European psychiatry in bad shape
European psychiatry in bad shape

*Featured photo by Rosa García from Pixabay / This article is part of the series “Mental Health in crisis

The use of coercion and force continue to be common practice despite efforts to decrease their use.

Recent studies have looked at the patient’s viewpoints of the mental health services. In one study from 2016 retrospective views of patients towards their admission and length of psychiatric hospital stay were analyzed. The study includes an analysis conducted of involuntarily detained inpatients across 10 European countries, of whom 770 were subject to one or more coercive measures while deprived of their liberty.

The findings indicated the damaging effects of the use of coercion in terms of hospital treatment efficacy.

The study’s main investigator Paul McLaughlin of the Unit for Social & Community Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Services Development in England noted: “The use of coercion in mental health care remains common practice in jurisdictions across the world. As well as involuntary admission to hospital under statutory powers of detention, the most obvious forms of coercive practice are those referred to as ‘coercive measures’–forced administration of psychotropic medication against the patient’s will, involuntary confinement of the patient in isolation or seclusion, and manual or mechanical restraint of the patient’s limbs or body to prevent free movement. Despite the widespread use of coercive measures, however, there is a remarkable lack of empirical evidence as to their association with treatment outcomes.”

The use of coercive measures would only be justified where their use would cause an improvement of a treatment situation for the person subjected to the intervention or alternatively other persons in treatment that would suffer negative effects from the actions of that person. This however seems to not be the case according to several expert studies.

Paul McLaughlin and his co-investigators based on their study’s findings concluded: “Given their widespread use, the association between coercive measures and treatment outcomes is clearly important. Quite apart from the physical risks that go with the use of force, qualitative studies consistently show that coercive measures can be experienced by patients as humiliating and distressing, and consideration has started to be made of the psychological risks of their use.

Coercion result in longer hospital stay

The study included a total of 2030 involuntary patients from 10 countries. It was found that 770 (37.9%) were subject to one or more coercive measures in the first four weeks of their admission or less, if they were released from the psychiatric hospital earlier. The 770 patients experienced 1462 recorded instances of use of coercive measures.

From this finding Paul McLaughlin concluded that the: “Use of forced medication was associated with patients being significantly less likely to justify their admission when interviewed after three months. All coercive measures were associated with patients staying longer in hospital.”

When considering different variables, it was found that seclusion was a significant predictor of longer hospital stay, adding about 25 days to the average admission.

When reviewing if certain types of coercion were having a stronger impact than others, it was found that forced medication appears to have an extraordinary strong effect. The use of this type of force is strongly contributing to patient disapproval of the psychiatric treatment.

Increasing involuntary commitments

An editorial published in the British Medical Journal in 2017, reviewed the increasing rate of involuntary psychiatric hospital admission in England. It has increased by more than a third in six years. In Scotland, the number of detentions increased by 19% in five years.

Shockingly the scene has deteriorated to a degree that more than half of the admissions to psychiatric hospitals in England now are involuntary. This is the highest rate recorded since the 1983 Mental Health Act.

Germany has also experienced a worsening. A study presented to the World Psychiatric Association’s (WPA) Thematic Conference: Coercive Treatment in Psychiatry held in 2007 reviewed civil commitment rates in Germany. The study found that excluding those commitments which were allowing physical restraint, these more than doubled. The increase is from 24 to 55 per 100,000 inhabitants in the period 1992 to 2005. And when looking at the public commitment rates these increased from 64 to 75. Summarizing the different types, the total of all commitments increased by 38 per cent in Germany.

In addition to the type of deprivations of liberty through civil commitments another form of restraints is also used in Germany. Persons are increasingly being taken before a legal court. The court decision rates with regard to physical restriction, which have been obligatory since 1992, increased more than seven-fold from 12 to 90 per 100,000 inhabitants.

In Denmark the increasing use of the possibility to deprive people of their liberty through involuntary commitment in to psychiatry is even more significant. A nearly linear increase has taken place from 1998 when 1522 persons were committed to 2020 when 5165 persons were involuntary committed.

mental health 2019924 700px 1 e1622718800771
Use of coercion and force is widespread in psychiatry
Use of coercion and force is widespread in psychiatry

*Featured photo by Pete Linforth from Pixabay / This article is part of the series “Mental Health in crisis

The still legally accepted possibility of using coercion and force in psychiatry is a very controversial issue. It is not only widespread but indicators and statistics from various European countries show it is increasing.

More and more people are being subjected to coercive psychiatric interventions. The phenomena that one would believe is only applied in extreme cases and to a very few exceptional and dangerous persons is in fact very common practice.

Around the world, people with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities are frequently locked up in institutions where they are isolated from society and marginalized from their communities. Many are subjected to physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and neglect in hospitals and prisons, but also in the community. People are also deprived of the right to make decisions for themselves about their mental health care and treatment, where they want to live, and their personal and financial affairs,” Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) noted in a United Nations meeting on human rights in mental health held in 2018.

And in the speech delivered on his behalf by Dr. Akselrod, Assistant DG WHO for Mental Health he added,

Unfortunately, these violations of human rights are all too common. They do not occur only in low-income countries with few resources, they occur everywhere around the world. Rich countries can have mental health services which are inhuman, deliver poor quality care and which violate human rights. What is particularly shocking is that these violations occur in the very places where people should be receiving care and support. In this respect, some mental health services themselves have become agents for human rights violations.

The implementation of human rights in psychiatry, and with that the phasing out any use of coercion – by law and actual practice – has become an important topic on the human rights agenda of the United Nations. But not only by the UN, in many European countries, by professionals working in the field of mental health and not the least by persons who have experienced the use and abuse of coercion in psychiatry.

Violence potentially amounting to torture

During the same United Nations meeting on mental health and human rights the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Mr. Zeid Al Hussein noted: “Psychiatric institutions, like all closed settings, generate exclusion and segregation, and being forced into one amounts to arbitrary deprivation of liberty. They are also, often, the locus of abusive and coercive practices, as well as violence potentially amounting to torture.

The High Commission on Human Rights made it clear that: “Forced treatment – including forced medication and forced electro convulsive treatment, as well as forced institutionalisation and segregation – should no longer be practiced.

