Human Rights defender (HRD) is a term used to describe “people who, individually or with others, act to promote or protect human rights in a peaceful manner”, as defined by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders. A human rights defender can be, for example, an individual such as a journalist, worker, lawyer, activist, or member of the public; an organisation such as a civil society organisation or trade union; or a national human rights institution.
Respect and support for the activities of human rights defenders, including investigating and reporting on human rights abuses, are essential for the full realisation of human rights, the rule of law, and sustainable development. Investigating and reporting human rights violations can help stop ongoing abuses, prevent their recurrence, and support victims in seeking justice through remedy channels.
While advocating against corporate human rights abuses, HRDs face various types of risks, including persecution and harassment, punishment, arbitrary arrest or detention, threats, stigmatisation, harassment, intimidation, surveillance, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), criminalisation, physical attacks, and death. A 2025 report by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) indicates that 6,400 attacks across 147 countries were recorded against individuals advocating against business-related human rights abuses between January 2024 and December 2024, while 660 attacks were recorded only in 2024.
According to the OHCHR, Women Human Rights Defenders face heightened threats and particular forms of violence and harassment. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders uses the term ‘women human rights defenders’ as referring to “all women and girls working on any human rights issue, namely women defenders and girl defenders, and any person who works to promote women’s rights and rights related to gender equality. This includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) activists, as issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity are part of achieving gender equality.” They face heightened risks due to their gender, including gendered verbal abuse (online and offline), sexual abuse and harassment, domestic violence, threats against their children, rape and sexual violence, and smear campaigns. As the OHCHR reports, in 2024, one out of every ten human rights defenders, journalists, or trade unionists who were killed was a woman. Another particularly at-risk group is HRDs working at the intersection of land and environmental rights, as well as the rights of Indigenous Peoples. All these risks are further exacerbated in contexts where HRDs operate in restrictive environments with limited fundamental rights and freedoms.
In 1998, the UN adopted a Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, by acknowledging the rights of people to “promote” and “strive for” “the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels”, individually and in association with others. Considering relevant regional and international jurisprudential developments since the adoption of this Declaration, the coalition of 18 international and regional human rights organisations released the Declaration +25 in 2024 as an expert-led document to address the HRDs’ enduring and evolving needs. Article 18 of the Declaration +25 addresses the roles and responsibilities of business enterprises in relation to the rights of HRDs. It states that “in consultation with human rights defenders, business enterprises, including financial institutions and investors, shall ensure that their activities, actions and omissions do not restrict or violate the right to defend human rights or those who exercise this right, and shall identify, address and remedy adverse impacts on human rights defenders associated with their own activities or as a result of their business relationships.”
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) acknowledge the risks faced by HRDs, which require States to ensure that “the legitimate and peaceful activities of human rights defenders are not obstructed.” As the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights (Working Group) indicated in its 2021 report, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights includes both supporting human rights defenders and preventing, mitigating, and remedying the human rights risks posed to them. The UNGPs recognise the key role of HRDs in human rights due diligence. Businesses are urged to consider HRDs as an essential expert resource that can help companies assess their human rights impacts and understand the concerns of affected stakeholders, particularly “in situations where consultation with affected stakeholders is not possible.”
Read more
The 2017 report of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders states, “the responsibility of businesses to respect human rights not only entails a negative duty to refrain from violating the rights of others, but also a positive obligation to support a safe and enabling environment for human rights defenders in the countries in which they are operating. Discharging this duty requires consultation with defenders to understand the issues at stake and the shortcomings that impede their work.”
According to Global Witness, at least 146 land and environmental defenders around the world were murdered or disappeared only in 2024, while 2,253 land and environmental defenders were killed or disappeared between 2012 and 2024. A 2016 report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of land and environmental rights defenders noted the responsibility for or complicity of business actors in various human rights violations against defenders and communities working to protect fundamental rights and freedoms. Indigenous Peoples’ human rights defenders face heightened pressure and reprisals when they defend their rights against large-scale industrial projects on their lands, including renewable energy infrastructure, agricultural expansion, and oil and gas concessions, which threaten their rights to self-determination, as well as their lands, territories, and cultures. A 2025 report of BHRRC indicates that “in 2024, 89% of the HRDs attacked were land and environmental defenders, while 96% of Indigenous defenders experiencing attacks over the past decade were advocating for land and environmental rights” (See the Issue pages on Land, Indigenous Peoples, and Environment & Climate Change for more information).
States have a duty to protect human rights defenders from human rights abuses arising from business activity. In its 2021 report, the Working Group advised States to enact policies and regulations to prevent, investigate, punish, and redress all forms of threats and attacks against HRDs in a business context. States can address this issue in their National Action Plans (NAPs) on Business and Human Rights. The Working Group recommends that States recognise the essential role of HRDs in the development and implementation of NAPs, acknowledge the connection between business-related human rights abuses and the risks faced by HRDs in this context, and take concrete measures to address the risks defenders are facing. In June 2016, the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) and the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR) developed the Human Rights Defenders in National Action Plans (NAPs) on Business and Human Rights, as guidance on how HRDs should be considered in the process of developing NAPs.
The Escazú Agreement (the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean), the first binding treaty to expressly include provisions on environmental defenders, entered into force in 2021. The agreement requires States parties to guarantee a safe and enabling environment for persons, groups, and organisations that promote and defend human rights in environmental matters. States are also required to take adequate and effective measures to recognise, protect and promote all the rights of environmental human rights defenders, and to investigate and punish any attacks or intimidation against defenders. The Agreement also includes provisions to ensure Indigenous Peoples’ meaningful participation in environmental decision-making processes. It requires States to observe the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities while implementing their obligations.
In May 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) published an Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and Human Rights. In this opinion, the IACtHR established that the right to defend human rights is an autonomous right. States have a special duty to protect environmental defenders by implementing specific obligations, including protecting them, investigating and punishing any attacks, threats, or intimidation they suffer, and counteracting the criminalisation of environmental defence. The IACtHR also requires States to reinforce national protection programs that include an intersectional approach, considering the additional risks faced by women defenders, journalists, members of rural communities, Afro-descendants, and Indigenous Peoples.
The Working Group emphasised in its 2021 report that suppression of the rights of HRDs can lead to significant costs and adverse outcomes arising for both States and businesses, including reputational risks to business, loss of social licence for businesses to operate, loss of partners on the ground, and loss of opportunities for information and intelligence gathering. As highlighted by the BHRRC, companies and HRDs can collaborate to create a shared space for civic freedoms, where safe and supportive environments for HRDs also contribute to improved stability and predictability in companies’ operating environments.
Business and multistakeholder networks are also increasingly acknowledging the importance of HRDs and the importance of protection of defenders, civic space and rule of law:
In 2018, a group of eight companies and investors issued a joint statement calling for the protection of defenders, civic freedoms and the rule of law.
The BHRRC’s policy tracker, based on the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark data, found that, out of 260 companies assessed, 46 have committed to not tolerate nor contribute to attacks against HRDs.
In September 2024, the Fair Labor Association and the American Apparel & Footwear Association sent a letter to the interim government of Bangladesh, urging the immediate release of defenders who were arrested during the 2023 minimum wage protests and calling for all criminal charges against labour leaders and NGOs to be dropped.
A special group of HRDs are whistleblowers, who are individuals who have and report insider activities (such as wrongdoing, corruption, immoral behaviour) occurring in an organisation. Whistleblowers may be employees, suppliers, contractors, clients, freelancers, consultants, volunteers, unpaid trainees, job applicants, or any individual who becomes aware of illegal activities in a business, either by witnessing the behaviour or being informed about it. They disclose this information to expose wrongdoing and prevent it from happening again. The law should protect whistleblowers, yet this is often not the case in many countries. Instead, they are usually fired or treated unfairly (e.g., not promoted) for having ‘blown the whistle’. However, recent years have seen an increase in whistleblower protection legislation. For example, the EU adopted the Whistleblower Protection Directive in 2019. The Directive requires Member States to ensure that whistleblowers have effective internal and external reporting channels, that their reports are appropriately investigated, and that they are protected from retaliation. In February 2019, the Australian Parliament passed the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill, which requires public companies and ‘large proprietary companies’ to have mandatory whistleblower policies. Such a policy must set out information on, among others, the protections available to whistleblowers; how the company will support whistleblowers and protect them from detriment; and how the company will investigate protected disclosures.
SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) are increasingly used as a legal weapon to silence human rights defenders. These cases often rely on baseless defamation or criminal claims, with the real aim of deterring HRDs’ advocacy. Recognising this abuse, governments are beginning to introduce legal safeguards. In 2024, the EU adopted the Anti-SLAPP Directive to prevent and combat manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings against those who engage in matters of public interest, including defenders. Countries such as Australia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and 32 US states have similar protections. A 2024 report from the OHCHR recommends that business actors should refrain from filing SLAPPs, establish clear protocols to deal with SLAPPs, and conduct human rights due diligence to identify and prevent the use of SLAPPs both within corporate groups and throughout their supply chains. In its 2025 advisory opinion, the IACtHR requires States to identify laws that are selectively and repeatedly applied to prosecute and punish environmental defenders solely for their legitimate human rights work. It further requires States to review the conventionality of such laws and derogate or amend them as necessary and establish procedures to promptly dismiss administrative or judicial actions aimed merely at intimidating or silencing defenders. Finally, the Court calls for targeted education and training for relevant police and judicial authorities on the protection of environmental defenders, to prevent judicial harassment and avoid decisions that violate the right to defend human rights.
States are also providing guidelines and mechanisms to address the challenges faced by HRDs. For instance, in 2023, the United States issued guidelines for its diplomatic missions worldwide on how to support civil society and human rights defenders. The EU and the United States issued joint guidance for online platforms in 2024, outlining concrete actions they can take to better protect human rights defenders online, including preventing, mitigating, and remedying digital attacks against them. In the EU, the Guidelines to support the work of HRDs outside the Union were adopted in 2004. Later, in 2015, the EU established Protect Defenders EU, a protection mechanism designed to provide urgent support and, when necessary, temporary relocation for human rights defenders operating outside the EU. The ISHR maintains a database of proposed and enacted laws, guidelines, and protection mechanisms relating to human rights defenders.
There is also an increasing number of guidelines developed by stakeholders to address the protection of HRDs in the context of business activities. In July 2025, ISHR and the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre published a new guidance, “Business frameworks and actions to support human rights defenders: A retrospective and recommendations”, which provides frameworks, tools, and advocacy developed over the last decade to protect and support HRDs in the context of business activities and operations. In 2024, Amnesty International published a mapping paper to document existing protection mechanisms and identify remaining gaps, examining where HRDs currently turn when facing threats or attacks and what forms of support they would like to see in the future. In 2020, the ISHR, BHRRC and Investor Alliance on Human Rights published a new guidance, “Safeguarding Human Rights Defenders: Practical Guidance for Investors”, to provide institutional investors with detailed information on how to identify, prevent, and mitigate negative impacts on HRDs in investment portfolios.
There is a growing pattern of attacks against journalists, civil society leaders, whistleblowers and other HRDs involved in anti-corruption efforts, often carried out by both State and private actors, including businesses. In a 2021 report, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders affirmed that individuals exposing corruption, such as activists, journalists, lawyers, academics, medical workers and whistleblowers, should be recognised as HRDs. The report highlighted that those protecting the environment and uncovering corruption in business or development projects, particularly in the extractive sector, face high risks of physical violence, surveillance, arbitrary arrest and excessive use of force. Both the UN Human Rights Council’s 2025 resolution and a 2025 joint statement by Special Procedures mandate holders call on States to safeguard civic space, uphold the rule of law and ensure a safe environment for those combating corruption (See the Issue page on Corruption for more information).
The protection and promotion of human rights defenders and their enabling environment is critical for the achievement of sustainable development. As OHCHR states in its recommendations to governments and businesses on SDG implementation, “protecting, respecting and supporting human rights defenders needs to be an essential component of SDG implementation efforts.” The Working Group emphasised in its 2021 report that
“Development projects cannot be human rights compliant if they are progressed at any cost, and careful consideration of the implications for human rights defenders, and the rights they are defending, need to underpin efforts to achieve the SDGs”. The report further acknowledges that protection of civic freedoms and human rights defenders is a critical element for implementing SDG 16 (promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies), and SDG 17, which recognises the power of partnership. Specifically, protection of human rights defenders is addressed in the indicator for SDG target 16.10 (Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements), which measures the “number of verified cases of killing, kidnapping, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture of journalists, associated media personnel, trade unionists and human rights advocates in the previous 12 months.”
The Escazú Agreement – the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (2018).
What National Action Plans say on Human rights defenders & Civic space
Belgium (2017 - open)
Action point 9
Strengthen collaboration between public services and the various organizations active in the field of human rights and of international entrepreneurship
This point briefly mentions human rights defenders. The NAP states that various public services, in particular the MFA and the OECD NCP, have information on the human rights situation in different countries, due to their activities (this is the case of for the NCP); the local presence of Belgian representation; contacts with local civil society (especially human rights defenders), other “external” partners sensible to human rights issues (such as the delegations of the European Union and its Member States, the local offices of the United Nations and their specialized bodies, the Council of Europe, etc.) or with representatives of like-minded countries.
No explicit reference is made in the Czech NAP to human rights defenders.
Pillar II, Commitment [page 32-33]
“The Government of the Czech Republic recommends that businesses adopt internal commitments in accordance with the recommendations below. …
What should a commitment encompass? …
Protection of whistleblowers: This includes, on the one hand, instructions for employees on how to proceed if they detect unlawful conduct and, on the other, protection from retaliation.”
No specific mention of whistleblowers in the NAP. Whistleblowers are mentioned in the introduction only.
1. Introduction [page 9]
“Denmark has a long political tradition of supporting and addressing human rights. Changing governments have concentrated on special focus areas such as … human rights defenders”
The Finnish NAP makes reference to human rights defenders in general terms. It makes no reference to whistle-blowers.
3 Expectations towards companies and support services
3.5 Support for Finnish and international organisations promoting the subject [page 28]
“Defenders of human rights, trade unions and other civil society operators can play an important role in the assessment of the impact of business activities on human rights, the availability of legal remedies and national and international discussion. Finland has a strong tradition of mutual interaction between the authorities and civil society operators. The collaboration between labour market parties is part of the Finnish social contract. Ministries support the business and human rights activities of Finnish and international non-governmental organisations in various ways.”
4 Access of victims of human rights violations to legal remedies [page 30]
“Trade unions and non-governmental organisations play an important role in securing human rights and rights at work. Finland cooperates in various ways with human rights defenders and non-governmental organisations exposing corruption. Mainly within the framework of EU cooperation, Finnish representatives are involved in the monitoring of legal processes on a case-by-case basis when monitoring is believed to have a positive impact on the protection of the rule of law.”
France has transposed the European Directive on trade secrets into national law, allowing businesses to protect trade secrets while assuring the necessary transparency of business activities and conduct, and the protection of whistle-blowers acting in the public interest.
II- Businesses’ Responsibility to Respect Human Rights
5. Employee Representatives [page 43]
The NAP lists exiting legislation related to whistle-blowers in matters of corruption, public health, conflict of interest, tax evasion and large-scale economic and financial fraud, which protect individuals (referred to as whistle-blowers) requesting the company to disclose information either directly or through legal means. It furthermore mentions existing legislation asserting workers councils’ “right to economic alert”, which enables it to demand information in case of significant preoccupations regarding the company’s financial situation.
III- Access to Remedy
At the National Level
1.6 Whistleblower Rights [page 53]
The Act 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 on transparency, fighting corruption and modernizing the economy replaced earlier sector-specific provisions on whistleblowers. Under the new Act, a single framework was created to protect whistleblowers who now share a common status regardless of the field concerned.
The whistleblower status now includes:
A general definition: a whistleblower is defined as an individual who reveals or reports,
disinterestedly and in good faith, a crime or offence; a serious and manifest breach of an
international commitment duly ratified or approved by France, of a unilateral act of an
international organization adopted on the basis of such commitment, or a serious breach
of a law or regulation; or a serious threat or harm to the public interest, of which the
whistleblower has had personal knowledge.
A process for raising alerts: in order to receive legal protection, the whistleblower must respect a three-step process, raising the alert first with his/her employer or the contact person designated by the employer, second with the judicial or administrative authority and third with the public, as a last resort.
Three forms of legal protection:
Professional protection against all forms of retaliation for raising the alert;
Protection against criminal liability: whistleblowers are not considered criminally liable for disclosing information that is a legally protected secret if this disclosure is necessary and proportionate to the interests being defended and the whistleblower respects the alert process described above. However, this exemption does not cover whistleblowers who disclose national defence secrets, medical secrets or lawyerclient communications.
