4299th Meeting, 146th Session, Human Rights Committee (CCPR)

So we need a couple of minutes to test the connection.

Test 1, 2, test 1, 2, test 1, 2 sur le canal anglais. Test 1, 2 sur le canal anglais. Je passe au canal français.

Okay. Dear members, dear friends, good morning. I would like to welcome you to the second week of the 146th session of Human Rights Committee. This is the meeting number 4299. It is a public meeting and being webcast. It is devoted to the continuation of the second reading of the general comment on article 22 of the Covenant, right to freedom of association. I first give the floor, madam reporter. Tigrusa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning to everyone, and good morning to anyone who is following us online. Before we go back to the adoption of the text on a paragraph by paragraph, I think we are on paragraph 9, I wanted to go through some of the changes on the basis of suggestions made by members of the committee. useful to have this actually shown as a text, please, if we could see it on the screen. One of the proposals made, which got a consensus, was to put back in the very brief para 7 in paragraph 5. So you'll see a sentence there. Footnote 18 takes up this idea. right to freedom of association guaranteed by most national constitutions. So that's going to be put back in paragraph five, seven disappears, and we keep the numbering more or less as it is. I mean, you've got a mail from me saying don't over focus on the numbering, but that's the main point on paragraph five. Paragraph six. Mr. Helfer, thank you. Again, you'll see this in footnote 22, additional references to our concluding observations, including Qatar, where we talked about the reservations made by them on Article 22. I didn't include the concluding observations on New Zealand. which Mr. Helfer also sent in, wasn't so much Article 22, we were taking a position on the reservations, but not expressly Article 22. And I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing New Zealand and might be useful to have that in with a view to that dialogue. That's paragraph six, so no major changes. Para seven disappears. Paragraph eight now. I have taken on board a comment made by Mr. Quesada on the second sentence, which wasn't very clear. And Madame Dondos made an additional proposal. I don't actually have it incorporated. Great, we've got this now on the screen. Paragraph 8, Madame Dondos. you suggest that we delete "formal" from the formal State's authorization, and I think she has a point. The fact that we keep stressing the formal, the formal, could give the impression that should the State introduce barriers to this, and they're not formal, that would not be covered. So the idea is that we remove "formal", if you can all agree, and further down in the general comment, You also have this notion of registration, et cetera. So those are the main elements. I believe in terms of adaptation, we, adoption rather, we stopped on nine. Many of you, quite rightly, had said, this is a very long list. Do we, are there all these organizations and these different categories of persons? Again, on the basis of comments from colleagues, I suggest that we just reorganize this list, focused on this notion that I got from the previous Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Association, and I quote that report twice in the footnote. So we structure this paragraph, send it on the idea of groups most at risk. a distinction between those who are most at risk, either because of their identity or because of their activities. In that regard, I've mentioned, and I think, Madam Dondermans, Roma and travellers, yes. And going back to Ireland in our concluding observations, that's something that really had an impact on the dialogue we had with Ireland. not just freedom of association, but throughout the dialogue and through our concluding observations, we really underscored the systemic nature of discrimination against Roma and Travellers. So I thought it was important to incorporate that. So we structured the paragraph around that, and coming to the Last sentence, we're talking more about the activities, advocacy, activities, in particular trade unionists, human rights and environmental defenders, activists, members of political parties. And there you will see I refer to the special rapporteur or the former special rapporteur on freedom of assembly. So that's a new version that's not yet been adopted, because I think we stopped with the comments of colleagues. So that's the new version of paragraph 9 that I propose we now consider.

Okay, thank you very much, Madame Tigurza. So as she said, we will try to adapt from paragraph 9. If you have a floor, I give the floor to Madame Reynaert.

Thank you very much, rapporteur, for explanation. Just the para has been changed for a couple of times, so I cannot see yesterday at night, it's still there was some para that involved one risk group, it's sex workers. So right now, I cannot see well or whether we have it or it has been changed. So, okay, so if we -- yes, thank you. So if we have it and we're exchanging emails and discussions even starting last year, so they should be involved and partially rapporteur agreed that there should be also risk group included in paragraph 9, victims of sexual exploitation or survivors of sexual exploitation. This is internationally agreed language, and it's fully agreed by even UN entities, and especially recently, that this is a risk group which should be rights should be protected, and especially their voice should be protected, and freedom of the right to to join associations also should be protected. So my proposal is that this internationally recognized language since 1949, as well as human rights treaty bodies like CEDAW in General Recommendation 38 and also Palermo Protocol, we all use the same language, should be included in this para. Just Let alone that we included sex workers, which agreed in everyday life, but not agreed as international language. But I think that those three groups should be present in paragraph 9. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other comments on this paragraph 9 before I give the floor to Rapporteur? Yes, Madame Donders.

Chair, I'm doing several things at the same time, which is never a good thing. Just to respond to Ms. Lenhart's comment, which indeed she had brought up before, can we see the language, please, instead of my face? I'm just, I'm really not sure. I don't know where we as committee have used this in light of freedom of association. I mean, we might have addressed it several times in light of discrimination or vulnerability on several fronts, but I'm just not sure where this particular committee has used, and please scroll down a little bit, it's about the victims of sexual exploitation. I just don't know. I mean, yes, it might have been used in the system. But I just don't know what it really adds. Of course, it's a group that is definitely suffering from many human rights violations. We know that. But it's, as far as I know, but maybe I'm wrong, not a category that we as Committee have used, again, in light also of freedom of association, because in the end, that's what this general comment is about. I would not necessarily be in favor of adding this, but I'm sure the rapporteur has thought about it as well. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Madam Leinarte.

Mr. Chey, just briefly. So I might agree what has been mentioned by my colleague, but then I am not sure. I talked with the members here who had a huge experience working as expert in Human Rights Committee. I am not sure how many times sex workers had been addressed in concluding observations and recommendations of this committee and other general comments in regards of freedom of association in terms of sex workers. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much for your flexibility in a way. So I'll give the floor to Madame Tigrisza.

Merci.

Thank you. Yes, thank you. It's true, we had an exchange of views on this, because it's something that I think has been of real interest to Madame Leinert since March. I've been cautious, and thank you, secretariat, also, because between the two sessions, as Madame Linart mentioned us in March, saying sex workers, we need to be careful with that. So I had an exchange with the Secretariat, who also refers to a very interesting report, working group on discrimination against girls and women. And that explains this whole notion of sex workers, and for the reasons that we've just heard from Madame Dundas, I wasn't that keen putting in victims of sexual exploitation for that reason. If you're going to link it up to freedom of association, sex workers, well, you can understand the issues there, and we will understand better when we get to trade union rights further on. But in the more than 200 contributions, institutions, NGOs, states that I've gone through, that I've gone through with a fine-tooth comb, I have seen nothing really, or haven't got anything from freedom of association that would be hampered one way or another, referring to victims of sexual exploitation. So I do get the point of Madame Linati, yes, and the working group also mentions something in the footnote. But, you know, it's a pretty polarized narrative that we have on victims here. I'm treading with caution here. This is vocabulary that has been used by other UN bodies. And I think later on, when we get to union rights further on, we'll get a clearer picture as well. There needs to be some acknowledgement. But as I've been said by Madame Leonetti, if you have a member who's got a specific proposal, and taking up what Mr. Quesada said, you have to come back with a reference. Let's say CEDAW adopted concluding observations in which survivors of sexual exploitation had been hampered in their freedom to associate through this, then fine. But I don't particularly want to import into our Committee these rather divisive and polarized discussions that can be held elsewhere. So, with the indulgence of Madam Leinarte, and if there are no further requests for the floor, I wouldn't really be that favourable to including this. Thank you.

Yes, Madam Leinarte.

Yeah, thank you very much for this explanation. Of course, this is my final intervention. So the logic is like the following. And during, I was a rapporteur for CEDAW General Recommendation 38, and they met in the course of two years, a lot, many sex workers organizations in regards how to design general recommendation and also victims of exploitation of prostitution, both sides. And Madame Tigrigija, of course, she is right that sex workers' organizations, some of them are really, really very strong, and their rights to freedom of association has been already really rooted, really confirmed. So it doesn't mean that And of course, there are some gaps in this, but they already on that road. So does it mean that the group, risk group, that is already protected at some point, we are still giving protection in our general comment. But the risk group, which is internationally recognized victims of sexual exploitation, may be less protected. And for that reason, we exclude even from general comments. So there is a very weird logic here. Thank you.

