The Use of Sanctions to Protect Journalists

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting on The Use of Sanctions to Protect Journalists. I’m Elizabeth Wilmshurst. I’m a Fellow at the International Law Programme here at Chatham House. What measures can be taken better to project Journalists? That question is one that a High Level Panel on Media Freedom was convened to address last year, at the request of the Canadian and UK Governments, and they have produced a report, and their first report on The Use of Targeted Sanctions to Protect Journalists. And it is that question, whether targeted sanctions, the threat of them, will actually deter abuse against Journalists, that we’ll be discussing at this meeting today.

Just one or two little housekeeping remarks. We’re not under the Chatham House Rule, we’re on the record and, indeed, we are being livestreamed. Feel free to comment via Twitter #CHEvents, and put your phones on silent mode, please. This event is co-hosted, I’m pleased to say, with the International Bar Associations Human Rights Institute, which acts as a Secretariat to the High Level Panel. We have got such distinguished speakers that I hope you and they will not mind if I introduce them just by one line of their ten page CV. And we’ve first got a couple of introductory speakers. Delighted to welcome Baroness Helena Kennedy, who’s going to speak at the podium here. She’s been Director of the IBA Human Rights Institute since 2018 and she’s also a member of the High Level Panel. Helena?

Baroness Helena Kennedy QC

Well, welcome to this really important event. It’s so wonderful to see so many of the people I’ve collaborated with over the years and so many friends in this audience. This is a really important event for the Human Rights Institute, which I’ve now been the Director of for over a – slightly over a year. And it’s important because we’ve come together with the UK Government, the Canadian Government, and increasingly, more governments, in pushing for a real campaign on media freedom around the world. One of the most serious threats to democracy, to the rule of law and human rights, is an assault on media freedom and those with power all too often seek to silence critics of any kind. And so, media freedom is the freedom that provides the platform for all our other freedoms and it’s a bulwark against authoritarianism. At a time when we’re seeing the rise of populism, we’re seeing increased threats to media freedom.

And I’m not going to speak for long. I just wanted to really emphasise what many of you in this room already know, Journalists are being killed, injured and imprisoned in unprecedented numbers in numerous countries, from the monstrous on camera beheadings of Western Journalists by ISIS, to the extrajudicial killing of Jamal Khashoggi, to the less reported, but extensive, slaughter of local Journalists and Stringers in conflicts in failing states around the world. 130 Journalists were killed in the last two years.

We’re also seeing the appropriation of the media by authoritarian rulers in places that they like to call democracies, but the world liberal has been taken out of the rubric describing them, at their own bequest. So, often, we’re seeing the purchasing, the buying up, the appropriation, of the major media outlets by those regimes and by those leaders. Wherever freedom of the press is denied, dissidents are persecuted and minorities are put at risk. And after the media, of course, what we, as Lawyers, know, is that they then come for Lawyers, they come for academics, they come for Judges, the list goes on. It’s the way in which repression operates. But even in mature democracies, the discrediting and threatening of Journalists and news outlets is becoming a commonplace event.

Now, the UK Government has created, with the Government of Canada, a Global Media Freedom campaign and it’s being run under the auspices of UNESCO. Other nations are being recruited to confront what is clearly a crisis of huge proportions. So far, 35 other countries have joined forces in this global campaign. A High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom has been established from around the world and we really couldn’t have a more impressive crowd of Lawyers. I know that some of you might find it hard to imagine being bowled over by Lawyers, but I promise you, these are the good guys and women. It’s an independent body, comprises 15 international Lawyers, academics and Judges, is Chaired by Lord David Neuberger, who was our President of the Supreme Court here in the UK and the Deputy Chair is the Barrister and the UK Special Envoy on Media Freedom, Amal Clooney, a really brilliant International Human Rights Lawyer.

The IBA Human Rights Institute is acting as the Secretariat to this panel and the work that we have undertaken is that over the next – over the – this – the progress of this year, there are going to be a whole set of reports, which will be about how you do strengthen law and also get rid of the bad laws that are used to target Journalists, to target the media, but the ways in which we can, together, try to create the grand rules on the protection of medial freedom. Today we’re launching the first of a series of ground breaking reports and this set of reports is really going to, I think, make a huge difference to way – the way that we are going to create the protections that are necessary.

There are a number of ways of giving teeth to international law and one of the powerful enforcement tools is the use of sanctions. And they’re used, of course, as we know, against nations, which abuse the rule of law and, increasingly, we could use them more effectively for abuses of human rights. A newer development is the use of such sanctions against individuals who abuse human rights, called Magnitsky law and we have introduced it and seen it introduced in different nations in the world, and you will hear a bit about that in the course of the description of this particular report.

