“We reiterate that the right to nationality is a fundamental right protected by article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality,” Cécile Pouilly, the spokesperson for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), told journalists in Geneva.

She added that deprivation of nationality provided for by law had to comply with procedural and substantive standards, including the principle of proportionality. OHCHR is also concerned that arbitrary deprivation of nationality could lead to statelessness with serious consequences for the protection of the human rights of the individuals concerned.

“While recognizing the responsibility of States to maintain law and order, we remind the authorities that any measure should respect international human rights standards,” said Ms. Pouilly.

The Bahraini parliament, known as the National Assembly, recently met to discuss the revisions, supported by a royal decree on 31 July, to the 2006 Law on the Protection of Society from Acts of Terrorism.

The recommendations include increasing the detention period or revoking the citizenship of anyone found guilty of committing or inciting an act of terrorism. They also provide for banning sit-ins, rallies and gatherings in the capital, Manama.

OHCHR said that although it welcomes the Parliament’s recommendation that “basic liberties, particularly freedom of opinion, should not be affected to maintain a balance between law enforcement and human rights protection,” it reiterates its concern about the restrictions on public demonstrations and other public gatherings.

“We call upon the Government of Bahrain to fully comply with its international human rights commitments, including respect for freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and association, and urge all demonstrators to exercise these rights in a peaceful manner,” the spokesperson said.

The UN has repeatedly called for dialogue among all parties in Bahrain since civil unrest, including clashes between security forces and demonstrators broke out in early 2011, when widespread protests first emerged in the country.

If adopted, the law would be in contravention to the provisions of the international drug control treaties, in particular the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, to which Uruguay is a party.

According to the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), the law would also have serious consequences for the health and welfare of the population and for the prevention of cannabis abuse among the youth.

The INCB urged the Uruguayan authorities to ensure that the country remains fully compliant with international law which limits the use of narcotic drugs, including cannabis, exclusively to medical and scientific purposes.

Based in Vienna, the INCB is an independent and quasi-judicial monitoring body mandated to implement UN international drug control conventions.

“In line with its mandate, INCB has always aimed at maintaining a dialogue with the Government of Uruguay on this issue, including proposing a mission to the country at the highest-level,” the Board said in a news release, calling on the Uruguayan authorities to carefully consider all possible repercussions before taking a decision.

It also expressed regret that the Government refused to receive an INCB mission before the draft law was submitted to Parliament for deliberation.

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) also expressed concern over the proposed legislation and said it would continue to follow developments in Uruguay very closely.

UNODC spokesperson David Dadge said international drug control conventions remain the foundation of global efforts to curb elicit drug trafficking and provide prevention and treatment for drug users.

While he acknowledged that there are challenges that need to be addressed, he stressed that dialogue is need on how to stop drug traffickers and protect the health and welfare of people. “But this dialogue should be conducted on the basis of the agreed conventions, in line with international law.”

He noted that next year, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs will hold a high-level review of Member States’ implementation of the Political Declaration and Plan of Action on the world drug problem and said this would be an opportunity for countries to pursue a coherent approach to drug trafficking.

“We urge the Somali authorities to review the draft in order to ensure its conformity with international human rights standards,” the spokesperson for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Rupert Colville, told reporters in Geneva.

“We are particularly concerned that the draft legislation contains vague language and extremely broad categories that could easily be used to curtail freedom of expression, for instance requiring media not to contravene or disseminate information that is against Islam, or Somali traditions or traditional ethics,” he said.We urge the Somali authorities to review the draft in order to ensure its conformity with international human rights standards.

The draft law also requires journalists to reveal their sources if published information stirs up public sentiments, and would suspend journalists and other representatives of media organizations accused of violating the media legislation.

Colville said the Somali Government had promised to organize broad consultations prior to the law’s enactment. However, the draft media law was submitted and adopted by the Council of Ministers on 11 July and will now be submitted to the Somali legislature and later to the President. This process is estimated to take less than two months, leaving insufficient time for wide-ranging consultations to take place to improve the law.

OHCHR said it is also concerned about the composition of the proposed regulatory body, the National Media Council, and the selection process for its members, neither of which guarantee its independence.

If it passes in its current form, the Egyptian authorities would have wide-ranging powers over the registration, activities and funding of civil society organizations. It would also allow for the creation of a new Co-ordinating Committee, which is likely to include representatives of security and intelligence agencies.

Those found in violation of the law would face hefty fines and potential prison sentences.