He added that “Manifestly, the human rights of persons with psychosocial disabilities and those with mental health conditions are not being widely upheld around the world. This needs to change.

The use of coercive measures (deprivation of liberty, forced medication, seclusion, and restraint and other types) are in fact very widespread and common in psychiatry. This may be because psychiatrists generally do not consider the patient’s viewpoints or respect their integrity. One may also argue that because the use of these uses of force is legally authorized they are used, because that is what has been done for centuries. The health care professionals in the psychiatric service are not educated and experienced in how to deal with people from a modern viewpoint of human rights.

And that traditional and widespread thinking appears to be the cause of an escalating use of force and abusive atmosphere in many mental health settings.

The rising trend is damaging for patients

Professors of psychiatry, Sashi P Sashidharan, and Benedetto Saraceno, former director of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse and currently the Secretary General of the Lisbon Institute for Global Mental Health, discussed the matter in an editorial published in the internationally respected British Medical Journal in 2017: “The rising trend is damaging for patients, unsupported by evidence, and must be reversed. Coercion in its various guises has always been central to psychiatry, a legacy of its institutional origins.

mental health 2019924 700px 1 e1622718800771
Mental health in crisis
Mental health in crisis

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Friday (28 May 2021) United Nations human rights experts called upon the Council of Europe to withdraw a possible new legal instrument that would maintain an approach to mental health policy and practice that is based on coercion, which is incompatible with contemporary human rights principles and standards.

The United Nations experts who are having extensive expertise in the field of disability, mental health and human rights noted that “Overwhelming evidence from the European Disability Forum, Mental Health Europe and other organizations and growing consensus within the United Nations including at the World Health Organization, show that forced admission to medical institutions and coercive treatments in institutions will bring harmful effects such as pain, trauma, humiliation, shame, stigmatisation and fear to people with psychosocial disabilities.”

What is the actual scene? How widespread is the use of forced admissions and coercive treatments?

The European Times will be covering the matter in an article series starting today.

See also article on Council of Europe in big controversy here.

List:

  1. Use of coercion and force is widespread in psychiatry. 3 June 2021
  2. European psychiatry in bad shape. 3 June 2021
  3. Patients see restraints as torture. 5 June 2021
  4. The WHO seeks to end human rights violations in psychiatry. 11 June 2021

 

 

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Council of Europe in big controversy on human rights abuse
Council of Europe in big controversy on human rights abuse

A Committee of the Council of Europe is about to complete the work on a possible new legal instrument, that if approved will authorize states the continued use of practises deemed a violation of human rights by the United Nations. This include such practices as locking up persons or forcing certain medications on people, stated to be suffering from a mental disorder.

The Committee on Bioethics, a Committee working at the Committee of Ministers’ level of the Council of Europe is meeting this week to discuss a final draft of a new legal instrument that was to protect human rights and dignity of persons with mental disorders. The document however has received severe criticism culminating in the United Nations stepping in with a joint statement of its human rights experts requesting the delegates of the meeting to “object to the draft Additional Protocol in the upcoming meeting and we urge the Council of Europe to end legitimising forced institutionalization and the use of coercion against persons with disabilities, including older persons with disabilities.”

we urge the Council of Europe to end legitimising forced institutionalization and the use of coercion against persons with disabilities, including older persons with disabilities“.

UN Experts

About the draft of Committee on Bioethics of the Council of Europe.

The United Nations experts, which include their Special Rapporteurs on rights to physical and mental health and on disability and the UN Committee specialised on Disability, stated that, “The coercive approach to mental health is doing harm to people with disabilities and we should not go backwards to authorize this outdated approach. People with psychosocial disabilities have the right to live in the community and to refuse medical treatment.”

Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE against the CoE Committe on Bioethics

The statement follows a long series of protests already voiced. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has worked over several years looking in to the matter and already in 2016 issued a recommendation stating that “Involuntary placement and involuntary treatment procedures give rise to a large number of human rights violations in many member States, in particular in the context of psychiatry.

The Parliamentary Assembly with the Recommendation stated, “While the Parliamentary Assembly understands the concerns that prompted the Committee on Bioethics to work on this issue, it has serious doubts about the added value of a new legal instrument in this field. Nevertheless, the Assembly’s main concern about the future additional protocol relates to an even more essential question: that of its compatibility with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” (read full Recommendation here)

The Parliamentary Assembly noted that the United Nations’ Committee monitoring this Convention “interprets Article 14 as prohibiting the deprivation of liberty on the basis of disability even if additional criteria, such as dangerousness to one’s self or others, are also used to justify it. The committee considers that mental health laws providing for such instances are incompatible with Article 14, are discriminatory in nature and amount to arbitrary deprivation of liberty.”

Since then, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly issued another recommendation in 2019, “Ending coercion in mental health: the need for a human rights-based approach.” The Assembly reiterated “the urgent need for the Council of Europe, as the leading regional human rights organisation, to fully integrate the paradigm shift initiated by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) into its work regarding the protection of human rights and dignity of persons with mental health conditions or psychosocial disabilities.(full recommendation here)

In a follow-up Resolution, the Parliamentary Assembly noted that “The overall increase in the use of involuntary measures in mental health settings mainly results from a culture of confinement which focuses and relies on coercion to “control” and “treat” patients who are considered potentially “dangerous” to themselves or others.”

The Assembly based a concern on evidence from sociological research in the field on persons with mental health conditions “points to overwhelmingly negative experiences of coercive measures, including pain, trauma and fear. Involuntary “treatments” administered against the will of patients, such as forced medication and forced electroshocks, are perceived as particularly traumatic. They also raise major ethical issues, as they can cause irreversible damage to health.”

The Assembly further considered that “Mental health systems across Europe should be reformed to adopt a human rights-based approach which is compatible with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and is respectful of medical ethics and of the human rights of the people concerned, including of their right to health care on the basis of free and informed consent.”

