https://www.un.org/victimsofterroris...april_2020.pdf
The aim is threefold: to strengthen the effectiveness of the response to the immediate global health threat; mitigate the broader impact of the crisis on people’s lives; and avoid creating new or exacerbating existing problems.
Against a backdrop of rising ethnonationalism, populism, authoritarianism and pushback against human rights in some countries, the crisis can provide a pretext to adopt repressive measures for purposes unrelated to the pandemic. The instability and fear that the pandemic engenders is exacerbating existing human rights concerns, such as discrimination against certain groups, hate speech, xenophobia, attacks,...
the impact of lockdowns on jobs, livelihoods, access to services, including health care, food, water, education and social services, safety at home, adequate standards of living and family life can be severe. As the world is discovering, freedom of movement is a crucial right that facilitates the enjoyment of many other rights.
While international law permits certain restrictions on freedom of movement, including for reasons of security and national emergency like health emergencies, restrictions on free movement should be strictly necessary for that purpose, proportionate and nondiscriminatory. The availability of effective and generalized testing and tracing, and targeted quarantine measures, can mitigate the need for more indiscriminate restrictions.
This impact comes from the disease itself but also from the measures necessary to combat it coming up against underlying factors like inequalities and weak protection systems. It falls disproportionately on some people, often those least able to protect themselves. Effective action to mitigate the worst impacts, on jobs, livelihoods, access to basic services and family life, protect people’s lives, enable people to com-ply with public health measures and ease recovery once these measures can be lifted.
Never before has the importance of the responsibility of governments to protect people, by guaranteeing their economic and social rights, been so clearly demonstrated. Countries that have invested in protecting economic and social rights are likely to be more resilient.
If the virus persists in one community, it remains a threat to all communities, so discriminatory practices place us all at risk. There are indications that the virus, and its impact, are disproportionately affecting certain communities
To effectively combat the pandemic, we all need to be part of the response. Effective participation in the response requires people to be informed, involved in decisions that affect them and to see that any measures taken are necessary, reasonable and proportionate to combat the virus and save lives. We all have a role to play but the most effective way to maximize participation is through evidence, persuasion and collective ownership. People need agency and voice in a crisis. This is a time when, more than ever, governments need to be open and transparent, responsive and accountable to the people they are seeking to protect.
Cooperation may become harder to maintain if the virus continues to spread and measures need to be extended in time and scope. The best way to maintain public support for the measures is for governments to be open and transparent and involve people in making the decisions that affect them. It is important to be honest about the extent of the threat posed by the virus, demonstrate that measures are reasonable, likely to be effective and will not last longer than needed. Securing compliance depends on building trust, and trust depends on transparency and participation.
Authorities need to be open and transparent in their decision-making and willing to listen to and respond to criticism.
Governments need to be accountable to the people they are seeking to protect.
Democratic oversight of the pandemic response, especially the use of emergency powers, must be maintained.
Some Governments have empowered or created an independent or opposition-led parliamentary committee, which meets publicly online, to scrutinize executive action during the crisis.
Emergency and security measures, if needed, must be temporary, proportional and aimed at protecting people
Heavy-handed security responses undermine the health response and can exacerbate existing threats to peace and security or create new ones. The best response is one that aims to respond proportionately to immediate threats whilst protecting human rights under the rule of law.
The pandemic has led to countries imposing emergency and security measures. While in most cases these are needed to fight the virus, they can also be politically driven and may be easily abused. The pandemic could provide a pretext to undermine democratic institutions, quash legitimate dissent or disfavored people or groups, with far-reaching consequences that we will live with far beyond the immediate crisis. Although coercive measures may be justified in certain situations, they can backfire if applied in a heavy-handed, disproportionate way, undermining the whole pandemic response itself.
Fairness, justice and respect for the rule of law are needed to strengthen and support the national effort on the public health front. Courts and the administration of justice must continue to function despite the constraints imposed by the crisis.
use of technologies, including artificial intelligence and big data, to enforce emergency and security restrictions or for surveillance and tracking of impacted populations raise concerns. The potential for abuse is high: what is justified during an emergency now may become normalized once the crisis has passed. All measures must incorporate meaningful data protection safeguards, be lawful, necessary, and proportionate, time-bound and justified by legitimate public health objectives.