President Morsi announced today that he had referred the law to the Shura Council, Egypt’s nominal upper house of parliament. While the lower house remains dissolved, the Council has the authority to pass new legislation until elections are held to elect a lower house.

“If they pass the law in its current form, the Egyptian authorities would send a message that little has changed since the Mubarak era, when the authorities restricted independent human rights organizations to stop them from exposing abuses,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Deputy Middle East and North Africa Programme Director at Amnesty International.

“Passing a law such as this one in a country with a long history of cracking down on the work of human rights organizations would be incredibly dangerous. If Egypt is serious about moving forward from its recent past, the authorities must turn away from this law and instead enable an environment for NGOs to ensure human rights are protected and promoted.”

The latest draft law, made available on 18 May, largely ignores the concerns raised and recommendations provided by national and international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International – as well the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – to bring the proposal in line with international law and standards.

Under the proposed law, any organization that wants official registration must notify the Ministry of Insurance and Social Affairs, which can raise objections. This procedure is a form of prior authorization, which is inconsistent with international standards.

Article 13 states that any NGO seeking foreign funding must notify a newly created Co-ordinating Committee, which would have the power to approve or reject the request. Under the current law, the authorities have routinely denied or delayed funding to human rights organizations in order to restrict their work.

The law also states that organizations must annually provide copies of their accounts, reports of programmes and sources of funding to the Regional Union (which the law defines as a “voluntary” union created by NGOs) and the Ministry of Insurance and Social Affairs. The Ministry can then object to any of the organization’s decisions and take the matter to court.

Under Article 16 any individual, association, or body would be allowed to examine records of the organization’s activities, after submitting a request to the Ministry of Insurance and Social Solidarity or the Regional Union. In practice, this is likely to open the door for the security agencies to control and interfere in the work of human rights organizations.

The proposed law is particularly draconian in regards to the registration and activities of international NGOs, which in practice can prevent international human rights organizations critical of the country’s human rights record from carrying out any work in Egypt. The law would in effect give the authorities the power to restrict the registration, funding and activities of NGOs which expose human rights violations or defend victims of abuse.

Since the 2011 “25 January Revolution”, the Egyptian authorities have cracked down on independent civil society, including human rights organizations. Several NGOs which are registered with the Ministry of Insurance and Social Affairs, including women’s rights organizations, told Amnesty International that they have been waiting for up to 16 months for permission to obtain funding.

In July 2011, the Egyptian government launched an investigation into the foreign funding of NGOs, leading to an unprecedented series of raids on international and Egyptian civil society groups that December.

Following the raids, 43 staff members of international organizations were put on trial on charges of operating without official registration and obtaining foreign funding without the authorities’ permission. The verdict is expected on 4 June.

Only 28 countries – covering seven per cent of the world’s population – have comprehensive road safety laws on key risk factors: drinking and driving, speeding, and failing to use motorcycle helmets, seat-belts and child restraints, according to the “Global status report on road safety 2013: supporting a decade of action.”

“Political will is needed at the highest level of government to ensure appropriate road safety legislation and stringent enforcement of laws by which we all need to abide,” WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said in a press release.

“If this cannot be ensured, families and communities will continue to grieve, and health systems will continue to bear the brunt of injury and disability due to road traffic crashes.”

The report, which compiles information from 182 countries, is the second in a series analyzing to what extent countries are implementing a number of effective road safety measures.

In terms of laws, 90 countries have motorcycle helmet laws that cover all riders. Some 111 countries have comprehensive seat-belt laws, while 96 countries have a law requiring child restraints, such as a child-safety seat.

The problem, according to the report, is the inadequate enforcement of those laws.

According to the figures cited, while half the countries reviewed were able to cut the number of fatalities, the other half increased, resulting in 1.24 million deaths on the road in 2010.

Of those killed in road traffic crashes, the majority were teenage boys and men younger than 44 years of age.

The report’s authors show that while the majority of accidents are car-related, crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists constitute 27 per cent of all road deaths. That figure rises to 75 per cent in some countries and demonstrates “decades of neglect of the needs of these road users in current transport policies, in favour of motorized transport.”

Geographically, the risk of dying from a traffic injury is highest in the African region and lowest in Europe.

Around 90 per cent of road traffic deaths and injuries occur in low- and middle-income countries, WHO reported last World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims, marked annually on the third Sunday in November.

In his message for the Day, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had commended governments for taking positive steps to address traffic accidents. One hundred countries had pledged in 2011 to save five million lives by implementing road safety strategies and information campaigns at the launch of the Decade of Action for Road Safety, which ends in 2020.