Any other comments on this matter? So shall I adopt as it is as now? Okay, thank you very much. So we will adopt. as the text was. Can you show? So we will move to paragraph 10.

Paragraph 10. I just need to open the file again. I've got several versions that I'm dealing with before me. So paragraph 10 is not that different to what we adopted back in March. I've added a footnote on Mr. Casado's recommendation to always justify what we say, but let me just stress the fact that all the criteria that were mentioned, we talk about the identity of activities, et cetera, are dynamic, always changing. need to be addressed in the same fashion, because we all have multiple identities. So I'm stressing that idea, but it was already contained in the preceding version. The only thing that I've added here is this footnote again, going back to the prior Special Rapporteur on freedom of association.

Thank you. Any comments on paragraph 10? We will adopt paragraph 10 and move to paragraph 11.

Paragraph 11, nothing's changed, not a word. So it's taking up exactly what we adopted. You may remember that when I sent you the revised version, I did say that in some of the proposals, There was a suggestion made, and we need to be mindful of this, not necessarily here, but later on. There was a suggestion to kind of have, to some extent, a special treatment of political parties, or at least be mindful of political parties. We don't have a specific paragraph on political parties, but I think it's important to be mindful of that, and we've tried to contain that in 11.

So I see none, so I think we can adopt and move to paragraph 12.

Paragraph 12. And thank you, Madame Dondos. Thank you for your comments on this. Madame Dondos underscored the fact that Paragraph 12 is a little bit superfluous. I mean, we've talked enough about freedom of association, covering discourse, ideas, et cetera, et cetera, so that might not be favourable to the Government. So really, i'm bearing in mind Madame Dondos' comments, but it goes for everyone. The way in which this has been amended, I think it should be appropriate. I hope it is. Secondly, and Yvonne mentioned this as well. We use this term, the views of governments. Isn't that a bit restrictive? I think it was a point made by Madame Dundas. You have people, associations that may speak out against the army or state parties. They themselves might be stigmatized or attacked. I suggest that we don't change this at the first part of the sentence, that refers back to our own jurisprudence, and there are footnotes. 46, this was against the Republic of Korea. But later on, when we go back to this expression, the views of the government, etc., I mean, there are all these pacifist movements that we see or attacking the army, etc., they also in turn can be stigmatized. That's the proposal. to some extent reacting to the comments made by Madame Dondos on the rather repetitive nature of this paragraph.

Thank you very much. Madame Dondos.

Thank you, and I thank Madame Tigruta for making these changes. I think that indeed works and it's a bit shorter and more concise. I'm still not sure about the government. I have to check because I didn't, in the footnote that we use here, 32, or it's now 46 in my version, it's another one, because we also refer to the general comment, and I'm not sure there we use the word government. We do it? Okay. Which I find a bit of a shame because, again, it's really about the state that we usually talk. It can also be the government, it can be a local government, it can be, you know, the government doesn't cover, in my view, all the different parts of the state that people can be critical about. You can be critical about the judiciary. You can be, as you said, critical about the military or about other parts of the state. It can be the government, but it can also be parliament. So therefore, here, since I see your point about referring in the footnotes to our work where we use seemingly the word government, But I would still be favourable to change it into favour be viewed by the State. But again, if the majority of the Committee decides that government is fine, then I'm also, of course, fine with that. Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Fernández Nuleza.

With a microphone, please, for the speaker. Can we have a mic for the speaker and the chair's mic off, please?

when reference is made to associations that might be politically sensitive, there are examples after that. I mean, what about, could you say you could incorporate the NSA or the NRA in the United States in favor of rifles, let's say. Why choose these? So I'm not quite clear why we put in such as these. I mean, do we really need to put in examples such as such as rights? You could quote a range of things.

Okay, thank you. Other comments? Madame Sullan.

Yes, I would like to build up on what Carlos just said. I'm also not comfortable with these terms that are used here. I see that there are footnotes, that there are references to some of these terms. For example, disruptive is, I'm not sure about disruptive, then collective civil disobedience actions. For me, it is too wide. And I'm not sure how does it go, how does it come in line with paragraph two of the article that we are analyzing here, because state has to be allowed to use measures in a situations when there is civil disobedience. What kind of civil disobedience we're speaking about? Peaceful demonstration or what we're seeing now all across Europe? I think that this moment specifically is sensitive for this wording, I would prefer not to use it. There is already that guideline that you have cited in the footnote. So if there is need for civil disobedience actions to be underpinned with some document, then that one could be yours. I'm not sure that we should go so far here. For me, it just sounds limitless. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'll give the floor to Mr. Cessada.

Thank you, Chair.

Again, could the Chair switch his mic off?

A suggestion for the rapporteurs. Paragraph 12, it starts with a Well, in Spanish, not in English, it says the rights freedom association cannot be recognized only for. I mean, just for a question of style, I would rather put it in a positive way. So can it be switched around so that we couch this in positive terms, the very first sentence, the very first sentence, so that presumably the rights freedom can be recognized and the rest of the paragraph is Just a suggestion. It doesn't affect the substance.

Okay, thank you. And any other members who wish to take the floor? Otherwise, I will give the floor to the rapporteur. Oh, yes, Madame Habtewold Shewol.

Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you very much to the rapporteur. I understand the concern of some colleagues, but rather than deleting the reference, I think perhaps we could find a halfway solution. General comment 37 in paragraph 16 already recognises that assemblies are protected when they're non-violent. We could say collective non-violent civil disobedience without prejudice to restrictions compatible with the relevant paragraph, particularly paragraph 52, which also deals with this. So that way we'd be being consistent with our own general comment, and we'd make it clear that States can adopt measures in line with the Covenant. Thank you, Chair, and my thanks once again to the Rapporteur.

Thank you. Mr. Ndihaye.

Thank you very much to the rapporteur. I would like to make sure that it's clear that this, the idea of forming an association to defend any old thing, I think we need to be a little bit more specific. The idea of restriction being imposed on the freedom of opinion shouldn't pertain to freedom to promote war or hatred, for example. So I wonder to what extent we can make sure that this association, even if we're in a democratic society, that people cannot be mobilised around ideas that run counter to the ideas in the Covenant. With it as it is, I'm fine with it. Thank you.

Thank you. So I give the floor to rapporteur.

Thank you very much. Yes, I think that that point, of course, is very important, and Ms. Massim raised it as well the last time, to strike the balance between the right of freedom of association and the right of the state to protect the civil population. Perhaps We could quite easily solve it by referring to paragraph 55, because in paragraph 55, in response to what Mr. Ndiaye just raised as well, that's where we say that Article 22 cannot be invoked or cannot be used in a way that runs counter to Article 20 to incite violence, to undertake war propaganda and so on. We could refer back to paragraph 55, we'll see what number it is later on when we get there, but just to really stress that fact. Now, it's already in paragraph 12, we're already talking about peacefully promote ideas. So there is already that idea in there. We're talking about associations which peacefully promote their actions, ideas, and so on. I'd also recall that this initial sentence, this first sentence, comes from our own jurisprudence. We're not reinventing the wheel here. I've just copy pasted the cases that are cited in the footnotes. Now, just to come back a little bit to the suggestion from Ms. Dondas, maybe government, it's in the third line, government, Ms. Dundas proposed in her written comments to put public authorities, which is broader, and which does cover the army, the judiciary, civil servants, administration, and so on. Now, because we haven't put any speech marks, we're free enough to reformulate it, because we haven't put it in there as a copy paste, so we can re-paste, we can have public authorities if everybody agrees with Ms. Lunder's suggestion, we can change government for public authorities, and On civil disobedience, we could add in 'peaceful' as was suggested by Ms. Abdolrocholl as well. Now I would keep it because it is referring back to our General Comment 37. We're taking it from the General Comment 37, paragraph 16, as Ms. Abdolrocholl said, there is a footnote which mentions this idea that we have the right as an individual protest or to create associations, to voice civil disobedience. This isn't a concept that we're inventing here for the general comment. We're looking up General Comment 37. Once again, to be sure here of the message that we want to send, maybe before the last sentence, we could refer to paragraph 55 to say, as Mr. Ndyei said, that we're not also in an absolute right. This is a right that is subject to limitations. Associations cannot be used for purposes that are not in line with the covenant. But we see this later on in further on in the draft anyway. And then Mr. Fernandez, as I was saying, if I understood that the examples that are given after footnote 49, such as reproductive rights, access to abortion and so on, electoral observation or environment or climate related topics, these examples, i could also add in from concluding observations, a footnote referring to concluding observations But these examples are included here because sometimes in our dialogues, and we've just had it last week, and for the upcoming dialogue as well, depending on the purpose of the association or the organization, they'll be more targeted than others. So I think it's important really to keep those references in, but also referring to other concluding observations that really demonstrate this politically sensitive nature of the topics under discussion that associations will be working on and that will expose their members and workers to an increased risk due to the link with their activities.

