face of formal protection mechanisms offered by the State.

In the arena of international legal protection, the discussion centers around the question of how effective precautionary measures issued by the Inter-American System are. Often, the efficacy of this measure is determined by the national context, the government involved, and how much impact or relevance they will have on the protection of the HRD.

When the State collaborates with precautionary measures, which is the exception in Latin America, protection is still limited unless the State extends other complementary protection measures. The Inter-American system lends a status to the HRDs as they are recognized in a situation of vulnerability, but ultimately how HRDs are protected is left entirely up to each State. The assessment found that where offered and available, formal State mechanisms of protection have not necessarily worked because they focus solely on physical integrity, and they have failed to address the other impacts of working under threat of attack or death threats.

Certain HRDs and CSOs are inclining to build protection systems within the community, in order to take advantage of existing tools for protection and avoid options that lead into internal relocation or relocation to another country. CSOs in countries like Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador and Colombia, are playing an instrumental role in proposing alternative initiatives around protection and security (including private initiatives), especially in the face of ineffective and under-resourced formal State mechanisms which tend to focus solely on physical safety.

While some key HRD services can also be provided through NGOs, the tradeoff for many HRDs and CSOs interviewed for the assessment is that the State’s obligations and responsibilities under the law are lifted and substituted. In some cases, CSOs have noted that HRDs have protection schemes provided by the international community and where the State in no way participated or had knowledge of the risks that the HRD had been facing. For CSOs, this can be problematic when seeking to attribute State responsibility in an international area where the underlying measures provided by civil society were inadequate or ineffective. CSOs contend that if a State alleges lack of knowledge of the situation or about the specific case, it will likely impede assigning responsibility to the State under the law and the State will remain unaccountable. In exceptional cases where CSOs operate in countries where the State has a national protection mechanism, the assessment found that the protection mechanism has worked for HRDs mainly as a result of their advocacy, intervention and pressure before the State.

There is an increasing demand by HRDs and CSOs for legal and psychosocial services. Unfortunately, the assessment found that in many countries the demand for legal services exceeds the supply. There are very few attorneys (and psychologists) with expertise in accompanying or representing HRDs. There is a need to expand legal assistance and services to HRDs at the community level as well. There is a push to open smaller, discrete shelters in countries throughout Latin America for HRDs at risk, but the pandemic and the lockdown have slowed down the initiatives.

Despite opposition from some sectors, there is a trend toward including self-care as a form of protection. Opposition to incorporating self-care as a protection practice comes from those who argue that it can deflect responsibility from the perpetrator to the actual victim for not having taking care of him or herself.

How was the assistance provided?

Temporary Relocation Initiatives

Temporary relocation initiatives support HRDs to move to a safer location—either within or outside of their countries of work—in response to imminent threats. In general, temporary internal or external relocation initiatives can involve emergency funds, physical security support, psychosocial and psycho-emotional support, medical assistance, digital security installation, and legal advice and assistance with immigration status and criminalization cases back home. Some organizations that support internal and external relocation of HRDs also help secure safe transportation and food assistance.

While international organizations fund some relocation initiatives, this assessment revealed that those efforts are often little known to and relatively infrequently engaged by HRDs. Instead, HRDs themselves take on much of the frontline work (collecting information, finding resources, establishing communication with potential relocation partners) to relocate themselves or their peers. HRDs interviewed for the assessment mentioned that they often learn about relocation services and support through their own research or network contacts, rather than through international organizations. Meanwhile, many smaller grassroots human rights organizations were not familiar with internal and external relocation support and assistance services for HRDs at all. Relocation almost always occurs in response to an urgent or imminent situation and, therefore, must occur swiftly. Yet, with limited access to information about available services and budgetary constraints, many organizations do not have time to relocate themselves or seek outside help in the moment. While the assessment found that some of these smaller organizations request the assistance of larger CSOs in these cases, this was not a common practice.

HRDs in rural, indigenous areas expressed particular lack of knowledge or access to internal or external relocations support. Some of these HRDs are familiar with only the more well-known cases, including the environmental defender who was present when Berta Cáceres was killed in Honduras. Some HRDs have had to pursue relocation on their own, often traversing the precarious and dangerous path through Central America and Mexico to seek protection in the U.S. When relocation is warranted in some circumstances with indigenous human rights defenders, it is often a collective decision. HRDs living in remote, rural areas have found that some assistance provided by international protection organizations has been too centralized, where HRDs need to travel to the capital to obtain services or assistance. HRDs in these rural areas recommend that initiatives strengthen local associations and organizations, and that initiatives are conducted in rural areas that are most affected by widespread abuse, corruption and extractive industrial activities.