Commisioner on Human Rights: the draft provokes disprotection

The Council of Europe’s Commissioner on Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, in a written comment to the Committee on Bioethics called on the Committee to not adopt the new legal instrument. She added that “While noting that the Committee on Bioethics started this work with the commendable intention of improving the protection of persons with psychosocial disabilities with regard to involuntary measures ordered in a medical context, she considers that the draft Additional Protocol [the new legal instrument], rather than satisfying that ambition, unfortunately risks provoking the opposite result.”

Civil society is against the draft

The International NGO Human Rights Watch in a statement on the Committee on Bioethics’ document noted “In what may seem like a contradiction, the Council of Europe—the continent’s leading human rights body—continues to pursue a new legal instrument that would undermine the rights of people with disabilities. Today’s meeting of the Council of Europe’s Committee on Bioethics— the body responsible for this treaty known as the draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention on Bioethics, signals that states are prepared to adopt new rules regarding forced treatment and detention of people with psychosocial disabilities, despite existing human rights obligations.”

The European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) earlier called upon the Council of Europe Committee on Bioethics to withdraw the document. They followed up with a new statement, that “The draft Additional Protocol creates the risk of a conflict between international norms at the global and European levels” as the document “lacks clear, strong procedural safeguards to ensure respect for the rights of persons with disabilities.”

The European Disability Forum, an umbrella organisation of persons with disabilities defending the interests of over 100 million persons with disabilities in the European Union, together with their members, in particular the European Network of (Ex)-Users and Survivors of Psychiatry, Mental Health Europe, Autism-Europe, Inclusion Europe and the European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities, have been in strong opposition to the drafted new legal instrument and expressed deep concerns over the human rights violations potentially about to be undertaken by the Council of Europe.

These comments of the European disability representative organizations were also endorsed by the International Disability Alliance, an umbrella organisation bringing together over 1,100 organisations of persons with disabilities and their families from across eight global and six regional networks.

Committee on Bioethics is aware of the critics

Ms. Laurence Lwoff, the Head of Council of Europe’s Bioethics Unit told The European Times, that “The delegations to the Committee on Bioethics are aware of the statement released by UN Rights experts which will also be referred to at the meeting by the Chair of the Committee on Bioethics.” She refused that the Committee does have the intention to disregard the views expressed by the UN Rights experts.

The meeting at which the possible new legal instrument will be reviewed starts today. The European Times was informed that “it is not possible to attend the meetings of the Committee on Bioethics (as this is the general rule for any other intergovernmental committees’ meeting) which are not opened to the press.”

The meeting at which the possible new Legal instrument will be reviewed starts today. When the meeting is done, the Committee either have tied down the Council of Europe or as the UN Experts put it, used the “unique opportunity to shift away from old-fashioned coercive approaches to mental health, towards concrete steps to promote supportive mental health services in the community, and the realization of human rights for all without discrimination on the grounds of disability.”

United Kingdom: UN experts condemn “reprehensible” racism report
United Kingdom: UN experts condemn “reprehensible” racism report

GENEVA (19 April 2021) – A group of UN human rights experts today strongly rejected a UK government-backed report into racism and ethnic disparities in the country, saying the review further distorted and falsified historic facts, and could even fuel racism, racial discrimination and negative racial stereotypes.

The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, which was set up by the UK government after the Black Lives Matter anti-racism protests erupted last year, presented its report on 31 March. “In 2021, it is stunning to read a report on race and ethnicity that repackages racist tropes and stereotypes into fact, twisting data and misapplying statistics and studies into conclusory findings and ad hominem attacks on people of African descent,” the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent.

“The report cites dubious evidence to make claims that rationalize white supremacy by using the familiar arguments that have always justified racial hierarchy. This attempt to normalize white supremacy despite considerable research and evidence of institutional racism is an unfortunate sidestepping of the opportunity to acknowledge the atrocities of the past and the contributions of all in order to move forward.”

In a statement, the Working Group condemned the report’s assertion that while there might be overt acts of racism in the UK, there was no institutional racism.

“The report’s conclusion that racism is either a product of the imagination of people of African descent or of discrete, individualized incidents ignores the pervasive role that the social construction of race was designed to play in society, particularly in normalizing atrocity, in which the British state and institutions played a significant role.”

The experts said the report omits any recognition or analysis of institutional racism by international human rights experts, including the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent’s 2012 review after its country visit to the UK, the 2016 Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance’s report following her 2018 country visit to the UK. “Without exception, these reports have highlighted the damaging impact of institutional racism and deep-rooted inequities in areas such as health, education, employment, housing, stop-and-search practices, and the criminal justice system in the UK,” the experts said.

“The reality is that People of African descent continue to experience poor economic, social, and health outcomes at vastly disproportionate rates in the UK.

“While racial disparities may not always stem from racism or racial discrimination, there is also compelling evidence that the roots of these disparities lie in institutional racism and structural discrimination as they clearly do not reflect the preferences or priorities of the communities facing structural disadvantage.

“Instead, many racial disparities in the UK clearly reflect specific nodes of power and decision-making by employers, teachers, and others who dictate the opportunities and advantages available to people of African descent. Too often this decision-making reflects legacy mindsets of racial hierarchy. In other words, institutional racism, structural invisibility, and longstanding inequalities have disproportionately impacted people of African descent living in the UK.

“Therefore, the suggestion that family structure, rather than institutionalized and structural discriminatory practices are the central features of the Black experience is a tone-deaf attempt at rejecting the lived realities of people of African descent and other ethnic minorities in the UK.”

Finally, the experts said, the report’s mythical representation of enslavement was an attempt to sanitize the history of the trade in enslaved Africans.

“This is a reprehensible, although not unfamiliar tactic, employed by many whose wealth came directly from the enslavement of others, ever since slavery was outlawed. Seeking to silence the brutal role of enslavers, the mind-numbing generational wealth they accrued, and the social capital and political influence they gained from exploiting Black bodies is a deliberate attempt at historical misrepresentation,” the Working Group said.

The Working Group urged the British government to categorically reject the findings of the report, given its own acknowledgement of institutional racism before the CERD in 2016.