Okay, thank you very much. So If I understood correctly, we revise the government to the public authorities, and we keep the disruptive with a footnote. Yes, yes. Okay. And with the revision now, anyone who want to make issues, raise the issue. If not, we will adopt the paragraph. Thank you so much. Then we move to the paragraph 13.

Paragraph 13 and 14, if you remember, in the March version, they were one single paragraph on the And I was saying in French, digital, and in French it's numérique, not digital. So, and I fully respect the French language, so it should be activité numérique in French. And we have received, as I said by way of introduction, we've received huge numbers of contributions. on the digital aspect of the work of organisations and so on. So there was a provision that was missing in the March version, and that was the reference to the right to private life under Article 17. And I suggest that We have, well, we've cut the two paragraphs in, the one paragraph in two with this paragraph 13 and 14. Here, we've encompassed a number of things that were already said in the previous version, but we're talking here primarily about making a link between Article 22 and the right to private life of associations. And you said, and there is a footnote there that refers to the relevant general comment. the link between the life of the association, the organisation, and the right to confidentiality, the anonymous nature of some activities. Ms. Dondos suggested in this paragraph 13, third line, that we say collective before activities, fourth line, to see their collective activities, do we really need collective in there? It was her question. So yes, we can take out collective and just have activities. That was her proposal.

Thank you very much. Now I'll give the floor to Mr. Zaidov. A microphone. Oh, I see. Okay. Okay, so you will take the floor in paragraph 14. So I give the floor to Mr. Heffer.

Thank you, Chair. And if the secretary could just show the text, please. Great. So I have a couple of suggestions in this paragraph. The most Substantive is regarding the last line when we refer to secure encrypted communications. It's implicit, and I don't feel strongly about this, but obviously there are some de facto associations that might use encrypted communications in ways that state parties could object to. At the same time, their objection in and of itself is not dispositive. But you could imagine that this could be criticized on that ground. So the only thing I might suggest we do is add the word before digital activities, the last phrase, apply to the association's digital activities, something like the association's protected digital activities. I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm trying to exclude the possibility of, for example, the use of encrypted communications by terrorist networks or something like that. So there could be other solutions, but that's just a suggestion. Again, I could see arguments. It's not as precise as I would like. The second point is less substantive, but nevertheless may be meaningful. So where we take away the word collective, and I agree with that, we say after the comma, this is in the fourth line, "Article 2 applies equally to offline and online organizations." Well, are we talking about organizations or are we talking about the activities of those organizations? So I thought we might change Something, just if I may, given the development of new technologies significantly impacted the way associations organize, Article 2 applies equally to the offline and online activities of associations.

You may have to repeat that.

Yeah, yeah. So let me try again. If it's okay. So, given the development of technologies that have significantly impacted the way in which associations organize, comma, and then strike, and then there, and then Article 2 applies equally to the, offline and online, the word, add the word "the," yes, right there, thank you, the offline and online activities of associations. And then, i'm not sure we need the last one. It doesn't work anymore with this. I don't disagree with it, but I just find a way to equally to both the offline and online activities of associations. I think it's implicit that we don't need to say they're in combination. If it's equally offline and online, of course they're going to have both. So I think this helps to clarify that we're not, the associations or the organizations themselves may not be online, it's the activities that matter. But again, these are mostly word changes, and I’m open to other suggestions, or I think the existing draft is okay, it’s just not quite as precise. So thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your suggestions and flexibility. And I’ll give the floor to Mr. Taraya, followed by Mr. Dondos, Madam Dondos.

Thank you very much. My concern is from different angle, that is the added part of in relation article 17. While the right to use secure encrypted communities and other enumerations important, presenting all of them as the unconditional rights under article 17 could prejudge the questions concerning the interpretation, the scope of that I mean, that it's overstep Netherlands and the general comment on this issue. And for the purpose of Article 22, I think it would be sufficient to state that the rights apply to associations operating offline, online. or through a combination of both, and to add the digital activities of associates must also protected against unlawful or arbitrary interference with privacy and communication in accordance with Article 17 of the Covenant. This would be adequate. I'd like to address the digital dimension of freedom of association without prejudging the interpretation of Article 17, which would be the future General Comment. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Then I'll give the floor to Madam Dondos.

Thank you. It's a small thing, but still, since we're already It's about the sentence that starts with digital civil society. It's the only one that's still clean. So let me add some changes there. Digital civil society and digital civic action have become unimportant tool. I was first thinking that should be plural. But then I thought civil society is not really maybe a tool, so I thought, could we change that into digital civil society and digital civic action have become important mechanisms, plural, for individuals and associations. It's, again, minor thing, but since we're doing this, let's be. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Casada, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I would just have a comment on the form here. Paragraph 13 starts with the sentence: "The context in which the right to freedom of association is operationalised must be understood in an evolutionary manner." I'm wondering whether this evolutive or evolutionary manner, what Is it not the context that should be understood, or is it the right itself that should be understood? I think the emphasis in the sentence here should be on the freedom of association, which should be understood in an evolutionary or evolutive manner. It depends on the context, it depends on the context, doesn't it? So, in which the right is operationalized or undertaken. This is just a comment for the rapporteur's consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll give the floor to Madame Abdo-Rocha.

Thank you, Chair. I support the point that Mr. Cassada made, it's the right that should be interpreted in light of the changing context, in consistency with the concept of living instrument that we have in paragraph 5. I also suggest that instead of operationalised, it should be exercised, perhaps. The other thing that I wanted to say to the Rapporteur was, I thank her for the inclusion of the reference to Article 17. I support the proposal from Mr. Casella to have it interpreted in an evolution and in light of the changing context, and perhaps some of the concerns by colleagues could be assuaged by taking Article 17 the fact that rights are protected from arbitrary or illegal interference or unlawful interference in correspondence, so we're not prejudging the scope of Article 17. The other thing we could do is to mention by way of example, in anonymity and so on, of data where revealing that data is unlawful. We could also add as a suggestion regarding restrictions related to Article 72 and 22, paragraph 2, that could also perhaps go some way to addressing Mr. Helfer's concern without permitting widespread prohibitions. Of course, I fully trust in the Rapporteur's ability to incorporate those criteria if they're useful. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Now I will give the floor to Madame Tigruta.

Merci.

Thank you. So there are a number of proposals here that I think are good and are already incorporated into the document or into the paragraph, and I think they're worthwhile. For example, changing "important tool" two important mechanisms, that's fine, we can go with that. The proposals were also made by Mr. Helfer and I think they are worthwhile taking forward as well. The most complicated term here under Article 17, and I'm looking at Mr. Tedea here, I don't really see the risk of over interpreting the right to private life with the referral to Article 17. Changing under and for in accordance with Article 17, does that meet your concern? Because really And once again, I've added in here in the footnote to our general comment 37. It's already what the committee has said when it says for peaceful demonstrations, members have the right when they exchange information digitally by social media, they have the right to private life, to protection of communications, confidentiality, and so on. So I'm just really taking up what's said in General Comment 37 and reaffirming the fact that members of associations, when they exercise their right under Article 22, they should also benefit from the protection of Article 17. And that is an article that we hadn't looked at in the previous paragraphs. I don't want us to make the paragraph too weighty, too burdensome if we incorporate everything. I can look at what the old general comments said on 17, but it doesn't say a great deal about these things. Perhaps having them in a footnote would make it clearer to the States that we're not talking about broadening the scope of Article 17, but rather, I don't really have an alternative solution to propose, I must admit here. Would Mr. Teraia perhaps have any wording to propose? to better shape the definition of Article 17? I'm not sure we're broadening the definition here, particularly.