The assessment revealed that relocation initiatives that tend to be most successful are those that are tied to local in-country partners who can verify information, recommend specific actions appropriate to the context, maintain consistent communication with affected HRDs. These locally-grounded efforts are better able to account for HRDs’ specific needs and decisions throughout the process as well as issues around family, community, gender, identity, culture and socioeconomics. In some cases, internal or external relocation support includes the full participation of HRDs in assisting with security and protection, as well as family members who are or would also be affected. This includes participation in the entire process of protection and security, including identifying and assessing the risk as well participating in the decision- making regarding how to avert the risk. If relocation is warranted, it is a decision taken together with the HRD. This strategy and approach were hailed by many interviewed for the assessment as ideal and as a practice worthy of strengthening and multiplying throughout Latin America. As a staff member of an organization that supports temporary relocation put it, “Any temporary relocation initiative must put the defenders at the center, give them contextualized, close, personal, and humane attention, and they must be able to listen.”

Only a handful organizations monitor and provide follow-up after temporary relocation to analyze the context, risks, threats and in-person visits to places in the country, including to the HRD’s home, workplace, and usual routes. Similarly, only some relocation initiatives will have periodic meetings with authorities, or issue reports, fact sheets and alerts. If an HRD with a pending case of assault or attack before the Attorney General or Public Ministry’s Office has to relocate outside the country, not all organizations providing relocation services will continue to accompany those cases, and as a consequence, cases get dropped and impunity ensues. It remains a challenge to provide monitoring and follow up of cases to HRD’s family members or keep pro bono attorneys or legal services organizations informed in the host country. If an HRD is returning to her or his home country after temporary relocation, only a handful of national protection organizations have systems in place to evaluate the current context at home to help ensure a safe return. For example, if an HRD seeks to return to a specific area, not all organizations or institutions have processes that would offer the HRD temporary shelter elsewhere, while conditions in the place of return are assessed or processes to accompany or follow up on that HRD’s safe return.

While often the best solution to mitigate risk to an HRD, temporary relocation poses significant challenges. Prior to fleeing their homes within or outside the country, amidst an environment of threats to their lives and attacks to their physical integrity, HRDs often have to hastily put personal and professional aspects of their lives in order, include leaving behind their careers, gainful employment, their homes and family members.

Internal Relocation as the Best Option for HRDs

Through interviews with international and local organizations, as well as HRDs, this assessment found that internal relocation, when feasible, should be the preferred method to assist HRDs at risk for several reasons. First, HRDs themselves prefer internal relocation. Most HRDs do not want to leave their home countries and seek to avoid abandoning their work or their families completely. This is especially true for indigenous HRDs and land rights defenders, who share communal and spiritual traditions connected to their lands. Internal relocation allows HRDs to remain in their environment, connected to their work and their communities. In addition, internal relocation is consistent with the notion of “collective protection,” highlighted by HRDs as a key component of effective protection strategies. The notion of collective protection focuses on the HRD and his or her work as grounded in a community that offers psychosocial support and infrastructure, including temporary shelter and physical security support. This option also allows for easier relocation of the family unit if needed and allows for more fluid communication between HRDs and their families. Perhaps most importantly for HRDs, internal relocation makes it more feasible for HRDs to continue their human rights work. Internal relocation is usually supported by national or local organizations, leveraging informal networks of support, including the HRD’s own community, which they can quickly activate to protect the HRD, offering psychosocial and psycho-emotional support, medical assistance, digital security installation, support and training, legal assistance, are generally not provided under these circumstances. In addition, local organizations familiar with the HRD and his or her work can closely monitor the relocated HRDs.

In contrast, according to HRDs and CSOs, external relocation can disrupt the social fabric of their communities and families, while weaken leadership within organizations or HRD communities. Moreover, external relocation demands more extensive capacity and resources, which are often unavailable or time-consuming to come by in urgent situations.

Nevertheless, internal relocation of an HRD still requires accompaniment from a CSO or other protection body, significant resources, and a thorough assessment of each HRD’s particular context and the conditions elsewhere in the country. Sometimes these elements are absent of indicate that internal relocation is not feasible. For instance, in some cases, the risk to the HRD is so severe and imminent or is so pervasive throughout the country (see Section IV examples of Venezuela and Nicaragua), that external relocation presents the better option. In other cases, national and local organizations are fully engaged with other pressing commitments or lack sufficient funding to assist with relocation or to ensure the HRD’s internal safety. In those cases, HRDs must turn to resources in other countries to help the relocate externally. HRDs overwhelmingly hope that relocation abroad will be temporary and aspire to return to their home countries when possible.

