VI. Syria’s International Legal ObligationsThe right to freedom of association, and the associated rights to freedom of expression and assembly, are well established in international law. Syria has obligations under several international treaties to uphold these rights, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Syria ratified the ICCPR on March 23, 1976, and the ICESCR on January 3, 1976. The government may restrict the right to freedom of association, but only on certain prescribed grounds and only when particular circumstances apply. According to Article 22 of the ICCPR:
The restrictions specified in Article 22 (2) should be interpreted narrowly. For example, terms such as “national security” and “public safety” refer to situations involving an immediate and violent threat to the nation. The government may impose restrictions only if they are prescribed by existing legislation and meet the standard of being “necessary in a democratic society.” This implies that the limitation must respond to a pressing public need and be oriented along the basic democratic values of pluralism and tolerance. “Necessary” restrictions must also be proportionate: that is, carefully balanced against the specific reason for the restriction being put in place.89 The UN Human Rights Committee has repeatedly highlighted the importance of proportionality.90 In applying a limitation, a government should use no more restrictive means than is absolutely required. The international covenants employ similar language to describe the rights of free expression and assembly. Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, for instance, states that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall be only such as are provided by law and are necessary “for respect of the rights or reputations of others or for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.” The lawfulness of government restrictions on the possession and distribution of pamphlets as well as other restrictions on the dissemination of information by NGOs and their members are subject to the same considerations of proportionality and necessity. Thus the government may prohibit the procurement and dissemination of military secrets, but restrictions on freedom of expression to protect national security “are permissible only in serious cases of political or military threat to the entire nation.”91 Since restrictions based on protection of national security have the potential to undermine completely freedom of expression, “particularly strict requirements must be placed on the necessity (proportionality) of a given statutory restriction.”92 Article 21 of the ICCPR recognizes “the right of peaceful assembly,” and qualifies the permissible restrictions in identical language to Article 22 (2). Respected scholars have noted that prohibitions or restrictions on freedom of assembly based on national security “are permissible only in serious cases of political or military threat to the entire nation.” Prohibitions or restrictions on public order grounds “must … always remain the exception … The discourse of conflicting ideas is an essential feature of democracy.”93 On December 9, 1998, the UN General Assembly adopted the “Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,” commonly referred to as the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. Article 5 of the Declaration states that all people have the right to assemble peacefully, to form, join or participate in NGOs, and to communicate with NGOs. Article 6 states that all individuals have the right to know, seek, or obtain information about all human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the right to freely publish, discuss or otherwise impart such information, knowledge, and views. The different UN committees responsible for monitoring Syria’s compliance with its treaty obligations have several times highlighted the government’s need to ease restrictions on civil society. In its July 2005 examination of Syria’s ICCPR implementation, the UN Human Rights Committee stated:
89 Manfred Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (Kehl am Rein: N.P. Engel, 1993), pp. 386-387. 90 See, for example, Vladimir Petrovich Laptesevich v. Belarus, Communication 780/1997 of the Human Rights Committee. See also Richard Fries, “The Legal Environment of Civil Society,” The Global Civil Society Yearbook 2003, Centre for the Study of Global Governance, London School of Economics, 2003, chapter 9. 91 Nowak, CCPR Commentary , p. 355. 92 Ibid., p. 357. 93 Ibid., pp. 380 -81. 94 UN Human Rights Committee, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant. Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Syrian Arab Republic, CCPR/CO/84/SYR , August 9, 2005, http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/hrcs84.htm (accessed August 10, 2007), para. 12. |