Protection against being prevented from raising the alert : any person who interferes with the transmission of an alert by a whistleblower is punishable by law by up to one year of imprisonment and a €15,000 fine. The Act also reinforces sanctions for malicious defamation proceedings against whistleblowers.
Actions to be Implemented
Amend Article 113-8 of the Criminal Code so that a prosecutor’s decision not to open an investigation into a complaint lodged by the victim of a crime committed by a French entity abroad can be appealed.
Continue to examine national and international options to address the denials of justice faced by plaintiffs attempting to take legal action to obtain remedy for harm caused by the subsidiaries of groups operating in countries where courts do not have the necessary independence to deliver justice, or where plaintiffs are threatened.
Protection within states’ own territory – challenges within Germany [page 15-16]
The current situation
“The protection of whistleblowers is a highly valuable accompanying measure in the detection of exploitative employment. General provisions in the field of labour law (sections 612a and 626 of the German Civil Code and section 1 of the Protection against Unfair Dismissal Act) and in constitutional law (Articles 2(1), 5 and 20(3) of the Basic Law) provide the legal basis for such protection.
There are also numerous provisions of special legislation which supplement the protection of whistleblowers guaranteed by the aforementioned provisions in particular areas of activity, examples being section 13 of the Money Laundering Act and section 17(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.”
Measures
“As part of the transposition of European Directive 2016/943/EU on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets), the protection of whistleblowers in German law is being further developed. The purpose of this legislation is to make it clear that the disclosure of trade secrets is lawful if its purpose is to expose professional or other misconduct or illegal activity in order to protect the general public interest.”
Development policy [page 20]
Measures
“The Federal Government will also take specific action to step up its wide-ranging commitment to the protection of human rights defenders when applying the UN Guiding Principles. In the field of business and human rights, as elsewhere, development policy is about standing up for the rights of vulnerable groups, such as indigenous peoples or children and youth or persons with disabilities.”
Section 1: International Context and Domestic Consultative Process
Other international initiatives [page 10]
“In March 2016, the Council of Europe adopted a Recommendation to assist Member States in preventing and remedying human rights violations by business enterprises. The
Recommendation elaborates on access to judicial remedy, drawing on Council of Europe expertise and legal standards and puts special emphasis on the additional protection needs of … human rights defenders.”
Section 3: Actions
II. Initial priorities for the Business and Human Rights Implementation Group [page 18]
“vi. Provide clarity to relevant stakeholders on the applicable Irish law, reporting channels and protections for whistle-blowers/protected disclosures.”
Annex 1 – List of additional and ongoing actions to be carried out across Government
Trade and Investment [page 21]
“13. Encourage Irish companies operating abroad to adopt good practice with regards to consultation with human rights defenders and civil society in local communities, particularly on environmental and labour conditions.
15. Provide up to date guidance on the protection of human rights defenders working in the area of business and human rights through the circulation of Human Rights Defenders Guidelines to all Embassies.”
“(…) the second Italian NAP-BHR intends to strengthen the application of the UNGPs through a series of complementary measures, referring in particular to the following guidelines:
– addressing issues and practices related to the protection of the environment, health, decent work and ‘Human Rights Defenders’, also in the face of the new challenges posed by the gig economy and in the context of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), in correlation with the challenges of multi-dimensional post-Covid-19 reconstruction” (p. 7)
II. Premises
b) Italy and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)
“(…) in order to ensure the continuity of the dialogue carried out in the drafting phase of the first NAP with non-institutional stakeholders , provisions were made for the establishment of a consultative group. This was usually conveyed in an open dialogue meeting with the GLIDU (following each of the two annual meetings) whose participants were invited to propose contributions on the issue representing business associations, trade unions, non-governmental organizations, civil society, human rights defenders, experts in the field and the academic world.” (p. 10)
IV. Italian ongoing activities and future commitments
b) Foundational Principles
“(…) strengthen cooperation with trade unions, human rights defenders, nongovernmental organizations and civil society, and ensure adequate support because of their essential role in promoting and protecting human rights in business and production processes;” (p. 14)
Fight against corruption
“In Italy Whistleblowing was introduced by the anti-corruption law (Law No. 190 of 6 November 2012, “Provisions for the prevention and repression of corruption and illegality in public administration”), adopted in compliance with recommendations and conventional obligations emanating from the UN, OECD, Council of Europe and European Union. This law provides for a system of enhanced protection for public employees who report unlawful conducts. Law No. 179 of 30 November 2017 strengthened the preexisting whistleblower protection for public employees and partially extended the same protection to the private sector.
With regard to the public sector, the law provides that a public employee who reports illegal or unethical conduct in the public interest cannot be retaliated against through sanctions, dismissal, demotion, transfer to other offices or other measures that have a negative effect on his/her working conditions.
The protection is guaranteed to: employees of public administrations; employees of public economic entities; employees of private law entities subject to public control; employees and collaborators of private companies that provide goods, works or services to the public administration.
Employees can report a violation :
– to the person responsible for the prevention of corruption and transparency,
– the National Anti-Corruption Authority (ANAC), and
– to the judicial or accounting authority.
The law covers misconduct and ethical errors, including (but not limited to): criminal conduct; violations of codes of conduct; mismanagement of public resources; nepotism; 51 accounting irregularities; violations of environmental and occupational safety regulations, etc.
The protection entails, albeit within certain limits, the confidentiality of the whistleblower’s identity. The main protection mechanisms also include: the reversal of the burden of proof on retaliation on the administration, the reinstatement of the employee whose dismissal has been found to be retaliatory, and a financial penalty against the author of the retaliatory act or conduct ranging from € 5,000 to €30,000 imposed by ANAC.
A desk service is available to whistleblowers who report cases of unlawful conduct in their workplace. The reports are acquired through a dedicated software, which guarantees confidentiality, security and reliability of whistleblowers. ANAC has made the computer application used for the acquisition and management of reports of wrongdoing by employees (“Whistleblower” software) available for re-use by administrations and companies with a European Union Public License (EUPL), which allows free use without further authorization from ANAC.
Focusing on the private sector, the law provides some mandatory whistleblowing requirements for those companies that have chosen (or choose) to implement a “231 Model”. In particular, companies must provide communication channels that allow the submission of reports based on precise and factual elements connected with crimes as listed in Legislative Decree No. 231/2001. These communication channels must guarantee the confidentiality of the whistleblower in the management of the report; in addition, at least one alternative reporting channel must be provided which guarantees – using ad hoc software – the confidentiality of the whistleblower’s identity; the 231 model must also prohibit acts of retaliation, direct or indirect discriminatory actions against the whistleblower for reasons connected to the report/alert.
Sanctions must be introduced in the disciplinary system adopted with the 231 model, both for those who violate the whistleblower protection measures and for the whistleblowers themselves who make malicious or seriously negligent reports that turn out to be unfounded; discriminatory measures may be reported to the Labour Inspectorate and to the competent trade union organizations.
In addition, discriminatory dismissals, job changes and any discriminatory measures taken against the whistleblower will be void unless the company can demonstrate that they are in no way related to the whistleblowing activity.
EU Directive 2019/1937, which regulates the “protection of persons who report breaches of Union law”, is currently being transposed in Italy, introducing common rules aimed at ensuring the protection of employees who report wrongdoing or breaches (“Whistleblowers”) in the Member States’ legal systems.