“We reaffirm that human rights, the rule of law and democracy are interlinked and mutually reinforcing and that they belong to the universal and indivisible core values and principles of the United Nations,” stated the Outcome Document, adopted at Monday’s High-Level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Rule of Law.

Heads of State and Government and ministers from nearly 80 nations are attending the meeting, which aims to highlight the essential link between the rule of law at the national and international levels and economic growth, sustainable development and the eradication of poverty and hunger.

“The wider body of international law developed at the United Nations gives the international community a basis to cooperate and peacefully resolve conflicts – and the means to ensure that there is no relapse of fighting,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared at the start of the meeting, held the day before the start of the 67th General Assembly’s General Debate session.

The UN chief called on Member States to commit to the equal application of the law at both the national and international levels without selectivity, uphold the highest standards of the rule of law in their decision-making, and accept the jurisdiction of the Hague-based International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal UN judicial organ set up in 1945 to settle legal disputes submitted by States.

States should also strengthen UN initiatives in the rule of law by training police and enhancing the judiciary in fragile and conflict-torn countries around the world, he said.

Addressing the meeting, the General Assembly’s President Vuk Jeremic warned against seeing international law as a utopian aspiration with little relevance to the conduct of world affairs.

“By strictly adhering to the rule of law, we discourage the recourse to war,” he declared. “To be effective, the corpus of international law must be observed by all Member States – great and small, rich and poor alike.”

The Outcome Document called on all States that had not yet done so to accept the jurisdiction of the Hague-based ICC, an independent international organization that is not part of the UN and tries those accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. So far 121 countries have adhered to the treaty that set up the ICC.

“We commit to ensuring that impunity is not tolerated for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as for violations of international humanitarian law and gross violations of human rights law,” the document declared.

It underscored the sovereign equality of all States, the right to self-determination of peoples under colonial dominion and foreign occupation, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.

It called on States to refrain from promulgating unilateral economic, financial and trade measures that impede full economic and social development, particularly in developing countries, and stressed that the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judicial system are crucial.

The document also emphasized the importance of ensuring that women enjoy the benefits of the rule of law in full equality with men, and that children are protected from discrimination, violence, abuse and exploitation.

“Today’s meeting is a milestone – but it is not an end in itself,” Ban said in concluding his opening remarks. “Our challenge now is to follow up, and continue to deepen and develop the rule of law, this essential foundation for a better future.”

The heads of various UN bodies also addressed the meeting. The ICJ President, Peter Tomka, welcomed Ban’s call for all Member States to accept the Court’s jurisdiction.

Tomka noted that only 67 of the UN’s 193 States – or 34 per cent, including only one permanent member of the Security Council – currently accept the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction. That compares with 59 per cent in 1948, when 34 of the then 58 UN Member States, including four of the five permanent members of the Security Council, recognized its jurisdiction.

The Administrator of the UN Development Programme (UNDP), Helen Clark, whose organization works on rule of law related programmes in over 100 countries by helping to train judges and lawyers and to strengthen national police forces, stressed the fundamental role the issue plays in national development by protecting women from discrimination and righting the wrongs inflicted on the poor and the marginalized.

“Thus rule of law is at the very heart of what is needed for development efforts to be effective,” she said. “Conversely, shortcomings in the rule of law underlie the exclusion, suffering, and poverty of many people.”

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Navi Pillay, warned that rule of law without human rights is only an empty shell, citing her own experience of growing up in South Africa under the Apartheid regime’s veneer of a ‘rule of law’ based on legislation that institutionalized injustice.

“National action as well as international support to strengthen the rule of law on the ground must be based on the body of international human rights law developed mainly under the auspices of the United Nations,” she said, highlighting the need to end impunity.

“While recognizing that the driving force behind this state of affairs is rooted in security concerns, I encourage the Government to review the laws and practices relating to civil society organizations and freedom of assembly, and also to order all security forces to refrain from violating internationally recognized instruments guaranteeing the right to freedom of association,” the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, said at the end of a three-day visit.

She cited Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – a binding treaty that has been ratified by Algeria – as examples of those instruments.

During her visit – the first ever by a UN Human Rights Commissioner – Pillay met with President Abdelaziz Bouteflika and a wide range of Government and judicial officials, parliamentarians and representatives of civil society organizations engaged in human rights work, as well as the head of Algeria’s national human rights institution, the National Consultative Commission for the Promotion of Human Rights.