“We urge the government to ensure the accurate reflection of historical facts as they relate to past tragedies and atrocities, in particular slavery, the trade in enslaved Africans and colonialism,” the experts said. “The distortion and falsification of these historic facts may license further racism, the promotion of negative racial stereotypes, and racial discrimination.

The experts also called on the government to show its commitment to eliminating racism and related intolerances by launching the International Decade for People of African Descent, with its important pillars of Recognition, Justice and Development.

ENDS

*The Experts: Ms. Dominique DAY (Chairperson); Mr. Ahmed REID; Mr. Michal BALCERZAK; Mr. Sabelo GUMEDZEMr. Ricardo A. SUNGA III; Working Group of Experts of People of African Descent.

This news release was also endorsed by Ms. E. Tendayi ACHIUME Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

UN Human Rights, country page: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

For more information and media requests, please contact Christina Saunders (csaunders@ohchr.org or africandescent@ohchr.org)
For media enquiries regarding other UN independent experts, please contact Jeremy Laurence (jlaurence@ohchr.org) or Renato de Souza (+41 22 928 9855 / rrosariodesouza@ohchr.org).

Follow news related to the UN’s independent human rights experts on Twitter @UN_SPExperts.

Concerned about the world we live in?
Then STAND UP for someone’s rights today.
#Standup4humanrights
and visit the web page at http://www.standup4humanrights.org

EU ‘not fit for purpose’ to reduce poverty in Europe, says UN envoy
EU ‘not fit for purpose’ to reduce poverty in Europe, says UN envoy

The European Union is “not fit for purpose” in the task of reducing poverty in Europe and Brexit risks exacerbating the problem, the UN’s special envoy on human rights has said after a two-month investigation.

Prof Olivier De Schutter, who was given access to senior officials across the bloc’s institutions, said the EU’s “constitutional framework” was driving a race to the bottom in corporation and income tax and salary levels.

A lack of harmonisation on those issues, coupled with the 1997 stability and growth pact that imposes ceilings of 3% a year in national budget deficits and 60% of GDP on public debt, were major constraints on progress, he said.

The internal competition to cut taxes and wages as member states sought to attract investment risked being further fuelled by Brexit, said De Schutter, as the UK sought to find a competitive advantage over the 27 member states of the EU.

Taxation is set by national governments but there is “soft” internal pressure within the bloc to rein in the most egregious policies that would no longer apply to the UK, De Schutter said.

The UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights said the UK’s departure could weaken further the ability to restrain fiscal hawks in EU governments lobbying to attract investment.

He said: “Unfortunately, when countries have to think about how to reform taxation, they will be looking behind their shoulder at Singapore-upon-Thames and asking whether they are not, you know, shooting themselves in the foot.

“That, they’re already doing among themselves, but at least there’s greater transparency and there’s some form of pressure within the EU. But that is something the UK will not be involved in any more. So, the means of coordination to soften the competition are going to be lacking.

“I think it’s going to add pressure on member states and make it perhaps more difficult to achieve the lofty goals they would like to set for themselves.”

De Schutter said he had found “good intentions” within the bloc’s institutions but the EU does not currently have a target for reducing poverty within its 27 member states. The previous target of taking 20 million people out of poverty by 2020 was missed by 8.7m people.

One in five people – more than 92.4 million or 21.1% of the EU population – still experiences poverty, defined as having an income below 60% of national median income. A total of 19.4 million children, representing 23.1%, live in poverty across the bloc.

De Schutter, who was appointed to his role in May last year, said: “My sense now is there’s a big fear that if a new target is announced it will again be a failure.”

The UN envoy publishes his report as the EU is about to agree on projects that will be financed by the bloc’s €750bn coronavirus recovery fund.

De Schutter said that for all the EU’s institutional faults, there was an opportunity to turn around a record of failure – but that there was scant evidence that poverty reduction was a focus.

He said: “The impression I had, having spoken with the teams in France, Italy, and in Spain, having prepared the national recovery residence plans, is everyone was working under pressure of the clock ticking. They have to imagine very quickly how to spend this money.

“The initial drafts were sent to the commission for reaction to be given in October/November, and they prepare the final plans by April, and it’s very difficult to wisely spend money when you’re under such pressure. And so, for example, the consultations with social partners were reduced to a minimum. And very often people in poverty were not involved.

“So the priorities were set based on a technocratic assessment of what needs to be done. And on the windfall effect of these European funds, but not on the sound assessment of the social needs. I think that may lead to natural recovery and visitor resilience plans that are not fully tailored to the needs of people in poverty.”

De Schutter’s report advises that the EU sets a target of 50% poverty reduction by 2030 and that the pursuit of this is taken into account when the commission issues its country-specific recommendations on economic and social policies, known as the “European semester goals”. He is also asking that investment in children’s education and training is not included in the stability and growth pact calculations of budget deficits.

He said: “It’s now or never that we can rethink the EU and avoid this mismatch that still exists between the economic dimension and the organisation of competition across the internal market on one hand, and the social dimension, which has only very timidly emerged recently.”

Discrimination of Serb minority in Croatia: A case raised at the U.N. in Geneva
Discrimination of Serb minority in Croatia: A case raised at the U.N. in Geneva

At the 45th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, a case of discrimination based on ethnicity in Croatia was submitted to their delegation.

25 years after the end of Croatia’s war for independence from Serbia, many Serbs living in Croatia report ongoing discriminatory treatment in court by the judiciary.

One such example is the case of Mr. Dalibor Močević, a Croatian citizen of Serbian descent, who has been fighting for decades in Croatian courts regarding property rights issues and, recently, a child custody case.

Mr. Močević was married to Ms. Ž. Šimunović from Našice from 1 January 2003 to 26 August 2006. One of the reasons for their divorce was that his ex-wife struggled with alcoholism and mental health issues. They have a son, I.M., who was born in February 2007.

On 17 June 2008, the Municipal Court in Našice ruled that I.M. was to be entrusted to the care of his mother. Mr. Močević was unable to get shared custody or even visiting rights from the court. He strongly believes that this decision was motivated by prejudices related to his Serb background.