It should be noted that some large Italian companies, announcing a policy of “zero tolerance” towards fraud and corruption, have been pioneers in this field, having created protected channels of reporting with a guarantee of anonymity even before the entry into force of the above-mentioned law. With the support of Transparency International – Italy, they have recently voluntarily adopted an online whistleblowing platform that is more advanced than the tools currently in use and that conforms to the highest standards of confidentiality.” (p. 50)
Internationalization of companies
“Italy has participated in [the UN ‘Accountability and Remedy’] project, reporting the introduction of legislative measures aimed at this purpose and at facilitating even corporate structures for the introduction of remedial mechanisms-models, referring to multiple legal disciplines (contracts, competition, arbitration, labour law, consumer law, environmental law, privacy, non-discrimination and legislative measures for equality, protection of freedom of information and protection of whistle-blowers).” (p. 56)
V. Updating, Monitoring and Dissemination of the Plan
“(…) it is also worth highlighting how the multi-stakeholder approach has been translated in the promotion and preservation of a constant and fruitful dialogue with non-institutional actors (businesses, trade unions, civil society, human rights defenders, experts and representatives of academia)” (p. 60)
ANNEX 1 – Accountability Grid and Assessment Tools for the Implementation of the NAP
“49. Continue to support and promote in a multi-stakeholder framework the Guidelines on Business and Human Rights Defenders, through eventually of a pilot programme with the active participation and collaboration of a selected and significant group of Italian companies and civil society organizations” (p. 68)
CHAPTER TWO: SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS AND THEMATIC AREAS OF FOCUS
2.7. Access to Remedy [Pages 14-15]
Despite these legal protections, the community consultations conducted as part of the NAP process revealed structural and procedural barriers to access to remedy, including:
iv. There have been instances where human rights defenders who have lodged cases against businesses, especially land and environment grievances, have reportedly faced death threats and other forms of intimidation which they hardly report to authorities. Such hostility may instil fear in others who may wish to lodge complaints, robbing communities and individuals of the protection that the law could have offered against business-related abuses; and
CHAPTER THREE: POLICY ACTIONS
3.2. Pillar 2: Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights [Pages 18-19]
Policy Actions
c) Training: Develop and disseminate guidance for businesses on their duty to respect human rights and the operationalisation of this duty in the Kenyan context, including the implications of their operations on the environment, gender, human rights defenders, minorities, persons living with disabilities, marginalised and other vulnerable groups to promote responsible labour practices and inclusivity.t
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND 1.2. Objectives of the NAPBHR The Objectives of this NAPBHR are:
[…] v. To protect environmental and human rights defenders.
CHAPTER THREE: SITUATONAL ANALYSIS 3.3. Access to Remedy
Access to remedy within the context of the NAPBHR is aligned with Liberia National Development Plan.
The following include the policy actions that the Government of Liberia intends to undertake:
a) Duty to Protect
vi. Enforce Whistleblower Protection to protect whistleblowers from any form of victimization or retaliation and encourage employees of both public and private sectors to report cases of human rights abuses and violations without fear of losing their jobs.
3.4. Environment and Natural Resources
The following policy action shall be undertaken to address human rights issues related to the environment.
a) Under the State Duty to Protect the Environment, the government commits to the following:
ix. The government shall champion the importance and guarantee the legitimacy of the work of human rights defenders including community members who speak out against corporate environmental harm and human rights violations.
c) Access to Remedy
v. Respond to any attacks on human rights defenders with prompt, transparent and independent investigations, processes of accountability, and the full provision of remedies.
vi. Provide remedies for all human rights defenders who suffer individual abuse at the hands of state or non-state actors. vii. Refrain from issuing official and unofficial statements stigmatizing human rights defenders, civil society groups, or protestors.
Part II: Specific objectives of the National Action Plan 2020-2022
(…)
3.The need to define remedies for victims of human rights abuses
3.4. Supporting the transposition of the EU whistle-blower directive
Context
On 15 November 2019, the EU Whistle-blowers Directive came into force, introducing an obligation for employers across Europe, in both the private and public sectors, to protect individuals who make a report in a work-related context. States have two years to transpose it into national law. This legislation can contribute to the establishment of effective complaint mechanisms within companies and it will be essential to involve the different stakeholders in the reflection in the transposition process.
Objectively verifiable indicators
× Benchmark: National Baseline Assessment (NBA) [Etude de base]
Verification sources
– Draft law transposing the European directive
Expected results
× Better protection for whistle-blowers is guaranteed in the law.
Implementation timeline
Duration of the legislative process
Means of implementation
– MAEE (Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs)
– Ministry of Justice
– Business and Human Rights Working Group
The 2020-22 NAP states the second edition of the National Action Plan complements the first NAP. Additional information about the first NAP can be found here.
Action: Expedite the proposed reforms to the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 [Act 711].
Output Indicator(s): Amendments to the Act will be done in three (3) phases, focusing on human and labour rights, and protecting those who report any unjustified treatment and any facts concerning offences established in accordance with UNCAC Convention (Article 33) in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent authorities. Awareness sessions, roadshows and public engagements are conducted continuously to ensure understanding amongst stakeholders.
Collaborative Partner(s): BHEUU
No.: G3.7
Action: Facilitate businesses to establish, or improve existing, internal and external operational grievance mechanisms (OGM) that promote effectiveness, transparency and responsiveness, and are accessible to all stakeholders.
Output Indicator(s):
Guidance is developed on effective OGM and other non-State based grievance mechanisms that considers operational gaps and challenges.
Businesses are convened to share best practices and provide sector-based support in promoting OGM that is accessible by all employees, workers, suppliers, consumers, CSOs, Human Rights Defenders (HRDs), and rightsholders to seek effective remedies against business-related human rights abuses.
Collaborative Partner(s): Ministry of Domestic Trade and Costs of Living (Kementerian Perdagangan Dalam Negeri dan Kos Sara Hidup
[KPDN])
UNGP PILLAR 3
No.: G3.10
Action: Assess the application of the rights and responsibilities enshrined in the UN Declaration on the General Assembly Resolution 31/32 on Protecting Human Rights Defenders, whether in reference to an individual, groups or organs of society, addressing economic, social and cultural rights.
Output Indicator(s): Evidence, insights and recommendations are developed that informs policymaking in line with the Declaration.
Collaborative Partner(s): BHEUU; MOFA; PMM
THEMATIC PRIORITY 2: LABOUR
UNGP PILLAR 3
No.: L3.10
Action: Ensure that grievance mechanisms, whistleblower protections, and remediation procedures are not only documented but also fully operational and accessible in practice to all affected stakeholders.
Output Indicator(s):
Codes of conduct, policies, Businesses performance standards, operating procedures, agreements with suppliers and business partners and other such internal or external documents reflect effective grievance mechanisms.
Collaborative Partner(s): Businesses
THEMATIC PRIORITY 3: ENVIRONMENT
UNGP PILLLAR 1
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
No.: E1.25
Action: Ensure the meaningful participation of EHRDs in Just Transition policy development.
Output Indicator(s):
Formal mechanisms or platforms are created for EHRDs to participate in Just Transition decision-making processes.
Stakeholder engagement dialogues, forums or workshops are held, centring EHRDs and communities.
Federal or state-level policy drafts are publicly disclosed for comments and feedback from EHRDs and the general public.
Collaborative Partner(s): NRES; PETRA; Ministry of Economy; SUHAKAM; CSOs; EHRDs
No.: E1.26
Action: Ensure thorough investigations are conducted where reprisals against human rights defenders are found. Ensure thorough investigations are conducted where reprisals against human rights defenders are found.
Output Indicator(s):
Coordination meetings are held between SUHAKAM, civil society, and enforcement agencies on protection mechanisms.
Number of investigation reports completed and submitted to the relevant authorities.
Collaborative Partner(s): Businesses
UNGP PILLAR 2
COMMUNITY-CENTRED STRAEGIES
No.: E2.8
Action: Publicly commit to recognising and respecting the human rights of EHRDs and Indigenous Peoples, whether Malaysian law provides for those rights or otherwise, and act consistently with these corporate commitments. Due diligence including environmental, social, cultural, and other related human rights impact assessments should be regularly conducted and integrated internally at all working levels. FPIC principles should also be met fully by exceeding the minimum requirements to ensure that any deficits in the process do not create further harm to communities directly or by creating an incomplete picture of potential harms.
Including ‘business and human rights’ in the Netherlands’ foreign policy
Protecting human rights defenders
“The work of human rights defenders is vital to the protection of human rights. Examples include trade union leaders fighting for workers’ rights, land rights for local communities, environmental defenders championing the human rights of the local population and employees suffering the negative environmental effects of business activities, as well as journalists and academics investigating abuses. Human rights defenders also contribute to a stronger civil society, an important condition for a well-functioning democracy governed by the rule of law.
Human rights defenders fighting for indigenous, land and environmental rights − often in connection with economic activities − are some of the most vulnerable human rights defenders, with female defenders facing additional risks. The work of human rights defenders is increasingly undermined by strategic legal proceedings against public participation. Incidents were reported between 2015 and 202137 and in 2021 35838 human rights defenders around the world lost their lives as a result of state and non-state violence. Many of these defenders (59%) were fighting for indigenous, land and environmental rights, often in connection with economic activities.
In accordance with international law governments are required to protect human rights defenders against attack from others, to protect and guarantee their rights and to refrain from any activities that violate their rights. Protection of and support for human rights defenders is therefore one of the priorities of the Netherlands’ human rights policy.