In her remarks, the human rights chief noted that freedom of expression in relation to the media has improved considerably in recent years, leading to a “feisty, probing and relatively fearless local press,” while emerging new political freedoms have been illustrated by the large number of political parties represented in Algeria’s Parliament since elections in May.

“However, the rights to freedom of association and freedom of assembly for various other sectors of society – such as civil society organizations, human rights defenders and trade unions – is cause for concern and may even have deteriorated over the past year, partly as a result of an apparent clampdown by security forces drawing on the controversial Article 100 of the Penal Code, and partly because of the widely criticized restrictions contained in the new Law on Associations adopted last December,” Pillay said.

She noted that civil society organizations are part of the “life-blood of a free, democratic society” where the human rights of all individuals are upheld in accordance with international standards set by States.

The human rights official particularly highlighted the role played by non-governmental organizations in providing “one of the essential checks and balances that helps create a better human rights environment,” such as through helping fight for the rights of the most vulnerable sections of society, as well as helping uphold the rule of law by exposing corruption and other abuses.

“To fulfil their potential, they must be allowed to operate without undue impediments,” Pillay said. “I have therefore been very concerned to hear that not only are they facing legal and bureaucratic restraints in Algeria, but some of their members are also being frequently harassed, intimidated and arbitrarily arrested by the security forces, and are not being offered sufficient protection against these abusive practices by the existing legal framework.”

In her remarks, the High Commissioner also welcomed Algeria’s ratification of almost all major international human rights treaties, and the fact that, during her visit, the Government had shown interest in ratifying two of the main treaties which it has not yet ratified – the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, with the latter being a mechanism which enables regular unannounced inspections by international and national bodies of places of detention.

“By ratifying this protocol in addition to the parent Convention against Torture, which it ratified in 1989, Algeria would significantly strengthen its defences against any future return to the days when torture was commonplace,” Pillay said.

She added, “Similarly, ratifying the Convention on Enforced Disappearances would signal that the State is equally determined never to see a repetition of the terrible situation in the 1990s when several thousand people were forcibly disappeared by both the rebel forces and state security apparatus.”

Pillay said she was encouraged to hear that the Algerian Government has decided to accept a long-standing request of the independent UN body of experts known as the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, to visit the country to provide advice on how to deal with the issue of enforced disappearances.

“The rule of law is meaningless for people living in poverty without effective access to justice, which is a human right in itself, and essential for tackling poverty,” said the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty, Magdalena Sepúlveda.

“Concrete actions must be taken to ensure that all individuals are empowered to claim their rights, demand effective remedies and accountability,” Sepúlveda said. “Without this, we are left with a two-tier rule of law: a reality for the privileged, but only rhetorical for the poor and excluded.”

In a proposal to Member States, whose representatives will meet at a high-level meeting on the rule of law on 24 September, Sepúlveda called on countries to “ensure that poverty is never a barrier to enjoying the benefits of the rule of law” and to make concrete pledges to improve access to justice by the poorest and most marginalized in their societies.

The high-level meeting, she said, would provide a platform “to turn our vision for more inclusive and equitable societies into reality.” Sepúlveda also welcomed the inclusion of a specific section on access to justice in the outcome document currently being negotiated by States before the meeting, and made recommendations to strengthen its content before the document is adopted by the General Assembly.

Sepúlveda will present her report examining the obstacles to access justice faced by persons living in poverty to the General Assembly next month.

Independent experts, or special rapporteurs like Ms. Sepúlveda, are appointed by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a country situation or a specific human rights theme. They work in an independent and unpaid capacity.

The bill would set up a Temporary Judicial Council to supervise the appointment, promotion, and dismissal of judges. The draft law gives the executive a lesser but still significant role in the composition of the council and fails to provide specific guidelines for the drastic step of removing a judge. As it stands, the measure would leave open the possibility of arbitrary dismissal or transfer, HRW argued.

“The draft law for a Temporary Judicial Council lacks protection against the arbitrary removal or transfer of judges,” said Eric Goldstein, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The National Constituent Assembly should address this shortcoming before passing a law that it defines as temporary but could have lasting impact.”

The assembly’s commission on general legislation started examining draft laws to set up the Temporary Judicial Council in February 2012. On July 27, the assembly’s plenary session began reviewing of the unified draft law submitted by the commission. The rules of procedure require the general assembly to hold a plenary discussion and then vote on the bill article by article.

Under the government of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who was ousted in January 2011, a body called the High Judicial Council served as a vehicle for executive branch to curb judicial independence. The president directly or indirectly appointed 13 of its 19 members. The assembly suspended the High Judicial Council in December.