Mr. Teraya.

Maybe just change the accord in accordance with Article 17 is enough for me.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. So I think the comments, Mr. Quesada.

I wonder whether the rapporteur would be able to answer my concern, the point I made about the wording in the first sentence of the paragraph.

Okay, rapporteur.

The proposal from Ms. Abdoul-Rachol, is that something that could meet your concern. I can see what he means, I can see what Mr. Casella means. It's the right, it's freedom of association that must be understood in an evolutive way. We're saying that already, and I think it's something that we find in the previous general comment, but here the idea is really that, of course, the context, technological, scientific context, in which associations are working, that itself has changed. If Mr. Casada agrees, it's not a substantive problem. I understand his concern. Let me think. If he agrees, I'll think about suggested rewording. I think we can adopt the paragraph as is because I think we agree on the substance, and then I'll reword the first sentence, I think. Thanks.

Okay, Mr. Casada.

Well, I don't agree that it doesn't affect the.

Substance, because the way we see it, we should be focusing on the rights under the Covenant. And that's our kind of focal, main focus, if you like, and we should be looking at the right, the right that we're looking at, and the right that should be understood or interpreted depending on the context, it's an evolving right, and that's something that can also be upheld in the legal sphere as well. If it's a changing phenomenon, an evolutive phenomenon, if it's understood in a certain way, depending on the context in which that right is exercised, I think that's the lens that we need to look at it through. I can't find the exact sentence I was looking, but if General Comment 37 says something similar, then it's not contradictory for us to focus on the right rather than on the context. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Madame Tigurisa.

Oui, merci, Monsieur.

Thank you very much, Ms. Sada. In fact, my proposal would be quite simple, rereading General Comment 37. We could just do without the first sentence here. We could start with the next sentence, because as I reread General Comment 37, paragraph 34, the paragraph 34 doesn't have this kind of introductory sentence. We just get straight in there. We start with, "Many associated activities happen online or otherwise rely upon digital services." So we perhaps don't need it, just to avoid the ambiguity that Mr. Cossataro has raised, which I do understand. Perhaps we don't need the first sentence. Perhaps we can delete it. Then that saves us some words as well.

I think it's a very good idea. Many people are nodding, so we will delete the first sentence, then it make it much more clearer. Okay, great. Thank you very much. I will adopt paragraph 13 and move to paragraph 14.

Okay, paragraph 14, because I'm just skipping back and forth between different versions here. On paragraph 14, here again, I've bolstered it based on the contributions that we've had from States and from national institutions and NGOs, with a number of more specific questions and issues. One of the main reproaches of the previous version of the General Comment was the fact that it was too vague, it wasn't precise and specific enough, and we didn't really, the previous version didn't really properly reflect the effects of new technologies, AI, on the exercise of freedom of association. So here I've really tried to beef up this paragraph in line with that approach. You've got it before you, I think Mrs. Saidov had proposals on this one.

Yes, I'll give the floor to Mr. Saidov.

First of all, I want to say many thanks, Elene. And my suggestion was adopted in footnote 40, added "global digital compact." I want add before the word "general digital pact," add United Nations, UN, UN Digital Pact, UN Global Digital Compact. In other footnotes, you indicated UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and so on, so on. UN Global Digital Compact.

Thank you very much. Madam Dundurs.

Thank you. I had one suggestion for, because I think the text doesn't go well, and that is halfway the sentence, halfway the paragraph, sorry. So where it starts with of transnational repression, the use of artificial intelligence and biometrics by law enforcement authorities without proper safeguards against individuals, I would say That against doesn't work. It must be for or in favor of. Oh, our native speaker just happens not to be here, but it's a small thing. But please have a look because it's not against. And I was wondering, but this is just maybe a very personal thing too, because if we start enumerating, you always feel like we're missing out on something or somebody or some group. But here particularly, I was thinking about academics. You know, I raised this point several times in our discussions. It's academic freedom and scientific freedom is one of the things I'm very passionate about. But here, i thought, especially since we're talking about use of AI and stuff like that, we might want to add it. But again, I'm not insisting on it if others do not feel strongly about it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Corkeleia.

Mr. Chair, a couple of comments on paragraph 14. We have in sentence one, "undermines the exercise and full realization of the right to freedom of association." I would suggest to simplify the text by saying, "undermines the enjoyment of the right to freedom of association." instead of “exercise and full realization,” they are almost the same, so just to refer to enjoyment of the right to freedom of association. Another point is about the second sentence, and I’m trying to understand this sentence. For example, digital surveillance, internet shutdowns, and the lack of access to digital tools, they all relate to law enforcement authorities. So digital surveillance by law enforcement authorities, that's what we would like to say. But then we have lack of access. So as I understand, are we talking about the lack of access to digital tools by law enforcement authorities? Are we concerned that law enforcement authorities do not have access to digital tools, or we are concerns that law enforcement authorities will prevent access to digital tools. And I'm not sure whether reference to including in a safe environment is in the right place, so I just suggest to change the lack of access to prevention of access? So is it something we are trying to say, that law enforcement authorities should not be able to prevent lack of access to digital tools?

Okay, thank you very much. So I see none. I will go back to the floor to Madame Tigrusa.

Thank you. For the first sentence, I do see there's a risk of repetition, exercise and full realisation, but I think we should keep in enjoyment. It's the same issue, I mean, exercise and enjoyment, if you can agree with that, Mr. Karkaria. We keep in enjoyment and exercise of the right to freedom of association. For the following sentence, lack of access to digital tools, I'm not just talking about the lack of access regarding the police or authorities. It's rather, and you'll see that later on in the state obligations, sometimes there are entire swathes of the population who are deprived of digital tools. They don't have access to internet. So that's really the meaning behind this. So it's lack of access to digital tools in that sense. It's not really to do with law enforcement. And Madam Donders' comment, against individuals, yes, that's not in the right place there. If we were to move that, and here I'm talking to the native English speakers or English speakers, the use against individuals, maybe we don't need that. use against individuals of artificial intelligence, et cetera, biometrics. But yes, you have that list of individuals who are particularly at risk, et cetera. Maybe, Madame Donders, you have a proposal.

Madame Dondos.

Maybe we don't need the enumeration here. Maybe we can just indeed say the use of artificial intelligence, et cetera, et cetera, without proper safeguards. I mean, we want to be, of course, giving examples and stuff, but although that maybe cuts a lot, that's true, also not very helpful. Because, as I say, if you start enumerating, then we might add, but the four is in principle okay, proper safeguards, four. Although safeguards is again something else than the. What I find problematic is that on the one hand, we talk about safeguards, but safeguards means sort of before you actually start interfering, right? You want to provide safeguards. That's something else then also what we sometimes look at, of course, is restrictions that have to follow a certain amount of criteria. That is not so much, I think, what we're looking at here. It's therefore perhaps simply not completely clear what we want to say here. Are we talking about indeed prevention? of possible violations, right? 'Cause then it safeguards is the one. And then we can simply say four. Although, then we say individuals, whereas, well, it's also the safeguards for, of course, the collectivities, the associations themselves. So I'm a bit puzzled, to be honest, now that I look at paragraph 14 again. And since I have the floor, sorry, chair. On the digital surveillance by law enforcement authorities, I see the point, but then I'm always thinking, hmm, is there any other digital surveillance by other actors that we also may wish to not exclude, at least, from these kind of paragraphs? Because even if it's digital surveillance by a private security company or something, That doesn't completely mean that the state doesn't have any kind of obligations to provide safeguards also against interferences by private actors. So I'm not sure that this addition is not restricting a bit too much who actually can carry out the potential harmful digital surveillance. Again, what we could do, I mean, if there's too many things, again, we could look at this paragraph again and just move on now and just reflect with the rapporteur on the precise wording here and there. Thank you.