The Human Rights Fund (MRF) strives to protect and promote human rights around the world, with a particular focus on environmental activists and land rights defenders. Furthermore, delegated MRF funds contribute to the Lifeline Consortium which focuses, among other things, on indigenous populations and environmental protectors. It also contributes to Planet Protectors and to Shelter and Resilience for Human Rights Defenders, thus supporting indigenous land and environmental defenders in Central America. Through the Power of Voices (PoV) partnerships the Netherlands also supports human rights defenders who highlight business-related violations of labour and environment rights or who identify investments which have a negative impact on people and their environment.” pp 38-39.
Improved protection of Colombian human rights defenders
“In Colombia the Netherlands offers financial assistance to the Colombian Commission of Jurists (CCJ), a human rights organisation that contributes to the development of safety and protection mechanisms for Colombian human rights defenders. They do this by developing strategies for litigation aimed at protecting and defending land belonging to farmers, indigenous populations and African heritage communities. The CCJ also raises visibility for human rights defenders and civil society leaders at local, national and international levels and promotes civil society participation in local and national institutions dealing with the prosecution, investigation and punishment of serious violations of human rights defenders’ rights. In this way the organisation helps strengthen the voice of human rights defenders in the Colombian government’s decision-making processes and improve the Colombian legal system. This is important in combating human rights violations resulting from business activities.
Multilateral forums pay systematic attention to the most vulnerable human rights defenders, including those advocating for indigenous, land and environmental rights. The Netherlands consistently presses for specific mention of these target groups in the official texts negotiated in the Human Rights Council and the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly.
Lastly, the Dutch government provides diplomatic support to human rights defenders through its embassies. This support includes attending trials of human rights defenders and highlighting specific cases to the authorities.
In addition to its protection programmes, the Dutch government seeks to invest more, together with key stakeholders, to prevent the escalation of violent and non-violent conflict between the Dutch business community and local stakeholders, by entering into dialogue at embassy level with human rights defenders, Dutch businesses and other stakeholders. Human rights defenders tend to represent local stakeholders such as local communities and employees, who are often denied a voice and have few opportunities to raise concerns In addition to its protection programmes, the Dutch government seeks to invest more, together with key stakeholders, to prevent the escalation of violent and non-violent conflict between the Dutch business community and local stakeholders, by entering into dialogue at embassy level with human rights defenders, Dutch businesses and other stakeholders. Human rights defenders tend to represent local stakeholders such as local communities and employees, who are often denied a voice and have few opportunities to raise concerns.” pp 40 and 41.
ACTION POINTS PILLAR I
Aim
Responsible party
Timeline
Protecting human rights defenders
Sharpen the focus on human rights defenders in the area of business and human rights in existing human rights protection programmes
Integrate protection programmes and risk prevention for human rights defenders into private sector development programmes.
BZ
2022-2024
Draft a plan of action to initiate a dialogue between embassies, the Dutch business community and human rights defenders to better identify environmental, social and security risks (early warning) and to take early action on them (early action).
Work with human rights defenders to integrate protection programmes and prevention of environmental, social and security risks into embassies’ Multiannual Country Strategies (MACS).
The Nigeria NAP provides a list of existing constitutional obligations, domestic legislation, internation obligations, and police and administrative steps. This breakdown only looks at the list of challenges and the implementation of the 3 pillars of the UNGPs.
8.6 CHALLENGES … “h. The limitation of Freedom of Information Act (2011) to only public institutions, including the lack of whistleblower Protection Law.” (p.154)
PILLAR 1 – STATE DUTY TO PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIONABLE ITEMS B. LEGISLATION AND POLICES “Government shall improve human rights protection in business through legislation, policy initiatives, programmes and seminars interventions in the following ways: … e. Enact Whistleblower Protection Laws at the Federal and State levels to protect whistleblowers from any form of victimization or retaliation and encourage employees of both public and private sectors to report cases of human rights abuses and violation without fear of losing their jobs.” (p.157)
3. The Corporate Responsibility to respect human rights
Acquiring expertise for risk identification and assessment [pages 33-34]
The NAP indicates that it may be necessary for company to “conduct a dialogue on due diligence with stakeholders”, which as per the UNGPs, include human rights defenders.
CHAPTER 3: National Action Plan Priority Areas and Proposed Actions
3.2. NAP Priority Areas
3.2.1. Financial Transparency, Corruption and Human Rights Standards in Public Procurement Contracts
Proposed Actions
Federal (page 18)
‘9. Pass the Whistleblower Protection and Vigilance Commission Bill 2019 to ensure protection of whistle-blowers disclosing information related to financial discrepancies and corruption.
Performance indicator(s): Enactment of the Whistleblower Bill
UN Guiding Principle(s): 1, 3
Relevant SDG(s): Goal 16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions’
This information is also covered under Appendix 1: Implementation Plan, Proposed Action 9 designating the Ministry of Human Rights and the Ministry of Law and Justice as Leading Entities (page 46).
CHAPTER II: THE BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN PERU
One of the most studied issues refers to the tense relationship between some business activities and the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples. In addition to the above, there is a lack of evidence that shows the commitment of companies to the particular protection of the rights of this group, as well as due diligence mechanisms that take into account their particularities. This is also reflected for human rights defenders (UN. Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, 2020, §§ 19-24), who witness an environment of stigmatization and lack of recognition of their work. In this regard, it is necessary to have state and corporate management instruments specifically aimed at managing social conflicts and their impact on the rights of human rights defenders. In addition, Guiding Principle 18 establishes that companies should “identify and assess the actual or potential negative consequences on human rights in which they may be involved either through their own activities or as a result of their business relationships” with the sectors concerned, which includes indigenous or native peoples, as well as human rights defenders. – page 36
CHAPTER III : DIAGNOSIS AND BASELINE: ACTION AREAS
3.2. Conclusions of the specific issues
Child labor
(…) the dissemination of whistleblower channels, and the protection of whistle- blowers and witnesses, as well as the identification of the institutions in charge of the reinsertion of the victims of this scourge should be strengthened. – page 44
Human rights defenders
As indicated by the Intersectoral Mechanism for the protection of human rights defenders, a human rights defender is a natural person who acts individually or as a member of a collective, ethnic-cultural group, organization, public or private entity, as well as legal persons, groups, organizations or social movements, whose purpose is the promotion, protection or defense of human rights, individual and/or collective, in a peaceful manner, within the framework of national and international law.26 Their protection is regulated, but needs to be strengthened interinstitutionally at the level of juris- prudence and legislation. It is also necessary to recognize and disseminate the importance of this group, deepening a policy of destigmatization and against their harassment, mainly against informal and illegal stakeholders. According to the MINJUSDH registry, situations of violation of the rights of human rights defenders are due to economic informality, the lack of legal security in the titling of communal lands, the resulting land trafficking, and criminality associated with illegal mining and illegal logging, and drug trafficking. However, the civil society database identifies violations in both formal and informal activities, also within the context of socio-environmental conflicts.
The recent creation of the Intersectoral Mechanism for the protection of human rights defenders, under the leadership of MINJUSDH, is a valuable instrument that links eight ministries and should be strengthened, based on the NAP, through the incorporation of the business and human rights The business sector shows commitment to respect for human rights defenders. In this regard, the SNMPE is part of the Roundtable of Human Rights Defenders where protection measures are foreseen. Likewise, it reports on the Guide for Complaints and Claims, in which measures to respect human rights are included. Except in the case of women and unionized workers, due to the long tradition of labor law, in Peru there were no specific mechanisms for protection and redress against violations that could affect human rights defenders. – page 47/48
Table 8: NAP strategic guidelines and objectives, and alignment with the axes of the Peru Vision 2050
Strategic guideline No. 1: Promotion and dissemination of a culture of respect for human rights in the business environment in accordance with the framework of international standards of the guiding principles and other international instruments.
Objective 2: Organized civil society (members of civil society organizations, trade unions, and indigenous peoples) are aware of and promote the implementation of the guiding principles and other related international instruments in their activities.
8.
Action: Create and implement a permanent training program based on international standards on GP-RBC, from the Justice and Human Rights sector, with special emphasis on the specific needs of organized civil society, indigenous peoples, Afro-Peruvian people, trade unions, special protection groups, communities, and peasant patrols, and citizens in general.