Under the draft the new council would consist of six members elected directly by judges and five ex-officio members – the president and prosecutor general of the court of cassation; the prosecutor general in charge of judicial affairs; the ministry of justice general inspector; and the president of the Housing Court. The law would create an independent electoral commission to supervise the elections.

However, this proposal is weak with regard to representation of judges when it comes to the all-important area of discipline, Human Rights Watch said. The elected members of the new council would include two judges for each of three judicial grades. When the council sits as a disciplinary body, only the two from the same grade as the magistrate to be disciplined would participate along with the five members appointed by the executive, giving the judges only minority representation in disciplinary proceedings.

The draft furthermore would give the prime minister discretionary power to accept or reject the decisions of the council regarding appointments, promotions, and transfers of judges, thus perpetuating effective executive control over the judiciary.

A positive feature of the draft law is that it would restore the right of judges to appeal decisions of the Judicial Council before the Administrative Tribunal. This would conform with international standards, Human Rights Watch said. For example the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary guarantee the right “to an independent review of decisions of disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings.”

In other respects, however, the draft law does not contain sufficient guarantees for the job security of judges, a pillar of judicial independence. The principle of security of tenure is enshrined in several international and regional standards, such as the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, adopted by the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights. Those principles require that judges be suspended or removed only in exceptional circumstances and according to narrowly crafted objective criteria.

Under Law no. 67-29, the 1967 statute that governs most aspects of the judicial system and still needs to be overhauled, transfers of judges were allowed for “a need within the organization,” a broad concept that under Ben Ali facilitated punitive transfers of judges who acted independently. The draft law contains similarly broad language that permits the transfer of judges for “the requirements of judicial service.”

The draft law also does not sufficiently define the wrongdoings that warrant disciplinary measures, and refers only to current applicable laws. Under the 1967 law, the disciplinary council can take action on “any breach by a member of the judiciary of the duties of his office, or of honor or dignity.” By not specifying wrongdoings or corresponding sanctions, it leaves the door open for the executive to initiate disciplinary proceedings on arbitrary grounds.

The UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers has said that a law governing a judicial system should give detailed guidance on infractions by judges that would trigger disciplinary measures, and the gravity of the infraction necessary to warrant a specific disciplinary measure.

“An independent judiciary is a key pillar of a democratic government,” Goldstein said. “The assembly should adopt strong safeguards for judicial independence.”

On July 16, 2012, the Muscat Court of First Instance convicted five men and one woman on the charge of “defaming the Sultan” following Facebook and Twitter postings that allegedly criticized Oman’s ruler, Sultan Qabus bin Sa`eed Al Sa`eed. The same court had convicted another four activists on the same charge on July 9.

“Like people throughout the region, Omanis are sick and tired of having no say in the governance of their country,” said Nadim Houry, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Rather than listening to legitimate demands and peaceful criticism, Omani authorities are jailing people who speak out.”

The convictions stem from a wave of arrests that began on May 31, when authorities detained at least nine bloggers and writers who criticized the government’s failure to carry out reforms promised in 2011 following nationwide demonstrations. On June 11, the authorities detained at least 22 demonstrators who publicly protested the online activists’ arrests. The verdict in the case against 11 of the protesters is due on July 22.

On July 16, Oman’s official news agency reported that the Muscat Court of First Instance convicted Mohammed al-Badi, Mohammed al-Habsi, Abdullah al-Siyani, Talib al-Abry, Abdullah al-Arimi, and Mona Hardan of “defaming the Sultan” based on article 126 of Oman’s penal code. The court sentenced each of them to one year in prison and a fine of 1,000 Riyals (US$2,600). Hardan, al-Abry, and al-Badi were sentenced to six additional months in prison for violating provisions of Oman’s information crimes law. All six have been reportedly released on bail pending appeal, which is scheduled for September 10.

A lawyer representing one of the defendants told Human Rights Watch and CIHRS that all six convictions were the result of Facebook postings and Twitter comments that authorities deemed to be critical of Sultan Qabus, but that he did not know the specific content of the postings. He said that the authorities have not allowed him to meet with his client since his arrest nor to attend any interrogation sessions.

The July 9 convictions, by the same court, were of Hamud al-Rashidi, a demonstrator, for “defaming the Sultan” and Hamad al-Khorousi, Mahmoud al-Rawahi, and Ali al-Meqbali, all online activists, for “defaming the Sultan” as well as violating provisions of Oman’s information crimes law. The sentences ranged from six months to a year in prison. The court released all four on 1,000 Riyals (US$2,600) bail pending appeal, scheduled for September 15.

