Subject: National Report in Preparation for the 2nd Hearing of
Germany under the Universal Periodic Review
Von: Walter Keim <walter.keim@gmail.com>
Datum: 05/01/2013 12:38
An: Human Rights Commissioner Markus Löning
CC: "poststelle@auswaertiges-amt.de",
"info@gruene-fraktion.de", Fraktion SPD Bundestag,
"fraktion@cducsu.de", FDP Fraktion Bundestag,
"fraktion@linksfraktion.de", Piratenpartei
Access
to information is part of freedom of expression, together with an active
citizenry, and thus one of the preconditions for ensuring a vibrant and
well-informed democracy. NGOs demand of the governments to respect and
comply with their obligations following national and international
standards.
I refer to the National Report in Preparation for the 2nd Hearing of Germany
under the Universal Periodic Reviews (UPR).
I appreciate that the civil society was invited to discuss.
the report.
The Baltic Sea NGO Forum has 17.
September 2013 submitted a contribution, which is published on the website
of the Human Rights Institute and included to this letter.
The challenges for Germany for transparency and access to information are:
more than 120 states (http://right2info.org/laws)
with more then 5.9 billion inhabitants
i. e. 84 % of the worlds population adopted FOI laws or provisions in
constitutions. 5 German states with half of the population lack FOI
laws.
Germany
did not ratify the Criminal
Law Convention on Corruption and does not follow Recommendation Rec(2003)4 on
common rules against corruption in the funding of political parties and
electoral campaigns of the Council of Europe as GRECO
(Group of States against Corruption) suggested 4
December 2009.
Germany is the only state in Europe which has not ratified any of
these to conventions against corruption.
Wie erreicht man in Skandinavien kostenlose und rasche Antworten für
Informationszugang?
Point 5 of the UPR report of the "Forum
Menschenrechte" suggests to ratify the UN Convention against
Corruption. This was also mentioned in the hearing
05. December 2012. The "Forum
Menschenrechte criticizes thast the draft is not honest.
Access to documents of public administration is a human right according to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [1, 4,
5] and jurisdiction
of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) [6]
on the basis of the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR) [2]
and is seen as a precondition for democracy and important in the fight of
corruption. OSCE supports
access to information.
UN, OSCE and AOS confirm in their Joint Declaration by the Three Special
Mandates for Protecting Freedom of Expression 6. December 2004, that Access
to Information is a human right (Appendix
3):
"The right to access information held by public authorities is a
fundamental human right which should be given effect at the national
level through comprehensive legislation (for example Freedom of
Information Acts) based on the principle
of maximum disclosure, establishing a presumption that all
information is accessible subject only to a narrow system of
exceptions."
OSCE has in April 2012 commented the draft of the Transparency- and Access
to Information Law in Spain. The human rights character was shown according
to OSCE, CCPR and ECHR. (7: "International documents (...) state that access
to information is a fundamental human right and an essential condition for
all democratic societies.")
Human
Rights Council Report of the Working Group on the UPR:
A/HRC/WG.6/16/L.7 96 states made approx. 200 recommendations
[in relation to Baltic Sea NGO Forum
suggestion No. in brackets]: II. Conclusions and/or recommendations
123. Responses to the following recommendations will be provided by
Germany in due time, but no later than the 24th session of the Human
Rights Council in September 2013:
"123.22: Ratify the United Nations Convention against Corruption
(UNCAC) (Austria); (Article 5, 7, 10, 12 and 13 of UNCAC are about ATI
in various fields.) [UNCAC mentioned in Baltic Sea NGO Forum
Submission]
123.28: Withdraw all reservations to human rights instruments to
which Germany is a party, first of all, to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (Russian Federation); [2]
123.42: Align its national legislation with international human
rights standards (Iraq); [3, approx. 5]
123.46: Expand the mandate of the German Institute for Human Rights
to receiving complaints of human rights violations (India); [7]
123.49: Secure proper follow-up to the accepted recommendation from
the first UPR cycle and introduce tools that will improve the
effective judicial control over the administrative decisions of the
Office of Youth called Jugendamt (Poland); [approx. 5]
123.145. Introduce independent and effective legal and professional
supervision of the Youth Office (Jugendamt) and ensure that the
Jugendamt decisions be in conformity with binding international norms,
including the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (Turkey);
[approx. 3, approx. 4]
123.169. Federal and State Governments, in consultation with civil
society, broaden and intensify existing human rights training in
schools as well as the routine training of police, security, prison
and health personnel, and set up a monitoring and evaluation mechanism
to assess progress (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland);" [4]
Conclusion: Suggestions 2,3,4 and 7 of the Baltic Sea NGO Forum
were recommended by states. Publishing international conventions [6]
could support education in international law (see recommendation
123.169). Freedom of Information law [1] and independent judges [5]
is indirectly support by recommendation 123.42 (Align its national
legislation with international human rights standards). Therefore
only decriminalisation of defamation [8] is missing, ATI [1],
independent judges [5] and publish CCPR, ESCR on Internet [6] are
indirectly included.