Indicator: The number of training sessions to civil society organizations and/ or human rights defenders on GP- RBC and instruments for the protection of human rights defenders, to strengthen their work. – page 61
10.
Action: Promote a change in the culture of trade unions as defenders of human rights.
Background: It is necessary to focus on the importance of trade unions as defenders of human rights. Thus, it is necessary to ensure that they have access to this right, so that they can freely decide their union membership.
Indicator: Number of people trained in the area of trade union participation as human rights defenders, considering the business and human rights approach; Number of training sessions for private and public companies and/or business associations on GP-RBC and other international standards, the role of human rights defenders, and the instruments for their protection. (Action Indicator). – page 62
Objective No. 3: Review, design, and adoption of national plans and programs to guarantee human rights in the framework of business activities.
33.
Action: Incorporate the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and other international standards into the mechanism for the protection of human rights defenders.
Background: The protection of human rights defenders must incorporate international standards on the subject.
Indicator: Work plan to incorporate the GP-RBC and other international standards in the Mechanism for the protection of human rights defenders. – page 80
48.
Action: Evaluate the implementation process of the Intersectoral Mechanism for the protection of human rights defenders, incorporating the business and human rights approach.
Background: The purpose of having an evaluation report on how the mechanism is implemented is to identify progress and the impact it has on access to rights, which would require the publication of one (1) annual evaluation report.
Indicator: Annual evaluation report on the implementation of the intersectoral mechanism for the protection of human rights defenders. – page 89
Strategic guideline No. 3: Design of public policies that promote respect for human rights by companies through accountability, investigation, and sanction for the impacts of their activities.
Objective No. 2: Technical assistance to companies for the observance of human rights in their business activities
71.
Action: Produce, in coordination with the business sector, organized civil society, the competent state sector, indigenous peoples, and trade unions, specific guidelines for the business sector on the implementation of due diligence mechanisms for human rights defenders.
Background: In order to reflect the principles of the RBC and adapt them to specific business sectors, the MINJUSDH will produce a specific guide to implement due diligence mechanisms for the protection of human rights defenders. These documents will be elaborated with the stakeholders linked to the type of activity.
Indicator: Due diligence guide on human rights defenders prepared and publicly presented. – page 108
Strategic guideline No. 5: Design and strengthening of mechanisms to ensure that those affected by human rights violations have access to judicial, administrative, legislative, or other means of redress.
Objective 1: Strengthen mechanisms at the state level to redress human rights violations in the corporate sphere.
89.
Action: Disseminate information on how to access the Intersectoral Mechanism for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders.
Background: Disseminate information on how the Intersectoral Mechanism for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders works, with cultural and linguistic relevance, so that human rights defenders can resort to it in case they require protection actions.
Indicator: Culturally and linguistically relevant information material that provides information on the Intersectoral Mechanism for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, in the native languages of the places where the greatest risk situations have been identified. – page 121
Protection of whistleblowers. Implementation of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law
[page 22] “Pursuant to Order No 229 of the Prime Minister of 1 December 2020, (Official Journal of the Republic of Poland ‘Monitor Polski’, item 1112), the Minister responsible for labour has been appointed to carry out legislative work at the governmental stage to implement Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. The following measures are planned: … 3) The need to change the status and definition of a whistleblower, mirroring the solutions adopted in the European legislations. The status of a whistleblower should be granted by virtue of the law itself, eliminating the need for the prosecutor to grant the status of a whistleblower (resulting in the creation of a quasi-witness institution in the proceedings). The primary function of a whistleblower should consist in acting in the public interest by disclosing – in good faith – all irregularities and threats in the workplace (not only corruption-related), while enjoying statutory legal protection for such activity.”
14. Office of Competition and Consumer Protection
‘Whistleblowers’ programme
[page 41] “The WhistleB platform guarantees Whistleblowers the highest level of protection and anonymity. If the notifiers themselves do not provide their data – it is impossible to identify them. Moreover, it should be pointed out that personal data provided by Whistleblowers are not made available to external entities. The connection between the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, the application and the Whistleblower is encrypted and password-protected. Metadata are automatically removed from the files attached. Therefore, the IP of the notifier’s computer cannot be determined. The provider of the above-mentioned tool does not have access to the content placed on the platform. Access to information is two-step, and only a designated group of persons employed in the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection have access password.”
The Spanish NAP makes no reference to whistle-blowers. It contains the following references to human rights defenders.
Guiding Principle 25
In relation to the access to reparation mechanisms, it is important to highlight the role of human rights defenders, and the serious obstacle posed by threats or repression directed against them. In this context, it is worth mentioning the Program for Protection and Temporary Shelter of Threatened Human Rights Defenders, managed by the Human Rights Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation since 1995. The Program is directed to threatened human rights defenders in at risk situations due to non-violent activity in defence of universally recognised human rights. The Program is developed in close collaboration with civil society organisations, which can request the inclusion of a person in the Program.
Measure 3
“The Government will apply its commitments derived from the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.”
The Swedish NAP includes measures related to whistle-blowers, but none on human rights defenders.
2 The corporate responsibility to respect human rights [page 14]
“In keeping with the UN Guiding Principles, businesses’ human rights efforts are expected to include the following main points: …
Reporting …
Introduce guidelines on internal whistleblowing”
3 Access to remedy [page 17]
Companies’ own redress mechanisms
“No ready-made model exists for how a company should best organise its own grievance redress mechanism. It is for each company to assess what is appropriate on the basis of its specific circumstances. Some criteria include: …
Processes for internal whistleblowers, for follow-up on whistleblowing concerns and protection of whistleblowers”
Annex: Measures taken [page 21]
Regulations and legislation
“The Inquiry on protection of workers who blow the whistle on various unsatisfactory conditions, irregularities or offences submitted its report on 20 May 2014 (Swedish Government Official Reports 2014:31). The Inquiry proposes a new labour law act strengthening the protection provided to whistleblowers. Under the act, workers who have suffered reprisals for whistleblowing will be entitled to damages. The Inquiry’s proposals have been circulated for comment.”
Measure 10: Handling of complaints from human rights defenders
Switzerland supports human rights defenders, including in cases of business-related abuses. A standard operating procedure for analysing and monitoring communications will be developed to ensure that reports submitted by human rights defenders and civil society organisations, and those submitted in connection with special procedures involving Swiss companies, are systematically addressed.
Objective
Indicator
Responsibility
Reports received from human rights defenders and civil society organisations, and in connection with special procedures involving Swiss companies, are systematically addressed.
A standard operating procedure for analysing and monitoring communications is in place.
FDFA/STS
The 2024-27 National Action Plan is supplemental to the 2020-23 NAP. The 2020-2023 NAP explicitly addresses this issue.
Additional Information about the 2020-23 NAP can be found here.
Push for the passage of whistleblower protection mechanisms (page 21)
‘Besides continuing to improve remedy systems and encouraging businesses to establish internal grievance mechanisms, the Taiwan government, in order to get people to make increased use of remedies and grievance channels, will also: (a) push for the passage of whistleblower protection legislation; (b) provide encouragement and protections to those who have the courage to reveal human rights abuses; and (c) strengthen protections for whistleblowers’ privacy, personal safety, and right to work.’
This information is also covered under Appendix 4: Overview of the implementation of the state duty to protect and the access to remedy, Access to remedy, UNGP31, Actions planned (page 61).
3. The core content of the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights
3.1 Action plan on labour
3.1.3 Action Plan (2019–2022)
Pillar 1: State duties in protecting (Protect)
No.
Issues
Activities
Responsible agencies
Time-frame (2019–2022)
Indicators (wide frame)
Compliance with National Strategy/ SDGs/UNGPs
4.
Recruitment
Arrange for informers of corruption cases to enter the witness protection programme
– Royal Thai Police
– Ministry of Justice
2019–2022
Number of witnesses entering protection and receiving safety
– National Strategy for Public Sector Rebalancing and Development
– SDG 16
– UNGPs Articles 1, 3, 4, 10 and 25
3.3 Action plan for human rights defenders
3.3.1 Overview of the situation
… the processes, mechanisms and measures for protecting human rights defenders to be safe and able to fully use their rights and freedom to work and live. In the past, there have been many actions in this area, which can be summarized as follows:
1.Appointing a working group to develop measures to protect human rights defenders that are at risk of being violated (White List) The Ministry of Justice issued an order No. 412/2557 dated 28 October 2014 to appoint the working group chaired by the Director-General of the Rights and Liberties Protection Department with representatives from the government and the civil society sector to join as members of a working group. Their power and duties are to consider the criteria, guidelines and measures for the protection of human rights defenders and to consider the relevant rules, regulations and policies in order to establish guidelines for the protection of human rights defenders according to international standards and to perform other tasks as assigned. The working group meets continuously to determine the criteria and qualifications of human rights defenders, by decoding the action of human rights defenders and exchanging experiences.