I’m delighted to see so many of you here. I want to especially say the thrill that I have in seeing Maria Ressa, who is one of the heroic Journalists in our world, a Journalist hero who’s currently being persecuted and facing serious charges in the Philippines. It’s also great to see our Minister from the Foreign Office here, present, and I welcome him, too.

So, it’s great to see you all here. You’ll have an opportunity of asking many questions, but I just wanted to say that the International Bar Association of Human Rights Institute is very proud to be involved in this really important project. And we have a hashtag IBAHRI, I-B-A-H-R-I, if any of you are sending out messages about today’s event. Thank you [applause].

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you. We’re now delighted to hear from Maria Ressa, who Helena has just introduced. Thank you [applause].

Maria Ressa

I’m going to squeeze in front, just ‘cause it’s taller than I am. So, I guess, first of all, thank you for asking me to speak, because I feel like when I got this copy, I read it voraciously, immediately, because we have to find solutions in the long-term, medium-term and short-term. And I’ll tell you first-hand what we’ve gone through. I want you to listen to the findings of the use of sanctions to protect Journalists. I think that’s incredibly important. If you’ve been watching what’s happened in the Philippines, our President reacted very quickly to the first little nudge of sanctions.

For me, in particular, today is incredibly important, because a year ago today I was arrested. Exactly a year ago today, and I was denied bail, even though I should’ve been released immediately. It followed a year when I had 11 cases and investigations filed against me. I’ve been a Journalist for almost 35 years and I have been doing exactly the same thing. If anything, it’s more important now for Journalists to do what we’re supposed to do, right, the mission of journalisms that facts matter and that we shouldn’t be polarised if we don’t have the facts. The accelerant of technology has shifted things so much, but we all live in the real world and the real world has become incredibly difficult to fight for facts.

So, I’m largely free. Did I mention I posted bail eight times to be here in front of you today? And as Amal told me, on Christmas Eve, 20 minutes before Christmas Eve, she sent me a report that said, “Oh, by the way, we found another 20 years that you could be in prison.” I could go to a maximum – I could go to jail for a maximum of 83 years, but every time I see Amal, she keeps adding numbers to it. So, I will – please, I am so looking forward to the work that you’ve done and thank you so much, ‘cause as the world of journalism has gone through creative destruction, so has rule of law and the profession of law, so, please give us new tools to protect us. Thank you [applause].

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you so very much for those remarks. Amal Clooney will give us an overview of the report and the need for it. Thank you. Amal, as Helena has said, noted [applause] Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers. Amal.

Amal Clooney

Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I think we’ve already established that nobody wants to receive a Christmas message from me, so, we don’t always have good news. It’s a pleasure to be here with such eminent colleagues and with my brave client, Maria, who faces, every day, the challenges that we’re here to discuss. Maria currently faces, as she said, over 80 years in prison, although her only crime is being a Journalist and speaking the truth. The first of seven cases pending against her will conclude in the coming weeks and could lead to her immediate imprisonment, all because of an article published on Maria’s news site that said a Filipino Judge used a car that was registered to an alleged drug dealer. This, according to the authorities, constituted the crime of cyber libel, even though Maria did not write the article and cyber libel was not a crime at the time the article was published. None of the other charges against her are any more convincing, but together, they expose her to a lifetime behind bars.

Now, as many of you know, what’s happening to Maria is emblematic of a global trend. Last year I defended two Reuters’ Journalists imprisoned on spurious charges in Myanmar. In this extraordinary case their jailer, Aung San Suu Kyi, was a former political prisoner held in the same prison that they were held in decades earlier. And yet, it took 16 months to secure their release, after they were imprisoned for the crime of exposing the Army’s brutality against Rohingya victims of genocide.

In the past year, my foundation’s TrialWatch initiative has monitored prosecutions of Radio Broadcasters, charged with espionage in Cambodia, a Journalist imprisoned for tweeting a call for revolution in Nigeria, and an opposition affiliated Journalist, prosecuted for the crime of having an abortion in Morocco. In the last few weeks, we have learnt that a Journalist was charged with crimes against the state for reporting on the coronavirus in Malaysia, Former Guardian Journalist, Glenn Greenwald, was charged with cybercrimes, after criticising the Bolsonaro regime in Brazil, and that Saudi officials hacked the phone of the owner of The Washington Post, whose Reporter, Jamal Khashoggi, was tortured to death. The list goes on and this is happening all over the world.

In the last two years, more than 130 Journalists have been killed, 300 imprisoned for their work. Freedom House reports that over the past decade, the most repressive regimes are becoming more repressive, while free countries have regressed and even leading democracies, with strong traditions of protecting free speech, are, in some cases, clamping down on those who investigate and publish sensitive stories.