I give the floor to Madam Abtelloso.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the rapporteur. I'm thinking if we cover concerns, we talk about artificial intelligence and biometrics without proper safeguards by the enforcement agencies, be they public or private, to protect exposed persons. And we refer to paragraph 40 and paragraph 9 on risk groups. And perhaps we wouldn't have such a repetitive text by doing that. We bring it from other parts of the text, 49. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So, Madame Tigruta.

Well, if you can agree, I do understand all the points made. Given Abdoulrachol and Madame Dando's proposals, I will reword paragraph 14, and we can adopt it. But I'm getting the idea here, The idea is just to clarify it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Having said that, I was about to give you some break. I think all members deserve some break, so I'll give you maybe seven minutes break. Okay, meeting is suspended. Okay, I will resume the meeting. I give the floor back to the rapporteur, please.

Thank you. Thank you for putting that on the screen. So we reworked a little bit paragraph 14, taking into account the comments made in the room, particularly Mr. Kokkelja's comment. Madame Adol-Rochel, who pointed out rightly that it's not just a question of hampering or the chilling effect, not necessarily caused by the authorities, that can also come from private individuals. So you've got on the screen the proposal. So we keep that in, in that order. Then, instead of talking about lack of access, the proposal from Mr. Korkelia was to say preventing the access to digital tools. I think the most important part is, after biometrics, we don't put in by law enforcement, because in that case, As both pointed out, it makes it clear that what we're talking about here, e-surveillance, could be conducted by the authorities or private individuals, and later on in the draft, we go back to the positive obligations of the state and private actors. And a final change. to safeguards, we say safeguards for individuals, as opposed to against individuals. And then we add academics. And then our concluding observations, I think we could do that because we had recent dialogues where we've talked about this risk of surveillance of academics or other associations. So I refer back to our concluding observations there. So that's the proposal. Either we adopt it, or do you need a bit of time, or do we need to rework the text again?

Okay. I think it's a very good proposal. Is there any other opinions? I particularly like including academics. As an academic person, I appreciate Madame Donders. Okay, so we will adopt paragraph 14. Thank you very much. We'll move to now second part, scope of freedom of association and paragraph 15, and rapporteur.

Thank you. Just a general comment on the entire section. No major changes here. Well, actually, there is a major one in the section. We were referring in the preceding version back to lobbies. We need to draw a distinction between lobbies and associations. The preceding paragraph, I think, you know, it garnered a lot of criticism, saying it's not clear, it's a bit dangerous to put that in. Even in positive law, though, you know, we have to look at the connotations regarding this. In positive law, I wasn't able to find a way we could draw a distinction between associations and lobbies. So, it's useful to have something on the lobbying groups, because legislation is being adopted in some states that is anti-lobbying legislation. So, that's the main point in the paragraph which has been changed vis-à-vis the March version. Now, in.

Paragraph 15 itself, I'm just looking through. There's no fundamental changes apart from, you remember we had the discussion with licit girls and there were a number of observers who've mentioned the fact that licit could be used and utilised because if they say that they're not lawful, lawful activities, then that could lead to a closure of civic space. So that would be the only change that I've made there.

To 15.

Okay, any comments on paragraph 15? I see none, so we will adopt paragraph 15 and paragraph 16.

Okay, Ms. Dondos, I'm sure we'll be taking the floor on this one because we had a conversation on it and she very kindly sent me her written comments. You'll remember when we kicked off the discussion last week, Ms. Dondos. had raised the fact that we do need to be balanced between, on the one hand, recognising the particular place that indigenous peoples have, their particular relationship with Article 22 linked to 26, 27 and Article 1 of the Covenant, and the other forms of communities or minorities. So that was a comment that came up here again. It's true that listening to the dialogue last week, we had a number of states, and I can see actually there is an imbalance that we might well create if we only talk about the specificity of associations for indigenous peoples and we leave other types of minorities out. So, of course, I'll let Ms. Dondos take the floor to word her concern, but I mean, I'm very open to what she has to say here.

Madame Dondos.

Thank you very much. Thank you, yeah. Indeed, the concern here was that we focus only on indigenous peoples, and again, not to say that that is not important, because I do think it's important, especially on freedom of association as well. But, and also, because we mention articles 26 and 27, which we frequently have also invoked for other groups, other communities, minorities, ethnic, linguistic, etc. Now, my issue is, or my concern, or preoccupation, you could say, is that for self-determination, that is, of course, different. There, I think, we usually keep that strictly for indigenous peoples. Again, so that makes this paragraph a bit complicated, because if we say to respect self-determination, then we refer mostly, I would say, to indigenous peoples, and it's about Article 1, perhaps 27 in combination. But when we talk about cultural identity, that is much more linked also to 1, but also to 26, 27, and to other groups. So to be honest, if you know, committee members agree that we should open up this paragraph for other minorities, we have to think how we formulated it, because I first wanted to know if everyone agrees that we add here "minorities", again, especially since we refer to Articles 26 and 27. The other solution, but which is perhaps a bit more radical, is whether we indeed want to have this paragraph here, because at several other places, amongst others, paragraph 3 that we refer to here, we have already this link between self-determination, cultural identity, indigenous peoples. So the question is, do we really want it here again? in light of also that the first sentence, of course, is much broader, right? We say its protection applies without any discrimination to informal unregistered associations. That, of course, counts for everyone. That's not specifically linked, I would say, to any particular group. So therefore, again, if we hear a bit from colleagues how they feel, myself, perhaps together with the rapporteur, others could look at this paragraph specifically again. Do we want to add something? Do we want to include parts of this elsewhere? For me, it's now a bit difficult, but first I would like to hear a bit about what other people think. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Madame Tigrouza.

Thinking about it again and rereading it this morning, we could actually well move it. If we keep it Let's keep it for the part under obligations, because this is actually an obligation. So let's keep it, if everyone agrees. We won't delete it for now, but we'll just suspend it, and I'll see with Ms. Donda's own colleagues how and where we can re-include it, reinject it into positive obligations of the state. So recognizing the traditional forms, particular forms, we'll do that.

Okay, thank you. As a member personally, I also agree with that, so I hope everybody agrees. So we will basically delete 16 now. Yeah, and move to the next. Okay, thank you very much. Then we will move to paragraph 17. Oh, 16, okay. Now 16. Larry, I mean. All right, 17. Well, 16, we decided to, the contents of 16 to the next, what is the part? Yeah, so then we will discuss paragraph 17. Yes. Yes.

Thank you, Bear. So I have a A number of small points on 17. The first is in the second sentence, we refer to access to registration and recognition of legal personality, but not all States parties have recognition and registration systems. And I would not want to, it's not prohibited, but I would not want to necessarily encourage them. So we might say, at the same time, in states parties that adopt or that create registration systems in states party. So it's something like that, in order to say, this is not something you must do. We're not encouraging you to have these registration systems. But if you have them, certain things follow. So that's my first suggestion. And that's in the second sentence. And I can give specific language to the rapporteur or not. And then in the next sentence, we say, should individuals decide to request the registration of their association, should it be members, not individuals? We usually refer to members before, and I'm a little worried about somebody who's a non-member requesting something outside. So I would change that to members rather than individuals. And then I think we could do a little bit of text editing in the end of that, toward the end of that sentence. I would suggest the following, and I'll just read it slowly, and hopefully you'll understand it, and then you can decide how to respond. So this is related to after States Parties have negative and positive obligations, I would simply say to ensure the absence of any de jure or de facto, so far the same, discrimination or arbitrary decisions regarding registration and access to legal recognition. I'll say that again. After de jure and de facto, I would say discrimination or arbitrary decisions regarding registration, and then cut down to access to legal recognition. So no "the." Access to legal recognition. That's-- again, sorry, sorry, sorry. OK, slowly, even more slowly. OK. States parties have negative and positive obligations to ensure the absence of any de jure or de facto discrimination or arbitrary decisions regarding registration, and, exactly, strike that, Gotsun, please, access to legal recognition. Strike the. Strike, yeah, perfect. Thank you. Those are my suggestions. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you very much for your suggestion. I think we need to add access to rapporteur, can you? We missed one. Yeah, please.