2. Organizing a workshop to lay out guidelines for protecting human rights defenders The Rights and Liberties Protection Department conducted a workshop to set up a guideline to protect human rights defenders on 1 September 2016 by listening to opinions and views on the establishment of the guideline and categorizing the degree of the safety of human rights defenders into four groups, which are:
1) The black group means the human rights defenders threatened with death in which case compensation for damages should be given. Follow-up should be done to see if the relatives or those involved in the case of these human rights defenders are still at risk.
2) The red group means a group of human rights defenders that have been threatened such as by phone calls, threats or assault but the threats are not life-endangering.
3) The orange group means a group of human rights defenders that have been prosecuted. By using the law as a tool to attack human rights defenders, this causes disruption to their work, as they have to fight these other cases.
4) The grey group means a group of human rights defenders that have started to be attacked. It is unclear that there will be violence, but possibility that violence may occur.
In addition, the meeting also proposed to divide a framework into three measures as follows:
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
1. Raise awareness with government agencies to understand the issues of human rights defenders
2. Sign MOUs with various agencies
3. Develop a manual for human rights defenders
4. Field visits to the cases of human rights defenders to identify problems and
obstacles to define suitable measures to protect human rights defenders
1. Appoint a working group to protect human rights defenders and appoint a representative from the Ministry of Interior to get involved
2. Trial operations in a pilot style
1. Enact laws or regulations of the Prime Minister’s office regarding measures to protect human rights defenders
2. Include human rights defenders in the National Human Rights Plan No. 4
3. Developing a manual for human rights defenders. The Rights and Liberties Protection Department has collaborated with various sectors in developing a manual for human rights defenders and distributing to human rights defenders in the area of field visits or coming into contact with the Rights and Liberties Protection Department.
4. Adjusting the request and fact inquiry form (Form Kor Por Sor-17-02) of the Rights and Liberties Protection Division The Rights and Liberties Protection Department has adjusted the request forms to increase channels of communication to request assistance or make complaints on issues relating to the operation of human rights defenders.
5. Field visit to monitor the situation of human rights defenders who are violated or are at risk of being violated.
6. Preparing a weekly report on the situation of violation against rights, liberties and human rights to the Prime Minister. The Rights and Liberties Protection Department was assigned by the Minister of Justice to prepare a weekly report on the situation of violations of rights, liberties and human rights to the Prime Minister.
7. Revising the Act on Witness Protection in Criminal Case B.E. 2546 (2003) The Rights and Liberties Protection Department is currently proposing to amend the bill to cover cases of intimidation that have not yet entered into the justice process, in order to increase protection channels for human rights defenders.
8. Include issue of human rights defenders. The Rights and Liberties Protection Department will include issues for human rights defenders as one of the main issues under the 4th National Human Rights Plan, which will be effective in 2019–2022.
9.Establishing a committee on managing complaints related to torture and enforced disappearance.
In addition to the work of the Ministry of Justice, on 1 May 2018, the National Human Rights Commission has suggested measures or guidelines for the promotion and protection of human rights regarding human rights defenders.
The Office of the Court of Justice has attempted to amend the law to prevent the Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) by proposing to amend the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 161/1, in order to allow the court to exercise discretion in the event that the people are plaintiffs (meaning the victim is a person or juristic person).
In addition, the Office of the Court of Justice has attempted to present the draft Criminal Procedure Code, Section 165/2 to be added in with Section 165 … the newly drafted Section 165/2 specifies that the defendant may state facts to the court, or an important issue. … the law amendment on the issue will be another measure to help protecting human rights defenders from being falsely prosecuted.
Currently, many agencies have worked to create an understanding with affiliated staff regarding the work of human rights defenders, for example, the Ministry of Interior issued a letter to the governor of every province to inform the guidelines for prevention and resolving unrest from objections to implementing various government agencies’ projects and the private sector in the area. The Ministry of Defence also disseminated an operation manual for military personnel and civilians to look after demonstrators. Also, the Ministry of Justice through the Rights and Liberties Protection Department enacted a Mediation Act B.E. 2562 (2019) in order to set up a central dispute resolution system by government agencies including mediation in criminal cases in the investigative level, giving more options for people to terminate or dispute resolution voluntarily to the satisfaction of both parties, which is to strengthen reconciliation in society. These measures are considered additional measures of protection for human rights defenders as well.
3.3.3 Action Plan (2019–2023)
Pillar 1: State duties in protecting (Protect)
No.
Issues
Activities
Responsible agencies
Time-frame (2019–2022)
Indicators (wide frame)
Compliance with National Strategy/ SDGs/UNGPs
1.
Becoming a party to international human rights treaties and cooperation with various human rights mechanisms
Clearly make a definition of “human rights defenders” by studying international standards
– Ministry of Justice
2019–2022
Meeting to discuss with related agencies a clear definition of human rights defender
– National Strategy for National Security
– National Strategy for Public Sector Rebalancing and Development
– SDG 11 and 16
– UNGPs Articles 1, 3, 5 and 7
Expedite ratification to relevant conventions such as the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED)
– Ministry of Justice
2019–2022
Becoming a party of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED)
– National Strategy for National Security
– National Strategy for Public Sector Rebalancing and Development
– SDG 11, 16 and 17
– UNGPs Articles 1, 3, 5 and 7
2.
Amendments to laws, regulations, policies
and related measures
Push for review, amendment and abolition of laws, as well as relevant mechanisms to facilitate the protection of human rights defenders, such as witness protection laws
– Ministry of Justice
2019–2022
Reviewed policies, laws and related mechanisms to facilitate the protection of human rights defenders
– National Strategy for National Security
– National Strategy for Public Sector Rebalancing and Development
– SDG 16
– UNGPs Articles 1, 3, 5 and 7
Study the guidelines for development of laws, regulations or measures to prevent Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation: (SLAPP)
– Ministry of Justice
2019–2022
Studied development of guidelines for laws, regulations, or measures to prevent strategic litigation against public participation
– National Strategy for National Security
– National Strategy for Public Sector Rebalancing and Development
– SDG 16
– UNGPs Articles 1, 3, 5 and 7
3.
Protecting human rights defenders
Establish or review policies, mechanisms and protection measures to protect human right defenders including female human rights defenders to work safely and train law enforcement agencies practically
– Ministry of Justice
– Royal Thai Police
– Office of the Attorney General
2019–2022
– Reviewed or improvement of policies, mechanisms and protection measures to protect human right defenders including females to work safely
– Train law enforcement agencies about policy, mechanisms, processes and measures to protect human rights defenders
– National Strategy for National Security
– National Strategy for Public Sector Rebalancing and Development
– SDG 5 and 16
– UNGPs Articles 1, 3, 5 and 7
Include the issue of protection of human right defenders in the 4th National Human Rights Plan
– Ministry of Justice
2019
The issue of human rights defenders being put into the 4th National Human Rights Plan
– National Strategy for Public Sector Rebalancing and Development
– SDG 16
– UNGPs Articles 1, 3, 5 and 7
Organize discussions with human rights defenders by working creatively to prevent, alleviate and remedy adverse effects on human rights
– Ministry of Foreign Affairs
– Ministry of Defence
– Ministry of Justice
– Other related agencies
2019–2022
Periodic consultation with human rights defenders
– National Strategy for National Security
– National Strategy for Public Sector Rebalancing and Development
– SDG 11 and 16
– UNGPs Articles 1, 3, 5 and 7
4.