HRD Shelters

While not extensive in number, there are a few regional shelters for HRDs in Latin America, and all operate at full capacity. Below is a brief description of three examples, please refer to Annex 4 for more detailed information.

Shelter City, Costa Rica: Fundación Acceso coordinates the Shelter City Initiative in Costa Rica. Shelter City provides international relocation to HRDs at risk in any country in Central America. Once an HRD enters a shelter, the program provides integral security (legal, physical, digital and psycho-emotional) trainings for the HRDs to build on their existing capacities so they can continue their work in their respective countries when they return. In some cases, the support includes the HRDs’ dependents. The majority of HRDs that Shelter City supports and accompanies come from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Shelter City does not coordinate relocation with the HRD’s organization, but with the HRD directly; the HRD decides what course of action she or he wants to take. A multidisciplinary team assists and accompanies the HRD throughout their stay. Generally, the HRDs stay at Shelter City for 3 months. Shelter City’s in-country analysts assist HRDs with plans for return to their home country. After the HRD has returned to their home country, Shelter City accompanies the HRD back home for an additional 3 months. On average, Shelter City shelters around 200 HRDs annually, and assists 80 organizations that support HRDs. See section IV (B) information related to Nicaraguans in Costa Rica being supported by Shelter City.

ICORN’s Casa México Citlaltépetl: Casa Mexico Citlaltépetl started as part of the International Cities of Refuge Network (ICORN). ICORN is an independent organization of cities and regions offering shelter to writers and artists at risk, advancing freedom of expression, defending democratic values and promoting international solidarity. ICORN member cities offer long term, but temporary, shelter to those at risk as a direct consequence of their creative activities. ICORN has emergency funds for travel and lodging for writers and authors who are forced to flee. For at least two years, individuals received an apartment, a monthly stipend, health insurance and language classes. In 1999, Mexico City joined ICORN through the Casa Refugio Citlaltépetl, which, between 1999 and 2016 hosted 13 writers and artists, five of whom have permanently resided in Mexico. Initially, Casa Refugio Citlaltépetl received funding from Mexico City, and subsequently from the State of Mexico as well. Casa Refugio also generated its own revenue through projects like a restaurant and a bookstore, which allow Casa Refugio to pay staff salaries. Since 2016, Casa Refugio has had no direct relationship with ICORN, nor has it hosted a writer in exile. In 2017, Mexico City took over operations of the Casa Refugio (Mexico City was always the house owner) and converted the house for Mexican cultural activities.

Protect Defenders.eu: Protect Defenders.eu is a consortium of 12 organizations that protect HRDs around the world, and is based in Brussels, Belgium. The Secretariat of this consortium manages the actions of the 12 member organizations. The Secretariat provides temporary relocation grants, which provides emergency funds for HRDs to relocate. The HRD can apply for the emergency funds directly. One of the requirements of this program is that a host organization receive the HRDs in the host country. The Secretariat also implements the Shelter Initiatives Program, which provides economic support and trainings to organizations that are implementing or seek to implement a temporary relocation program for HRDs at risk on a local or regional level. Protect Defenders.eu assists solely with temporary relocation, not permanent resettlement. As part of the support provided to human rights organizations, ProtectDefenders.eu also coordinates the European Commission’s European Union Temporary Relocation Platform (EUTRP), a network of entities working in the protection of HRDs.

After crossing into Colombian territory, Venezuelan families find accommodation in in the border town of Arauquita in temporary shelters, that are quickly becoming overrun and lack resources. (Image credit: Vannessa Jimenez G/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Adequacy and impact of assistance

Protecting and defending HRDs in Latin America is a new enterprise for all actors and stakeholders involved. There has not been a systematic evaluation of programs, assistance and impact, and information on assistance is limited. Nonetheless, this assessment has revealed some initial factors that affected the adequacy and impact of assistance for HRDs in Latin America:

Short-term assistance is most effective : Temporary relocation initiatives are more effective in the short term than in the long term because they respond to an immediate urgent threat with a limited investment to resources. Relocation initiatives and support are difficult to sustain in the long term, as the number of cases of threats and attacks against HRDs continues to rise sharply, taxing existing services, which must prioritize immediate, short-term responses. Most internal and external relocation initiatives last three to six months. While some include reassessment after 6 months, and some HRDs get protection measures for more than two years, most do not include long-term plans .