Just again, it's section 10. At the same time, in States Parties that Maybe we should say, use or create registration systems at the same time in States Parties that, or follow, how about follow? In States Parties that follow registration systems, comma, and then strike the, follow registration systems, right? The comma. Wait. No, no, you'd know. No. Go back. In States parties that follow registration systems, access to registration. There it is. And then one other small point. Access to registration without any discrimination, same as before, and the recognition of the legal personality of the association. I would say not "is a right protected", I would say "are protected by Article 22". "Are protected". Then strike is a right? Yes, precisely. Is it clear now to the Rapporteur? Okay, good. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. So I'll give you some time to read the text. If everything is rightly put, yes, rapporteur. Oh, Madame Dondels.

With this, I was more thinking of the word non-registered in the first sentence, because the mere fact of creating, joining, or being a member of a non-registered, I thought it's also registered, so perhaps we could put it in brackets. Or not, that's true. Why? Yeah, good point. Why? Just cross out. I see, well, Madame the Rapporteur, she will take a decision. Either cross it out because it's just member of association should not be sanctioned or criminalized. And the remark by Mr. Helfer on members, we should probably check that a bit more throughout. This is just a comment to the rapporteur more generally, because I think we sometimes indeed mix it with individuals. Sometimes that works because it's broader than only the members. But this is just to note a check here. And also, since I have the floor, just to put a warm thank you to the Secretariat and Edgar in this case, because you're referring to Godsen, but it's Edgar actually who actually does this very quick typing. And since he's an alumni of the Leiden University in my country, you know, I just want to make sure that The Secretariat is properly recognized here, because it is a tough job if you have to follow all of our conversations. So thank you very much for that.

So thank you very much. Okay, I'll give the floor to Madame Abdoulshour. Abdoulshour? Yeah.

Okay, firstly, I support the comment from Ms. Donders. I think that's really efficient, what you said. What Mr. Helfert said, I think I just wanted to contribute something if possible. Regarding the first point that Ms. Dunder made, that paragraph 8 is repetitive and could be replaced with a revision to paragraph 8, what we also talked about was consistency between members and whether they are founding members or not, because prior to registration you have the founders who submit the application Then, instead of following registration system, I would say provide registration. These processes should be declaratory, with a reference to paragraph 36, but to maintain that consistency, also to prevent arbitrary decisions, as mentioned by Mr. Helfer, we could also mention clear deadlines if and sanctions if the authorities don't, what they could do if the authorities don't reply within a given time. As the Rapporteur said, there is a relevant decision, HRC 27, we can refer to that. And of course, I trust entirely to the Rapporteur to her wisdom there.

Thank you very much. I'll give the floor to Mr. Quesada.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On the first sentence, just a couple of minor observations. I would keep the point about non-registered association, because you're focusing on, well, there's an emphasis being placed on it here. I imagine that an association that is registered in certain states which require or which have a system of registration, that this type of association wouldn't suffer any kind of sanction because they're not registered, and neither would the members. So I would keep the idea of having the non-registers association, I'd keep that idea in there. Secondly, I think that the fact that you've got create or establish because it doesn't make sense to create a non-registered association, you've got creating, the mere fact of creating a non-registered association, it doesn't make sense in countries then when registration is required, then they're registered afterwards, but I don't think it's logical to have the creating first, I think it's a bit strange, you're talking about creating a non-registered association, whereas in fact, it is possible that we could talk about an individual who joins or who becomes a member of a non-registered association, that's a different situation. Thirdly, on the order, it says that a member of a non-registered association must not be sanctioned nor criminalised. They should not, they should never be sanctioned or criminalised. I think the order should be the opposite. You should have criminalised first Because you've got to have it as a crime first before they can be sanctioned, potentially. You're sanctioned possibly because you've committed a crime, the crime that was criminalized in the code or the relevant law. So you have to put criminalized before sanctioned. They would be my points, thanks.

Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Teraya.

Just a minor point that as Mr. Herfurth mentions, The or the factor, I think, is lacking. The second is lacking. Right.

Okay. Okay, Madame Dundas.

We're really warmed up by now. I was thinking to answer to Mr. Cazzata. Maybe, again, we're just not very clear on what we want to say, because I agree with you, and I also think, however, that we should also not be criminalizing or sanctioning members or people for creating, okay, that is strange with a non-registered one, but joining or being a member, since we have joining and being a member. I would not limit that to only the non-registered associations. So again, here, perhaps we're trying to do a bit too much in one sentence, where we're trying to put focus on even if you're not registered, but you're joining, you should not be criminalized or sanctioned. Agree. But also the fact that if you want to, and then the create is, of course, strange if you put that before registration, because that is sort of happening at the same time. So I think once again, we just need to look a bit careful again at that very first sentence, because I do think the non-registered is important, but perhaps again, it's not the best place here, because then after that, we follow with registration. So what we could also think about, I give this as an idea, is to put something about non-registration further down, where you say, so we say registration systems and access to registration, and then again, we talk about discrimination and arbitrary decisions. So I think we need once again to look at this carefully before we cross out non-registered or actually we re-add it again, because it might lead to confusion. Sorry.

Thank you very much. Rapporteur.

Yes.

Thank you. What I suggest, all the proposals for reformulating, rewording, I'll come back to the first sentence, but all the reformulation proposals, i think, are good and fine. I've got no objection to them, and if no one else objects, I think we could adopt them. Regarding the first sentence, non-registered. It goes back to our own jurisprudence, mentioned in paragraph 16, and what we can do is move footnote 40, referring to the case v Belarus, where there was a sanction handed down to an individual participating in an association that was not registered, and the Committee flagged the fact let me find the paragraph 7.2, stress the fact that the criminalisation of activities of non-registered associations in Belarus and the associations themselves, where individual members of the associations were being punished and penalised. And that's why in this paragraph 17, we have in the first sentence, this reference to non-registered associations that shouldn't be, that must not be criminalised and sanctioned. I agree with Erdal, we need to change the order, that's fine, criminalise first, because it reflects our own jurisprudence there. So I suggest we move footnote 40 and repatriate it there. I would tend to keep it. I prefer to keep it, I think. I see Ms. Donders wants the floor again.

Madam Donders.

Thank you. I have a suggestion since we just said that 16 is going to be revised because part of that will go to the obligations, but not the first sentence, I would say, of 16, which indeed very much links So if we can put the first sentence of 16 on the start of 17, because there we speak of, indeed, informal and unregistered associations, and then we can continue the mere fact of, I'm still not sure about creating, because I agree with Mr. Cassala that's strange, but joining or being a member of a non-registered, and then we leave non-registered, because it follows really from the previous paragraph that this is what for here we're talking about. So then I think it works better, and the rest of paragraph 16, we can then see where we put that in the rest of the, or further down in the more positive obligations section. I think that might be working better. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. So, Mr. Quesada, followed by Mr. Corregalia.

Gracias.

Thank you. I agree with what Ms. Dondos just proposed. This first part of 16, you could start 17 with it.

Could Mr. Casella speak into the microphone, please? Just if you... Yeah, that's better. Thank you.

I thought that it was better to keep the expression "non-registered" But here, in that case, you'd need to delete the word "creation", the "creating" because you can't create a non-registered association. But maybe the wording that Ms. Donder's had proposed originally could make sense, because if you delete "non-registered" Then you can keep the rest of the sentence, "the mere fact of creating, joining, or being a member of an association must not be criminalised or sanctioned." Then the part that we delete about non-registered, we're kind of introducing something that's coming in from paragraph 16, and I think that could be one way around it for this first part of 17, thank you.

Thank you. One announcement is that, different from the Parler Wilson's room we used to have a meeting, you need to closer to your microphone in order for the interpreters.

Yes, thank you. The sound's really different in this room. Yeah, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Then Mr. Korhkelia.

Thank you, Chair. Non-substantive comment. We start paragraph 17 by "its protection" and probably it's better to write "protection of freedom of association" because technically that would be better.

Good. Thank you. Then we are very close to the agreement, so please read the paragraph as revised. So did we decide we change members that, oh, Madame Gunders?