A local activist who spoke with al-Rashidi after his release said that the court convicted him on the basis of a series of signs he carried in a June demonstration in front of the public prosecutor’s office in Muscat. One of the signs, photographs of which Human Rights Watch and CIHRS have seen, reads, “Ease [the pressure] on us, shepherd of London,” a reference to a recent visit by Sultan Qabus to the United Kingdom for vacation. The court sentenced al-Rashidi to six months in prison.

The local activist told Human Rights Watch and CIHRS that prison authorities held al-Rashidi in solitary confinement during his six-week detention, forced him to wear a hood while taking him to the bathroom, and subjected him to repeated verbal abuse.

A Muscat-based lawyer with knowledge of the case against al-Khorousi, al-Rawahi, and al-Meqbali told Human Rights Watch and CIHRS that the court sentenced them each to one year in prison for poetry critical of the Sultan that they posted to their Facebook pages. One of al-Khorousi’s poems reads, “Qabus sold the country for [a price] cheaper than al-Biri [an Indian cigarette brand].” Al-Rawahi and al-Meqbali’s poetry has been deleted from their Facebook pages.

“Omani laws should be used to protect the free speech rights of Oman’s citizens rather than shield their ruler from criticism,” said Ziad Abdeltawab, deputy director at CIHRS. “These activists never should have been arrested or convicted in the first place.”

Another 11 activists, including al-Rawahi, face charges of “illegal gathering” and “blocking streets” due to their participation in a peaceful sit-in on July 11 outside a Muscat police station protesting the arrests of the online activists. This group includes the prominent human rights activists Sa`id al-Hashemi, Basma al-Kayoumi, Mukhtar al-Hana’i, and Basima al-Rajhi. Under article 137 of Oman’s Penal Code, which authorities amended in 2011 to increase the sentences, these charges carry a maximum sentence of three years in prison and a fine of 200 Riyals (US$520).

One of the activists arrested on June 11 told Human Rights Watch that the sit-in was on the sidewalk at least 15 meters from the street, and that it was the police who blocked all streets leading to the police station.

All except al-Rawahi were released on bail on June 22. The verdict, initially scheduled for July 11, will be announced by the Muscat Court of First Instance on July 22.

These prosecutions follow statements by government authorities threatening to stamp out public protests and criticism in the Sultanate. On June 4, Muscat’s public prosecutor released a statement saying he would take “all appropriate legal measures” against activists who have made “inciting calls … under the pretext of freedom of expression.” He also said that, “The rise of rumors and incitement to engage in negative behavior eventually harms the nation, its citizens, and the national interests.”

On June 20, the quasi-official National Committee for Human Rights released a statement saying that “There is a difference between freedom of opinion as a right and the practice of this right on the ground …” The committee stated that it supports “a freedom of opinion that pursues the public interest and not one that seeks to injure and insult others.”

From February through April of 2011 Omani activists, inspired by popular revolts in other parts of the Arab world, initiated a series of public demonstrations and nonviolent sit-ins throughout the country demanding an end to corruption, economic reforms, and greater respect for human rights. Security forces forcibly stopped the demonstrations in April, but not before Sultan Qabus initiated a series of economic reforms and a structural change to the Omani parliament that allowed the partially elected lower house to draft legislation for the first time.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed under article 29 of Oman’s Basic Law and under international human rights law. International standards only allow content-based restrictions in extremely narrow circumstances, such as cases of slander or libel against private individuals or speech that threatens national security. Restrictions must be clearly defined, specific, necessary, and proportionate to the threat to the interest protected.

Criminal prosecution for peaceful criticism of public officials violates international human rights standards. While officials should be entitled to the protection of laws on defamation, the standards say they should tolerate a greater degree of criticism than ordinary citizens. This distinction serves the public interest by making it harder to bring a case for speaking critically of public officials and political figures, Human Rights Watch said. It encourages debate about issues of governance and common concern.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee in its General Comment 34 states, “[I]n circumstances of public debate concerning public figures in the political domain and public institutions, the value placed by the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] upon uninhibited expression is particularly high.”

While Oman is not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other important international human rights treaties, they constitute authoritative guidelines reflecting international best practice.

“Over a year ago the Sultan announced a series of reforms aimed at promoting democracy and ending corruption in the Sultanate,” Houry said. “Now his government is punishing people for calling him to account.”