In January 2010, the Našice Municipal Court granted custody of I.M. to his maternal grandparents, who lived at the same address. This was upon the request of the Center for Social Welfare of Našice due to concerns about his mother’s struggles with alcoholism and psychiatric issues. Mr. Močević was not informed that such legal proceedings were taking place despite his address being known by the court. Again, he asserts that the court’s negligence to notify him is because of his Serb origin. He has experienced this prejudice before during a case in property rights after the independence of Croatia from Serbia in 1991.

In January 2011, the Municipal Court of Našice restored the custody of I.M. to his mother and allowed his father visitation once a month for 10-12 hours a time in Našice. Mr. Močević appealed the decision, referring to his broader rights as a father under the national Family Law.

On 10 March 2011, the Osijek County Court overturned the first instance ruling and remanded the case for retrial. The County Court ruled that the disputed decision was taken in violation of the right to a fair trial because the child’s father was not allowed to participate. Mr. Dalibor Močević requested that his ex-wife undergo a psychiatric examination because he claimed that their son was experiencing chronic stress with her. Instead, the court ordered a psychiatric examination of Mr. Močević, who had no history of mental illness or any dependencies. Mr. Močević attributes this to anti-Serb sentiments.

In 2017, Mr. Močević’s ex-wife abandoned their son and left Croatia for an unknown destination. A year later she was extradited from Austria where she had been homeless, mentally unstable and alcoholic. In early 2019, the Municipal court in Đakovo initiated new proceedings concerning the custody rights of I.M. Although his mother had abandoned him, the family court judge Ankica Wolf denied Mr. Močević’s request for custody.

All challenges Mr. Močević brought to the Supreme Court of Croatia for his exclusion from these proceedings by both the judge and the president of the court in Đakovo, as well as the transfer of their case to another court were either rejected or left undecided.

Their child has been living for over 10 years now in a state of mental anguish. Mr. Močević is convinced that judges are refusing to grant him custody of his son because he is of Serb descent.

In 2018, the European Commission on Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) of the Council of Europe (CoE), expressed alarm over the rise of right-wing extremism and anti-Serb hostility in its fifth report about Croatia, the first of the seven Western Balkans countries to join the EU.

In line with the ECRI’s findings, Mr. Močević insists that he has been repeatedly denied justice because of his Serb origin. His lawyer has shared that this is not unique to Mr. Močević’s case, as other Serbs in Croatia have been discriminated against due to various personal or institutional collusions between a handful of judges, political figures, and extreme nationalists.

UN experts call for urgent action to remedy “alarming” human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir
UN experts call for urgent action to remedy “alarming” human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir

GENEVA (4 August 2020) – A year after India revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, UN human rights experts* today called on India and the international community to take urgent action to address the alarming human rights situation in the territory.

“Urgent action is needed,” the experts said. “If India will not take any genuine and immediate steps to resolve the situation, meet their obligations to investigate historic and recent cases of human rights violations and prevent future violations, then the international community should step up.”

Since the Indian Parliament revoked the constitutionally mandated status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir on 5 August 2019, “the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir has been in free fall,” the experts said. “We are particularly concerned that during the COVID-19 pandemic, many protestors are still in detention and Internet restrictions remain in place.”

It has been almost a year since several UN experts wrote to the Government and publicly called on India to end the crackdown on freedom of expression, access to information and peaceful protests which followed the 05 August 2019 announcement. The experts have also raised concerns with the Indian government about alleged arbitrary detention and torture and ill-treatment  to which the Government recently replied, as well as the criminalization of journalists covering the situation and the detention and deteriorating health of a high profile human rights lawyer.

“We have yet to receive any reply to three of the four letters,” the experts said.

The October 2019 closure of the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission, which had been one of the few ways victims of human rights violations could seek remedy, is particularly concerning. Furthermore, no information was provided to the public about what would happen to the ongoing cases the body had been investigating, including hundreds of suspected enforced disappearances dating from as far back as 1989. Allegations regarding thousands of unmarked and some mass graves sites have also not yet been properly investigated.

“Decades on, families are still waiting in anguish and now there is a stream of new alleged rights violations,” the experts said. “With no State Human Rights Commission and internet restrictions, the avenues for reporting are further reduced.”

In 2011, India extended an open invitation to Special Rapporteurs to visit, but has several requests pending. “We call on India to schedule pending visits as a matter of urgency, particularly of the experts dealing with torture and disappearances,” they said.

Iraqi Religious Authorities Adopt Interfaith Statement on Victims of ISIL
Iraqi Religious Authorities Adopt Interfaith Statement on Victims of ISIL

United Nations Under-Secretary-General (USG) and Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, and Special Adviser (SA) and Head of the United Nations Investigative Team to promote accountability for crimes committed by Da’esh/ISIL in Iraq, Karim A. A. Khan Q.C., commended religious leaders for endorsing  an Interfaith Statement on the Victims of ISIL.

The Statement followed extensive engagement with religious authorities by UNITAD which continued during USG Dieng’s visit to Iraq between 1–6 March. The statement is the first time Iraqi religious leaders have formally endorsed a common statement on the need for justice and the rights of victims and survivors of ISIL. USG Dieng and SA Khan applauded its adoption by His Excellency Sheikh Dr. Ahmed Hassan al-Taha Chairman of the Iraq Jurisprudence Council, His Eminence Sheikh Abdul Mahdi Al-Karbala’i, His Holiness Baba Sheikh Khurto Hajji Ismail Yazidi Supreme Spiritual Leader, and His Beatitude Louis Raphaël I Sako, Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans and Head of the Chaldean Catholic Church.

In the Statement, religious leaders repudiate and condemn the violence of ISIL as completely contrary to their respective faiths. It also underscores that members of all religions across Iraq have been impacted by the crimes of Da’esh, and that all survivors must be supported in their efforts to continue their lives within their communities. The Statement also recognizes the many acts of heroism in which members of their respective communities rose up in defense of those from other religious and ethnic backgrounds.

USG Dieng and SA Khan were particularly pleased that the religious leaders spoke with one voice in acknowledging the tremendous suffering members of their communities had endured as a result of sexual and gender-based violence and in underlining their commitment to ensure that survivors of such crimes are fully supported and do not suffer from any form of stigmatization. Noting the particular suffering endured by children impacted by the crimes of ISIL, the religious leaders recognized that such children are blameless and should benefit from love and kindness.