: Temporary relocation initiatives are more effective in the than in the long term because they respond to an immediate urgent threat with a limited investment to resources. Relocation initiatives and support are difficult to sustain in the long term, as the number of cases of threats and attacks against HRDs continues to rise sharply, taxing existing services, which must prioritize immediate, short-term responses. Most internal and external relocation initiatives last three to six months. While some include reassessment after 6 months, and some HRDs get protection measures for more than two years, most . Locally-driven relocation initiatives or those where local CSOs coordinate closely with other temporary relocation initiatives, are the most effective in providing HRDs with emergency funds, resources and relocation support.

or those where local CSOs coordinate closely with other temporary relocation initiatives, are the most effective in providing HRDs with emergency funds, resources and relocation support. Pre-relocation contextual analyses contribute to more appropriate protection measures that address actual risks, and are viable in each specific context.

contribute to more appropriate protection measures that address actual risks, and are viable in each specific context. Lack of knowledge among organizations supporting HRDs of State structures (legal system, framework and apparatus), channels and mechanisms for addressing issues facing an HRD at risk can blur or weaken official petitions or complaints filed by or on behalf of HRDs. This has bred a distrust of organizations and their protection systems.

(legal system, framework and apparatus), channels and mechanisms for addressing issues facing an HRD at risk can blur or weaken official petitions or complaints filed by or on behalf of HRDs. This has bred a distrust of organizations and their protection systems. Civil society participation in assistance : In countries that have a State-run protection mechanism, CSOs report that some governments have failed to include or incorporate the participation of civil society, or lack adequate conditions for CSO participation. This has resulted in lack of communication between CSOs and State authorities.

: In countries that have a State-run protection mechanism, CSOs report that some governments have failed to include or incorporate the participation of civil society, or lack adequate conditions for CSO participation. This has resulted in lack of communication between CSOs and State authorities. Legal assistance and representation to help HRDs counter the State’s criminalization of their work is crucial to allowing them to continue their work either in their home country or from abroad. These legal processes can often take years. Legal support is needed for the HRD who faces false charges or imprisonment.

to help HRDs counter the State’s criminalization of their work is crucial to allowing them to continue their work either in their home country or from abroad. These legal processes can often take years. Legal support is needed for the HRD who faces false charges or imprisonment. CSO capacity building. Larger, more prominent organizations working on protection, often need the support of local organizations that can refer cases or connect smaller, nascent CSOs to assistance. When local CSOs have stronger tools and mechanisms to share information and accompany at-risk HRDs, assistance, including relocation can be more successful.

Did exiled HRDs continue their work, if yes how, if not, why?

Once an HRD is living in exile, whether temporarily or permanently, their ability to continue working in human rights generally wanes due to multiple factors, such as personal stress, lack of resources, and legalization or regularization obstacles. HRDs often find themselves isolated and bored during this period, which can lead to depression when coupled with the stress of having had to flee. These HRDs recommend that support for this element should be incorporated in any temporary relocation initiative. Some HRDs may also need to step away and decompress.

Our assessment found that some HRDs are able to work with host organizations as spokespeople for their home organizations and conditions in their home countries. In other cases, HRDs focus on a key activity such as follow-up and monitor the human rights cases he or she handled in their home country while in exile. Some HRDs interviewed expressed a desire to continue their human rights work from their host country, even in cases of temporary relocation.

HRDs who work with CSOs that have already established relationships or partnerships with similar organizations in the host country or internationally are better able to continue their work from exile. However, in some cases, CSOs cannot continue to employ an exiled HRD, due to funding restrictions by donors that limit aid to a specific country or location. When a CSO can continue to employ an exiled HRD, it can often only provide the same salary or wage provided at home. Depending on where the HRD is relocated, those salaries are often inadequate to new costs of living and other additional expenses exile can entail. Some donors are beginning to open to the idea of supporting CSO personnel living abroad, but this is currently the exception. In lieu of offering direct support to beneficiaries, some exiled HRDs have deployed technology and social media to continue their work from abroad. For example, some HRDs have continued to support their communities by providing advice and accompaniment via WhatsApp, phone calls and email. For HRDs relocated in host countries or under temporary relocation initiatives that do provide additional support in relocation beyond emergency funds, HRDs have provided that support to their home communities at their own expense and of their own volition. Isolation from their home countries has prevented HRDs in relocation from working directly on issues back at home, but relocation has allowed them to present petitions and complaints before international and regional bodies, either on behalf of themselves or their colleagues back home.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2022/defending-latin-american-human-rights-and-democracy-activists

Published and (C) by Freedom House
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/freedomhouse/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.