Sorry, I agree with Mr. Kokkelj, but just either we say freedom of association as such, or the right to freedom of association, but the protection of freedom of association is not, let us follow what we have in other paragraphs. I mean, this is a textual editing thing. And I think, coming to your question, Chair, I think we indeed agreed on members instead of individuals here, once again, because this is not about anybody. This is really about people who want to establish and become members of an association. And if we say individuals, we make it too broad. In other paragraphs, this may work if you have to protect against certain things. So that's why I think the idea for me was to ask the rapporteur and the secretary to just go through it at the end to see, is it here members what we mean or is it individuals what we mean? And I fully entrust her to do that.

Madame Thirouza.

Yeah, I think we coming gently to 17, that's acceptable for everybody. Edgar, I think we just need in the sentence, second sentence following the footnote, I think you need to delete "creating" there. The mere fact of creating. Just delete "creating".

Madam Dondos.

The floor so often. No, I think, if I understood Mr. Quesada well, I think it's either we keep creating and we cross out non-registered, which would still be my preference personally, because I think otherwise we focus perhaps too much on that. But the alternative could be to cross out creating and keep the non-registered. So this is a choice, I think, again, we must make. Do we want to broaden the scope of this sentence by crossing off non-registered? Then you can keep creating, because then it's about all. Or if we want to focus on non-registered, which is fine, it follows a bit from the first sentence, then we need to cross out creating. So it's something perhaps to give us a bit of thought. Thank you.

Mr. Egezu.

Yeah, sorry to come back at the end. on this, because I am sufficiently confused on this, which means, i mean, i thought paragraph 17 deals with non-registered associations, the whole paragraph. So if we agree on that, I don't think there's an option of deleting non-registered, because What it says is, if it's a non-registered association, then it should not be criminalized or sanctioned. And if there is a registration system, then this non-registered association should be given an opportunity to be registered and so forth. So if that's the case, I think what Mr. Hernan suggested, removing the creation would, yeah, so maybe that's what the option that we need to have. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much for clarification. Okay, now I think we can adopt the paragraph. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Okay, final thoughts. Okay. Okay, Mr. Casada.

Thank you. So, are we keeping in unregistered?

Is that the case?

Well, in that case, we'd have to delete, create, surely. Thank you.

Yes, we keep non-registered and deleting, creating. Yes, that's what we agreed. Okay, so I see the rapporteur nodding, so I move to paragraph 18.

Paragraph 18, no change, virtually no change vis-à-vis the preceding version that we adopted. Madame Donders made a proposal to add in this regard, Article 22(1) protects the right "legally" seek. Well, of course, we don't want to encourage anything that is going to be illegal or dubious. But I think what's rather dangerous, we put in the legally, is that states, and we've seen that, and you'll see this in the subsequent paragraphs, states could then use this argument, you know, we're combating money laundering, et cetera, and use that as an argument to excessively clamp down on this and funds coming from abroad. I support the idea, but I think we have to tread with caution. You have this principle according to which associations have to be able to access funds. This is something that was mentioned by the former Special Rapporteur on freedom of association. So I would pause for thought before we add "legally" because it might be deliberately misused by the State parties. Thank you.

Mr. Fernández Glezá.

With a microphone, please. Microphone.

Third line down. You talk about the right to get international funding without being labeled foreign agents or as a threat to national security. I mean, that's a pretty broad Article 22 doesn't allow for restrictions when there are threats to national security. So I don't know. I'm just, i don't know. Should we put in something like unduly? I'm not sure that you can't have this sort of labelling or accusations just like that, or undue attacks. I'm not sure. But I think we need to tighten up the drafting on this. regarding the funding. Thank you.

Madam Dondos.

Thank you. I agree with the rapporteur that indeed, legally, i also put a question mark, so it was just indeed a suggestion that I don't feel strongly, and she's right with her argument, so I agree with that. I had one other textual suggestion on the first sentence. to make that simpler, because we say here covers the whole life cycle of an association, including the right to terminate an association when its members consider it's not in their interest to continue with the association. I would just say when its members so decide. That's it. I don't know why they want to decide. Maybe they don't want to. Interest, no interest. I think it's easier just to say members decide on termination. That's it. So that would be just a shortening of that sentence. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. I see no other members, so I go back to Madame Degruyze.

I agree entirely that we need to streamline this, and we're also saving on word count, which is good. Let's not forget we have this word count limit. And as to what Mr. Fernandez said, perhaps, i think the whole issue of national security, that's something that we will come up against in restrictions. You know, we are saying to the state, yes, of course, you can limit actions of associations if, you know national security is at stake, but strict parameters for that, and refer them to a paragraph. So maybe we can look at that when we've got the defined term for that paragraphs, and I'll put the paragraph number in to make it clear that it's not an absolute right. But of course, we do understand the national security concerns, and that is an argument. We don't want this to be then used against the civic space. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any further comments? So shall we adopt paragraph 18? Yes, let's move to paragraph 19. Yes, Mr. Helfer.

So paragraph 19 is very important in my view. because it references principles of independence, autonomy, and self-governance. That's a core theme throughout this general comment. And what follows up until the very last line of para 19 are general attributions about those three principles, independence, autonomy, and self-governance. However, then we have the added line about indigenous peoples. And then if I may, in the next paragraph, we have a little bit of a line about children. So what I would suggest is that we take, we cut the final sentence of 19 and add it into 20. And I think in 20, when we get there, I can take the floor now or later, as the rapporteur prefers. I think we are overly repetitive, but I would essentially clarify 20 a little bit and add in that sentence in 20 after the first sentence, which I can then explain. But I'll stop here just to see if it makes sense. Because I really don't, it's not any disrespect for indigenous peoples or children or anybody else for that matter, but I really want to highlight these core principles, and I don't want to have them diluted in any way by a specific reference to one group or another. We have plenty of time to do that later. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Madame Donduls.

Thank you, Chair. This was indeed also a suggestion I did to the rapporteur, but she didn't get the chance to start. So indeed, I also was thinking to cut out the last sentence here and see where we can put it. Also because, again, we're a bit repetitious on articles 126, 127, so we should see whether we still need it somewhere in light also of 16 that we're now going to see in the obligations section. I had one textual thing for which I also look actually at Mr. Helfer in terms of language, where we say the right to choose their staff. I would say select. It's there, yeah, exactly. Choose is, I think select is better because it comprises more than only choosing. That's a small thing, but still. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, so rapporteur.

No.

Okay. Well, going through this this morning and in the light of the discussion we had on indigenous peoples, I'm not even sure if we need this. This is not just repeating what we'll be saying later on on States' obligations. Yeah, I don't think we need it. We've already talked about the principle of dependence. If I understand Ms. Helfer's point, it's to be found in paragraph 1. Well, let's listen to the proposed on that for 19 in English.

By select their staff.

And then we will delete the last sentence, and we either put it in one, we can hear Mr. Helfer's role, or we don't need it because we think it's already been mentioned and it would be repetitive.

So, Mr. Helfer.

Yes, that's perfectly fine with me, with one thought, if I may go to 20 now, if you would please scroll up. Paragraph 20, in my view, is also rather redundant. And what is new is the specific needs that individuals may have, which I take to mean specific groups or communities do this, they may want to do something. Now, if we take out Indigenous people, I do kind of wonder why we're giving so much focus to children. Why not people with disabilities? Why not? So, I'm just not sure that we need, if we're going to keep this, Would we, should we not refer to other groups? But then I think, well, we've referred to other groups so many other times above. The key point to me is the specific needs that individuals may have. So what we might do is simply end the sentence there that say the individuals and groups may have, and then cross-reference to where we mention all and sundry LGBT, disability, blah. and so forth. And then, I mean, if you want to have, I mean, maybe we could add children back there instead of having, I understand we have a specific provision in the covenant on children, so I don't, I could see why you might want to do it. But then, I'm not sure. I mean, What kind of organizations will children be having? Okay, you know, some, yes, I understand, older children. I mean, the climate change movement, of course, and so forth. So that is quite important. So maybe we keep it. But without any age-based discrimination, I mean, anyway. So there are two points here. One is, do we just end the paragraph 20 where you have the cross-reference in paragraph nine? Or, if we keep it, do we say a little bit more about what we really think about children? Because without any age-based discrimination, I'm just not sure. So, I don't feel strongly about either of these suggestions. I leave it to the rapporteur, but I do think we're being a bit repetitive here. Thank you.