The critical importance of ensuring that ISIL members are held individually responsible for crimes committed, through fair trials in a court of law, as well as the investigation of cases of those disappeared and abducted by ISIL, is further underlined in the Statement. In this regard, all religious authorities expressed their strong collective support for the work of UNITAD.

USG Dieng and SA Khan emphasized that the collective endorsement of this statement reflected the religious leaders’ joint effort in advancing accountability for crimes committed by ISIL and prioritizing the need for justice and accountability – as well as empathy and solidarity for all victims. They stressed the crucial role religious leaders can play in fostering a peaceful and inclusive society and noted their essential role in ensuring effective support to the survivors of ISIL, countering violent ideology, mistrust and fear, and in bringing people together on the common ground of humanity.

SA Khan stated “This Statement constitutes an extremely important moment, representing as it does, a coming together of leaders from the Christian, Sunni, Shia and Yazidi communities, around universal values represented and promoted by their respective faiths. Justice for the victims of ISIL, support for survivors and an emphasis on inclusion and support in preference to exclusion, stigmatization and derision are important elements to ensure support for survivors – whether men, women or children. I am particularly grateful to the religious leaders for reiterating their unequivocal support for UNITAD and its mandate to vindicate the rights of victims and survivors to justice.”

USG Dieng stated “This Interfaith Statement constitutes a strong symbol of unity and a renewed call to deepen efforts to address concerns from all citizens of Iraq in their quest for a future together and in peace. It also represents a strong endorsement from these religious communities of the imperative to hold ISIL members responsible for their crimes”.

Reflecting his engagement with religious authorities across Iraq during the visit, as well as the statement made by Sheikh Ahmed Hasan al-Taha upon signature, USG Dieng further noted that efforts were also needed to ensure that accountability is delivered for all crimes committed against members of all communities in Iraq. He noted that such work would serve to strengthen the basis for stable and peaceful relations across Iraq, and that in his capacity as Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, he will continue to engage with national governments, UN partners and other actors to promote justice for all victims as well as recognition of their suffering.

Upon endorsing the Statement during a meeting with USG Dieng and SA Khan on 6 March, His Eminence Sheikh Abdul Mahdi Al-Karbala’i described the meeting as “an historic day” and he called upon other religious communities to also endorse the Statement. In the same vein, Cardinal Sako proposed a follow-up conference to broaden the endorsement for the Statement by other religious communities and build upon it.

USG Dieng and SA Khan noted that the adoption of the Statement represented the beginning of a process of further engagement with other religious leaders in Iraq and both emphasized that the statement remains open for signature and that any and all faith leaders who wish to sign or endorse the Statement and implement the principles reflected within it are welcome to do so.

UN appoints new ECOSOC President
UN appoints new ECOSOC President

.@UNECOSOC has a new President: It is H.E. Mr. Munir Akram, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the @UN@PakistanPR_UN#UN75#GlobalGoals#SDGs#2030Agenda

23 July 2020UN Affairs

Now is the time to implement policies and commitments to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and implement the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the new President of one of the UN’s main bodies said on Thursday.

Ambassador Munir Akram of Pakistan outlined his priorities for the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) as the UN marks its 75th anniversary amid the global economic and health crisis.

Challenging times

“The ECOSOC’s central mandate is to promote ‘better standards of life in larger freedoms’ through international economic cooperation. Never before has the fulfillment of this mandate been more challenging, or more imperative, as it is today,” he told a virtual ceremony.

Mr. Akram said the pandemic and associated global recession will make it difficult to realize the SDGs. The 17 goals provide a roadmap to a better future for all, by 2030.

Meanwhile, global warming is accelerating. He warned that unless countries meet agreed targets on climate change, the planet could become uninhabitable for all living things.

Simultaneous response needed

“The broad policy decisions to address each of these three simultaneous challenges have been taken. Commitments have been made. What is needed now is implementation”, said Mr. Akram.

“This should be the focus of our deliberations. And, since we need to respond simultaneously, there must be synergy between our responses to the health, development and climate challenges.”

Address rising inequality

The new ECOSOC President also wants countries to address rising inequality, both within and between nations.

“The legacy of colonialism, racism and foreign occupation is a major systemic cause of inequality”, he said.

“I will propose to the Council that we convene a special meeting in 2021 – the 20th Anniversary of the Durban Conference against Racism – to address the root causes of global inequality. Similarly, the 10th ECOSOC Youth Forum should be dedicated to promoting a vision of a more equal, peaceful, united and dynamic world order.”

Support developing nations

Mr. Akram also proposed that the Council should promote action on financing for COVID-19, the SDGs and climate action goals.

However, if the world is to “build back better” after the pandemic, he underlined the need for developing countries to have greater access to renewable energy and other sustainable infrastructure, as well as advanced technologies.

“The ECOSOC should help to build a coordinated approach to ensure the required capital flows to developing countries to recover from the current recession and revive the prospects of achieving the SDGs”, he said.

“In preparation for the annual Forum on Financing for Development next April, I intend to convene a few informal meetings and consultations to advance these objectives.”

New ECOSOC Bureau

This is the second time Mr. Akram has assumed the ECOSOC Presidency, having taken the helm in 2005.

Three Vice-Presidents have also been elected to serve alongside him on the ECOSOC Bureau, which proposes the Council’s agenda and devises a programme of work, among other duties.

They are Ambassador Collen Vixen Kelapile of Botswana, Ambassador Pascale Baeriswyl of Switzerland, and Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya of Ukraine.

Coronavirus Portal & News Updates

Readers can find information and guidance on the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) from the UN, World Health Organization and UN agencies here. For daily news updates from UN News, click here.

‘Be ready to embrace change!’

Mr. Akram praised his predecessor, Mona Juul of Norway, for her leadership of the Council during what he described as “these extraordinary times”.

Ms. Juul in turn offered a few words of advice, having steered the Council through the initial phases of the pandemic, and at a time of global upheaval against racial injustice, the climate crisis and rising inequalities.