Enhancing knowledge and understanding
Organize training for law enforcement officers to enhance their knowledge and understanding in enforcing laws on the protection of human rights, such as handling rallies, expressing human rights, preventing dishonest lawsuits that attack human rights defenders, etc., including improving gender-sensitivity
– Royal Thai Police
– Office of the Attorney General
– Office of Court of Justice
– Ministry of Defence
– Ministry of Justice
– Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2019–2022
– Trained law enforcement officers with better knowledge and understanding of law enforcement regarding the protection of human rights
– National Strategy for Public Sector Rebalancing and Development
– SDG 11, 16 and 17
– UNGPs Articles 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10
Organize activities to enhance community potential and human rights defenders in the community
– Ministry of Interior (Department of Provincial Administration)
– Ministry of Justice
2019–2022
Target people are knowledgeable and understanding, able to protect themselves and not victims of human rights violations in the 76 provinces and in 878 districts
Provided knowledge and practical guidelines regarding human rights to the Deputy District Chief and administrative staff
Surveillance and suppression of risk areas in the 76 provinces of not less than once a month, and in the 878 districts, not less than 2 times a month
– National Strategy for National Security
– National Strategy for Human Capital Development and Strengthening
– National Strategy for Public Sector Rebalancing and Development
– SDG 11 and 16
– UNGPs Articles 1, 3, 5 and 7
Organize training and enhance potential development for lawyers as well as providing a list of lawyers and legal advisors with expertise in defending human rights cases
– Ministry of Justice
– Office of the Attorney General
2019–2022
Activities and projects to train and develop capacity of human rights lawyers
A list of lawyers and legal counsel with expertise and understanding in defending human rights cases
– National Strategy for Public Sector Rebalancing and Development
– SDG 16
– UNGPs Articles 1, 3, 5 and 7
Pillar 2: Responsibilities of the business sector in respecting human rights (Respect)
The expectations will be the starting point and state enterprises as well as businesses of all sizes are encouraged to use them as a guideline, which is an important factor to reduce the adverse human rights impact of business operations.
2.1 Compliance with laws, measures and principles of human rights relating to the protection of human rights defenders
State enterprises and the business sector must comply with the law, measures and principles of human rights relating to the protection of human rights defenders.
State enterprises and the business sector should provide channels which their personnel can access for disseminating knowledge and understanding about laws, measures and principles of human rights related to protection of human rights defenders.
State enterprises and the business sector must cooperate with government agencies and international organizations to follow the monitoring and prosecution of human rights defenders.
State enterprises and the business sector should understand the role of human rights defenders in their job to protect them and ensure that they will not be terminated or prosecuted just because of their work for protecting the human rights of others.
2.2 Enhancing knowledge and understanding about the work of human rights defenders
State enterprises and the business sector should study and understanding the role of human right defenders’ work.
State enterprises and the business sector must cooperate in participation with government agencies’ activities organized to educate about the work of human rights defenders.
State enterprises and the business sector should provide a forum to discuss with human rights defenders in order to create an understanding of working together.
State enterprises and the business sector should disseminate and publicize the duty of human rights defenders to their staff and networks.
2.3 Establishing measures to protect human rights defenders
State enterprises and the business sector must provide an overview of the situation working with human rights defenders when requested by government agencies.
State enterprises and the business sector should participate with government agencies in implementing measures to protect human rights defenders and understanding the roles of human rights defenders.
State enterprises and the business sector and civil society should collaborate constructively in the prevention, mitigation and remedy of adverse human rights impacts.
State enterprises and the business sector should clearly assign personnel or agencies to correctly enhance knowledge and understanding to their staff regarding the work of human rights defenders to prevent misunderstandings and harassment between each other.
2.4 Complaint and remedy mechanism
State enterprises and the business sector should have a mechanism to consult with human rights defenders in order to deal with the violation of human rights.
State enterprises and the business sector should provide clear channels and designated coordinators for complaints.
State enterprises and the business sector should settle disputes with human rights defenders by fully negotiating and mediating disputes before bringing the case to justice which may involve coordination with relevant agencies in the area to help mediation to settle the disputes.
State enterprises and the business sector should avoid litigation to prosecute human rights defenders simply because they are performing their duty to claim and protect the rights of others.
CHAPTER FOUR: STRATEGIES AND INTERVENTIONS STRATEGIES
OBJECTIVE 2: To promote human rights compliance and accountability by business actors
4.2.2 Promoting compliance to human rights observance
(…)
vii. Enact and enforce gender-sensitive legislation to protect human rights defenders.
OBJECTIVE 4: To promote social inclusion and rights of the vulnerable and marginalized individuals and groups in business operations.
4.4.3 Capacity building to State and Non-State actors on human rights based approach to programming at all levels
(…)
iv. Build capacity of human rights defenders to monitor, document and report on human rights abuses and violations in business operations.
OBJECTIVE 5: To enhance access to remedy to victims of business-related human rights abuses and violations in business operations
4.5.2 Improve access to legal services to communities affected by business-related human rights violations and abuses
Build capacity of lawyers, human rights defenders, judicial officers, communities and other stakeholders on access to remedy for human rights abuses and violations related to business operations.
Budgeted outputs in Annex I include:
Build capacity of lawyers, human rights defenders and judicial officers on access to remedy for business and human rights. (Objective 5.0)
The UK 2016 Updated NAP refers to Human rights defenders several times:
In the introduction the NAP 2016 states that [paragraph 2, page 2]: “The National Action Plan contained a commitment to bring out an updated version. This update allows us to: (…) support the role Government can play in supporting human rights defenders in this field and the provision of remedy which is available to those who feel they are victims of business-related human rights abuses.”
In the section Government commitments, NAP 2016 states that [Paragraph 4, p.11]: “The Government will do the following to reinforce its implementation of its commitments under Pillar 1 of the UNGPs: (…) Continue to work through our embassies and high commissions to support human rights defenders working on issues related to business and human rights in line with EU Guidelines on human rights defenders.” It goes on to to state in the Government Commitments section [Paragraph 1, page 17] that “The Government will continue to encourage UK companies in their work to respect human rights. We will: (…) instruct our diplomatic missions to work with host governments, local and UK business, trade unions, NGOs, human rights defenders, academics, lawyers and other local experts so we can help inform companies of the human rights risks they face.”
The UK 2016 Updated NAP provides a case-study on Supporting human rights defenders in Colombia, Mexico and Brazil which states [page 22]:
“The UK supported International Service for Human Rights to deliver an intensive training and advocacy programme for human rights defenders working on issues relating to business and human rights in Colombia, Mexico and Brazil. ISHR also created a toolkit to equip human rights defenders to engage with and influence business and supported an advocacy mission to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for the purpose of briefing diplomats and decision- makers on the situation of human rights defenders working on issues of business and human rights in Brazil, Colombia and Mexico and obtaining recommendations in that regard.”
“In addition, the USG expects businesses to account for populations that face disproportionate impacts of business activity in conducting HRDD. Best practice dictates developing policies to protect HRDs and taking steps to prevent reprisals against defenders.”
(p.10)
The US government has already released U.S. Guidance for Online Platforms on Protecting Human Rights Defenders Online. (p.14)
Section III: Additional National Action Plan Commitments
…
Table 3: Access to Remedy Commitments
“The Department of State will build on progress to date and intends to make the following significant changes to further improve the NCP.
[…]
Establishing an anti-reprisal policy: We plan to issue a clear and strong policy against reprisals. The policy is intended to address the risk of reprisals against persons or groups, including human rights, labor, and environmental defenders, against actions taken because they have submitted or are considering submitting a Specific Instance to the NCP. We will be among the first NCPs to take this significant step.” (p.21-22)
Table 6: Environment, Climate, and Just Transitions Commitments
“OES (Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs), through its informal interagency working group to reduce violence against environmental defenders, will hold a series of meetings to identify and disseminate good business and investment practices that can reduce and, ideally, prevent violence against environmental defenders. These meetings will include relevant stakeholders including members from civil society organizations and businesses. The identified good business and investment practices will ultimately be shared within the USG.” (p.35)
Belgium (2017 - open)
Chile (2017-2020)
Colombia (2020-2022)
Czechia (2017-2022)
Denmark (2014-open)
Finland (2014-2016)
France (2017-open)
Georgia (2018-2020)
Germany (2016-2020)
Ghana (2025 - 2029)
Ireland (2017-2020)
Italy (2021-2026)
Kenya (2020-2025)
Liberia (2024 - 2028)
Lithuania (2015-open)
Luxembourg (2020-2022)
Malaysia (2025-2030)
Mongolia (2023-2027)
Netherlands (2022-2026)
Nigeria (2024-2028)
Norway (2015-open)
Pakistan (2021-2026)
Peru (2021-2025)
Poland (2021-2024)
Slovenia (2018-open)
South Korea (2018-2022)
Spain (2017-2020)
Sweden (2017-open)
Switzerland (2024-2027)
Thailand (2019-2022)
Uganda (2021-2026)
United Kingdom (2016-open)
United States (2024 - open)