Okay, Madame Dondus.

Thank you. I agree, I think, with the proposal to delete it, but I'm always a bit wary of the disappearance of Article 24 because not many people are very much aware. But my suggestion would therefore be, because I do agree that the elaboration is perhaps not the best we can come up with, although we have a footnote here, so I'm not sure where that one refers to, but we can perhaps solve the issue, let me see. Yeah, we refer to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, okay. Which is good, but not necessary here. What we could do in paragraph 9, we do refer to children and young people, but there we could have put the footnote, see Article 24 of our Covenant, because if you look at 24, it's only indeed paragraph 1, because that requires extra protection, as we say, which is fine under 9, and then we can also refer to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, however, I'm not sure, but again, we can check. We should do that then consistently also here, persons with disabilities everywhere where there's a legal instrument that may be relevant, we might wish to refer to that, we might wish to refer to it in general, we might wish to refer to it with a specific paragraph. Again, that is something we need to check at the end whether we want that, but I think we can solve it by stopping, as Mr. Helfer suggested at the end there, add it here to give a bit of bit of publicity to Article 24.1. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Madame Rapporteur.

Thank you. In the preceding version, I mean, i think this is an addition, an addition based on consultations, because it's a real problem, this whole issue of consulting with children. But yes, I agree. In paren 9, where we have this list of risk groups or most at risk, we could perhaps refer back to Article 24, so we know, or rather the States know, that it needs to be read in conjunction with that paragraph. And we can also refer them to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. and specific provisions, particularly Article 12 within that on consultation. So it's an addition. I do get the point of everybody who's taken the floor on this, who feel we should go back to the initial version, but since we decided to have a fairly lengthy, detailed paragraph 9, you know, do we really need to go back to this because it gives the impression that it's all just a bit scattered. So we can remove it, but I would like to keep in the footnote, if that's okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. So what the rapporteur says is, remove the end, last sentence. From "in this regard" to the end, okay? So we just put that deleted and put the reference. Footnote. Yes, Madame Donders.

To make clear that the footnote 64, which now only refers to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, will then be added where we also just added, I saw that happening, the article 24. So what is in the footnote right now will not stay there because that wouldn't make sense, but will also go up to paragraph 9, which is actually quite fine. And again, paragraph 9, we might have another look at where we want to refer to other perhaps instruments that we didn't immediately. Yeah, we can always check if there's on CRPD or on other instruments that we think are relevant. I think that's always good to refer to our other treaties as well.

Okay, very good. Mr. Quezada. Microphone, microphone.

Thank you, Judge. I'm not objecting to this, just a comment. We're talking in this section about the scope of application of Article 22. So, hardly surprising that we're repeating issues and questions that are in the initial paragraphs. The initial paragraphs are an introduction, basically forewarning the reader that in this general comment, we're going to be talking about these issues. And as has been said, we're going to be talking about vulnerable groups. to which we'll be applying Article 22, but in these sections, we're developing further the idea, going back to elements that are in the initial paragraphs. And is this something that should determine what we decide be included or not in this section? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Madame Tigrisza.

Thank you. I understand your point, Mr. Cassada, but it's like earlier on, on indigenous peoples, we're looking at the obligations. In para 9, perhaps we could add, I don't know, or even as a footnote, the relevant provisions of the CRC. And then when we get to the section on States' obligations, there, if we want to illustrate the type of obligation, we could do that to make it clear that you're dealing with a given category of persons as right holders. And there, if necessary, we go back to some of the elements that are in this part of the sentence. But when I reread this, it's true. We are kind of straying into the territory of the State's obligations. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Korokelja?

Probably non-substantive, but still, in the second sentence, we have, therefore, associations have the right to freely determine their membership. And then we say, provided they respect the right to non-discrimination. Probably it's too complicated. Maybe we'll say, instead of provided they respect, subject to the principle of non-discrimination. That's probably simple.

Okay, Larry, Mr. Pepper.

So this is an issue that I brought up with the Rapporteur before, and I think, I don't feel strongly here, but they're in. The question is, which we allied a little bit in this context, we don't really clarify, and I'm comfortable with that. Where is the limit of the non-discrimination principle vis-a-vis groups that want to have various kinds of single-sex groups, groups that want to exclude others on the basis of their political affiliation or some other characteristic? provided they respect, is a little bit weaker, in my view, than subject to the principle. And so it's very subtle, and I don't feel strongly. I'll go with whatever the consensus would be. But I think here what we're trying to say is that there are limits to even what an independent, autonomous, self-governing association can do vis-à-vis decisions that exclude on a discriminatory basis, especially one that is protected by the Covenant. But we don't really bring that out because there is a tension here. I mean, I think we need to, as I explained to Ms. Tigrigiu before, and she acknowledges fully, that there is this tension between autonomy, self-determination, and non-discrimination. I just highlight that here because we don't fully resolve it, and I'm afraid that subject to would be entirely appropriate if you want to privilege non-discrimination over autonomy and independence, but I find it a bit strange in the core principles where we now make them, having just articulated just in two lines above the core principles, now we say they're subject to non-discrimination. So as I work my way through this, I think I would stick with the language as it was, but I leave it to the rapporteur.

Okay, I'll give the floor to Mr. Taraya followed by Madame Donders. No? Madame Donders. No, Taraya is not.

This is, of course, indeed a tricky issue. I think I also would prefer the original text. Because it is true that groups and associations can diversify, which is then not called non-discrimination because they have a reasonable justification. So therefore, I think the use of the term discrimination is fine because that covers where there's no such an objective and reasonable justification for making that. Now, of course, we at the same time want to make sure that they have such a justification, and in particular, private clubs have different elements here than public ones. So I think indeed, say, provided they respect the right to non-discrimination is vague enough. It's still a bit tricky, I see that. But I would therefore indeed not make it stronger by saying the principle and subject to where we really indeed as Mr. Helfer was saying, making the non-discrimination much more central, whereas I think there is quite a lot of autonomy in actually establishing and selecting your membership and your leadership and all these kind of things, as long as you can justify it properly. So then I think we're covered finally with this. So I would stick to the original text. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. I'll give back to.

Thank you. I do remember now. This was a discussion that we had back in March. And when we were adopting the first reading, I did talk about the EU Court of Justice ruling that had just been handed down on the discriminatory nature that some associations may impose. in terms of access to the association, I think we should keep in "provided they respect". I mean, that was a consensus we had back in March. And if you go back to our own jurisprudence, the decision that's mentioned in the footnote versus Germany, we raise this principle of non-discrimination in conjunction with a political party, so Article 25. And I mentioned the Court of Justice ruling, really more European law, and also to do with non-discrimination when it comes to belonging to a particular organization or association. But we don't have much by way of jurisprudence apart from what we've got in that footnote. But I really want to keep in provided, provided they respect. non-discrimination or right. I don't have much more to add, because I do agree in the sense there's this sort of tension and trying to sort out this tension very much boils down to looking at it on a case-by-case basis. In fact, one of the contributions that we got, quite interesting contributions, which said, be careful. in associations, we don't want trans women, for instance, but we don't want that to be deemed to be discrimination. So, you know, our jurisprudence, I'm just saying, you know, we're kind of treading a fine line here. So if you can agree, I'd like to keep it like that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So, Mr. Corricchia, okay, agreeable. Thank you very much. Mr. Carozzo.

Thank you. Well, we had a discussion in March on this, and we got to this very happy form of words that we've got here. So very important, this non-discrimination notion. I mean, there are some terrible attacks on associations because of sexual orientation, not just that, but based on race or religion. Inter alia. So I think this is clear. It's good to have a kind of backing to this. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Then I consider paragraph 19 and 20 as adopted, and I see the time is up. So just remind you that we have two more public meeting for this reading. So prior, three more?

Three more.

Ah, three more. Okay, sorry. It's luxury. It's luxury. So anyway, still three meetings. It's not very long. So prior consultation and the comments to the rapporteur will be very important. And before we bring this meeting to a close, I like to wish you a good lunch and remind you that afternoon meeting will be devoted to the consideration of fifth periodic report of Jamaica. The meeting is adjourned.