“Be ready to embrace change!”, she told Mr. Akram and the new Bureau. “Let us change for the better and make our recovery based upon values, not value. On compassion, courage, and cooperation.”

Although the pandemic is changing the world, Ms. Juul stressed it has not changed global commitment to realizing a better future for all.

She said now is the time to “fix the world’s fragilities”, from access to universal health coverage and quality education, to reversing environmental degradation, and power imbalances that disproportionally affect women and girls.

“To recover better, we must build forward. To a greener, fairer, more inclusive and more resilient tomorrow,” she said. “If we do not change now, then when?”

‘Transfats’ from processed foods may increase ovarian cancer risk
‘Transfats’ from processed foods may increase ovarian cancer risk

2 July 2020 Health

A likely link between processed and fried foods containing so-called “transfats” and ovarian cancer has been identified by UN scientists, they said on Thursday on a press release, of which The Social News in EU is informing.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued the announcement at the end of a study of nearly 1,500 patients suffering from the disease, which is the eighth most common cause of cancer death in women.

Previous, smaller studies have suggested a link between these industrially manufactured fatty foods and ovarian cancer, but the evidence has been “inconclusive” until now, said IARC’s Dr Inge Huybrechts.

“This is the first Europe-wide prospective study showing a relationship between intake of industrial trans fatty acids and development of ovarian cancer,” added the scientist from IARC, which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO).

Obesity and inflammation

Although there is limited research into the effect of transfatty acids on cancer development, previous studies have suggested that industrial trans fatty acids affect obesity and inflammation.

These are “known risk factors” for ovarian cancer according to IARC scientist and study co-author Dr Véronique Chajès.

This could explain, “at least partly, the positive association between these fatty acids and ovarian cancer”, she added.

There were nearly 300,000 new cases of ovarian cancer in 2018 and more than 184,000 deaths worldwide.

It is eighth most common cancer type and the eighth most common cause of cancer death in women.

Prevention strategies

Because the incidence of ovarian cancer is rising worldwide, prevention strategies are urgently needed; however, few preventable factors have been identified.

“These new findings are in line with the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation to eliminate industrial trans fatty acids from foods”, said Dr Marc Gunter, head of the Section of Nutrition and Metabolism at IARC.

“This study provides new evidence that reduction in the consumption of industrially processed foods, including fast food, could help reduce the risk of ovarian cancer and many other chronic diseases, including other cancer types, that are related to higher consumption of industrial trans fatty acids.”

Baha’is hosts UN75 Declaration Dialogue series on the future of global governance
Baha’is hosts UN75 Declaration Dialogue series on the future of global governance

by Bahai International Community

New York—14 May 2020—

The Baha’i International Community, in collaboration with UN2020 and Together First, hosted a three-part online dialogue to exchange ideas on the latest intergovernmental contribution addressing the 75th Anniversary of the United Nations in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The three discussions, held on 23 April, 30 April, and 7 May focused on the three sections of an elements paper outlining the most critical issues expressed by Member States for the UN75 political declaration which include: acknowledging achievements and looking ahead, delivering on commitments and responding to global challenges, and building consensus and mobilizing for change. Cumulatively, the breakfasts drew over 500 attendees from nearly 40 countries, and included representatives from 32 Member State missions. One-page summaries of each of the three discussions can be found here.

“We have found that one of the unfortunate effects of the ongoing pandemic is a reduction of space for genuine interaction between Member States and civil society” said Daniel Perell, Representative of the BIC to the United Nations. “We are trying to offer an opportunity for the genuine exchange of views. Despite the circumstances—or because of them—new opportunities are now available for even greater degrees of participation.” 

“We come to these discussions with an understanding that humanity is constantly in a state of development and evolution,” shared Mr. Perell in remarks commencing the series. “Naturally, no one knows precisely what the future holds for humanity … therefore, the spirit animating these meetings is one of collective exploration and inquiry.”

The discussions touched on a number of topics including the changing realities of humanity and the need for international cooperation and solidarity.

“The establishment of the United Nations 75 years ago represented a remarkable achievement in human progress and ingenuity, and was reflective of the needs identified at the time.” Yet, “with each passing year and with each passing crisis, the fundamental unity of the human race and its various systems comes into greater clarity.”

Acknowledging the contributions of the United Nations over the years, the discussions also centered around the need to both strengthen current systems and to reconsider global governance in light of changing realities.

“In our ongoing search for truth, it is hoped that spaces such as these can help to generate insight into what is needed for global governance today,” stated Mr. Perell. “Isn’t this, in part, what we are called to do in honor of the 75th anniversary of the United Nations?”

At the meetings, a variety of actors shared perspectives on issues such as humanity’s current conceptualization of national sovereignty.

“The big challenge we have is this extreme tension and gap between the system we have and the system we require,” one representative from civil society stated. “Our concept of national sovereignty is no longer viable. It is now just a nominal international law principle, since no country is truly autonomous.”

Discussions addressed the relationship between Member States, the United Nations, and civil society. In considering the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, which begins with the statement “We the peoples”, one Ambassador asked, “How do we give voice to that statement? Do we remain exclusive in our efforts? Or do we find a way, especially now that we are learning how to bring voices together remotely from all around the world?”

In considering constructive approaches needed, another Ambassador shared, “This period of COVID carries questions the UN has to ask: What have we learned? What vision do we want? And how can we craft a vision of the future that speaks to all people as it is showing us the many socioeconomic inequalities that exist?”

“We need to ask, is the UN fit for purpose, and how can we make it fit for purpose?” the Ambassador continued, “We are not just tinkering with the institutions… We need to step back and ask, what is the world we want in the future? Because this is the opportunity to craft a document that gives effect to that.”

HRC43 | Support consensus renewal of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders
HRC43 | Support consensus renewal of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders

By CAP Freedom of Conscience

At the 43rd session of the Human Rights Council, States will consider a resolution extending for three years the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders. Civil society organisations from across the world are calling on all States to support the consensus renewal of the mandate, and to resist any attempt to undermine the mandate and States’ obligations. This is a key opportunity for States and the Council to demonstrate their support and recognition for the indispensable role defenders play to ensure that all people enjoy freedom, dignity, justice and equality.

Human rights defenders are people who act with humanity, serve humanity and who contribute to and bring out the best in humanity. They are key to our daily lives – they work so our governments are more transparent and accountable, our environment cleaner and safer, our schools and workplaces fairer, and our futures more sustainable. As human rights defenders confront power, privilege and prejudice, they frequently face a wide range of risks and threats, including against their organisations and their families, friends and loved ones.

Despite their vital contribution, both some governments and non-State actors are still seeking to silence defenders as they expose injustices and demand accountability for all.

The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders is integral to their protection and recognition, globally. It gathers and responds to information on the situation of defenders around the world, engages constructively with governments and non-State actors and provides expert recommendations to promote the effective implementation of the Declaration on human rights defenders (‘the Declaration’).

In 2019, the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly supported the vital work of defenders. The Human Rights Council recognised the critical role of environmental human rights defenders in protecting natural ecosystems, addressing climate change, attaining the sustainable development goals (SDGs). The General Assembly passed by consensus a resolution focusing on implementation of the Declaration and some key elements of protection policy; the resolution also attracted a record number of co-sponsors.

At the 43rd session of the Council, States will consider a resolution extending the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for three years. This is a key opportunity for States and the Council to demonstrate their support and recognition for the indispensable role defenders play to ensure that all people enjoy freedom, dignity, justice and equality.

Civil society organisations* from across the world are calling on all States to support the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur by:

  • Participating positively in the negotiations on the resolution,
  • Presenting early co-sponsorship of the text,
  • Resisting any attempts to dilute the mandate or State obligations, and
  • Supporting consensus renewal of the mandate.

source : https://www.ishr.ch/news/hrc43-support-consensus-renewal-un-special-rapporteur-human-rights-defenders

List updated on a rolling basis*

  1. International Service For Human Rights (ISHR)
  2. Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
  3. Sudanese Development Initiative
  4. Partnership for Justice- Nigeria
  5. Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain
  6. European Center for Democracy and Human Rights
  7. Polish Institute for Human Rights and Business
  8. Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
  9. Centro de Justicia y Paz – Cepaz
  10. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
  11. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
  12. Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR)
  13. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
  14. Coordination des Associations et des Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience – EU
  15. Article 19
  16. The Southern Africa Human Rights Defenders Network
  17. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
  18. DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
  19. The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association – ILGA World
  20. Réseau Ouest Africain des Défenseurs des Droits Humains
  21. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
  22. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  23. Global Witness
  24. Association for Advancement of Legal Right
  25. Emonyo Yefwe International – Kenya
  26. International Centre for Ethnic Studies- Sri Lanka
  27. IFEX
  28. Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada
  29. Peace Brigades International
  30. MENA Rights Group
  31. Brot für die Welt
  32. child rights connect
  33. Amnesty International
  34. Coalition Ivoirienne des Défenseurs des Droits Humains (CIDDH)
  35. Coalition Burkinabé des Défenseurs des Droits Humains (CBDDH)
  36. Dominicans for Justice and Peace
  37. UPR-Info
  38. International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA)
  39. Coalition Malienne des Défenseurs des Droits Humains (COMADDH)
  40. Réseau Ouest Africain des Défenseurs des Droits Humains
  41. Seguridad en Democracia (SEDEM)
  42. The ICCA Consortium
  43. Natural Justice
  44. URG (Universal Rights Group)
  45. World Assembly of Youth (WAY)
  46. Forest Peoples Programme
  47. The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation
United Nations recognizes Scientology Foundation with Special Consultative to the ECOSOC
United Nations recognizes Scientology Foundation with Special Consultative to the ECOSOC

New NGO status empowers MEJORA, the Foundation for the Improvement of Life, Culture and Society, to add to accomplishing the objectives of the UN Economic and Social Council and the helpful points of the Scientology religion.

Mejora signifies “improvement” in Spanish, and Fundacion MEJORA is an adept name for the association that has quite recently accomplished Special Consultative Status to the United Nations. Its complete name is Fundacion MEJORA: Foundation for the Improvement of Life, Culture and Society, and MEJORA’s new NGO status furnishes the Church of Scientology with more prominent chance to contribute legitimately to the achievement of the objectives of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, ECOSOC, one of the six head organs of the United Nations.

The Foundation MEJORA was established in 2015 by the Church of Scientology of Spain. It is enlisted in that nation’s National Registry of Foundations.

In its application to the UN, the establishment asserted its duty to:

“human improvement through regard for and perception of Universal Human Rights just as the utilization of fundamental beliefs, for example, human rights, balance, resilience, regard for human life, harmony, vote based system, and individual opportunity.”

The Foundation’s strategic to “protect, advance, educate and disperse Human Rights as remembered for the Spanish Constitution just as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other global agreements; to advance logical Scientology esteems and practices created by Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard focused on progress of the individual and society, and to advance resistance in all parts of common society.”

At the European level, the Foundation is enlisted in the Transparency Register of the European Union. MEJORA has effectively taken an interest in the Faith and Freedom Summit NGO alliance, whose last occasion was held at the European Parliament in Brussels. MEJORA likewise takes an interest in various different activities, occasions, and gatherings in encouraging its strategic.

“to advance sober minded Scientology esteems and practices created by Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard focused on progress of the individual and society, and to advance resilience in all parts of common society”

This year points MEJORA’s sixth yearly Religious Freedom Awards introduction, booked for September 6. Awardees remember researchers and unmistakable authorities dynamic for advancing and securing the opportunity of religion or conviction.

The UN Economic and Social Council is one of the six head organs of the United Nations. Built up in 1945 by the UN Charter, the ECOSOC is liable for the bearing and coordination of the financial, social, philanthropic, and social exercises did by the UN.

With this acknowledgment, the Foundation currently has official portrayal at the UN in Geneva, Vienna and New York, with the capacity to introduce composed and oral articulations to different organs, for example, the UN Human Rights Council, and to arrange meetings of its own inside the United Nations.