Many of you here are aware of this global gag on speech and some, like Maria, are its victims. So, what can be done? As Special Envoy on Media Freedom, I worked with Lord Neuberger to convene a panel of experts from all over the world, who would come together to generate ideas. If world leaders are becoming more united, more determined, more innovative, in finding ways to silence the press, shouldn’t we, defenders of the press, do the same? If international human rights are supposed to provide some minimum protection for all people, how can we make them more relevant?

The Panel’s work is based on two guiding principles. First, if international legal rules are to inspire and constrain the conduct of states, they need to be clear and accessible. So, over the course of the year, we will publish reports setting out the international free speech standards that apply to laws criminalising sedition, fake news, hate speech, espionage, and other laws used to clamp down on Journalists. Second, if international standards are to protect Journalists in the real world, they need to be more consistently enforced. Currently, enforcement is highly discretionary and selective. States that purport to champion media freedom, often do so only if there is public pressure, safety in numbers, and a negligible impact on diplomatic relationships and trade. This record sheet could be improved if states made concrete commitments, when it comes to five specific enforcement mechanisms: imposing sanctions on those who repress the media, issuing visas to Journalists at risk, providing Consular assistance to Journalists arrested abroad, supporting a global system for reporting on Journalists’ arrests and trials, and creating a mechanism for international and investigations of persistent or egregious attacks on the press.

Today, we are launching the first Panel report, with our recommendations on the use of sanctions to protect Journalists. It makes the case that sanctions can be a valuable tool in enforcing human rights and that they should be used to protect the right to a free press. The sanctions we are talking about are targeted sanctions, not sanctions against an entire country, but the freezing of assets and the denial of vias to individuals responsible for human rights abuse. Such sanctions can be imposed by an individual state or a group of states acting together, but they do not need to go through the UN, meaning that if the Security Council is at an impasse, which it has been on so many critical issues, there is still the potential to act. Sanctions are a way, not only to name and shame, but also impose a cost on certain behaviour and, in doing so, deter its repetition. As a fellow Barrister has put it, “If all advanced democracies with desired banks, schools and hospitals, used sanctions against human rights abusers, the pleasures available to the cruel and corrupt would be considerably diminished. They will not be imprisoned, but they will not be able to spend their profits where they wish, nor travel the world with impunity. They may then come to recognise that violating human rights is a game not worth the candle.”

I have seen, in my own work as a Human Rights Lawyer, how useful such sanctions can be. Often, the spectre of their potential use is a game changer, with the state paying closer attention to a case and in some cases, being much more willing to resolve it, as soon as potential sanctions are on the table. And yet, this tool is hardly ever used to protect Journalists and free speech around the world. So far, only a handful of states, including the US, the UK, and Canada, have laws that allow sanctions to be imposed against human rights abusers globally, and with limited exception, only the US and Canada have used them to date. Our view is that these countries have set a positive example and our first recommendation is that the EU, as well as leading governments that champion human rights, but act as a banking centre and playground for targets should adopt such laws. And we believe that the UK should operationalise its global human rights sanctions regime as soon as possible.

We also provide recommendations on how sanctions should be designed to maximise their ability to protect Journalists and advance human rights. We propose that sanctions should be permissible whenever sufficiently serious human rights abuses are committed, that sanctions should apply not only when Journalists are killed or tortured, but also, when they are locked up on false pretences or when the media is silenced through shutdowns of news sites or the internet. And we recommend that, where appropriate, the sanctions net should catch companies, as well as individuals, terrorist groups, as well as government officials, and the network of collaborators, who facilitate these crimes.

Other recommendations seek to limit the extent to which sanctions powers can be misused. So, in addition to stressing the need for appropriate due process protections, we recommend mechanisms on a broad and objective – that will help to apply sanctions on a broad and objective basis. For example, the Panel believes that a Non-Governmental Expert Committee responsible for recommending targets and co-ordinating evidence could improve the process and create space for governments to impose sanctions, even against nationals of friendly states.

I look forward to discussing these recommendations with you today, particularly those of you here who are Journalists. I took up my role on this legal panel because I thought there was an opportunity to make a difference to your ability to do your job without fear of persecution. The Panel’s body of work is based on consultations with Media Lawyers, Judges, academics and Journalists about what we can most helpfully deliver. Over the coming year, we will work hard to produce solid advice and recommendations, but we cannot change laws and we cannot make policy. So, the question of whether Journalists like Maria can do their work, can be free from arrest and be safe from harm, will depend on what governments will decide to do next, not just governments like her own that is at war with the media, that are at war with the media, but also those who claim they are not. Thank you [applause].

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you very much. Now, our next speaker, all the way across the Atlantic, is Professor Sarah Cleveland, and Professor of Constitutional and Human Rights Law at Columbia Law School, New York.

Professor Sarah Cleveland

Thank you and good afternoon, everyone. It’s a privilege to be part of the High Level Panel, as well as part of this conversation. I wanted to underscore the fact that targeted sanctions of the type that we’re talking about are not a new idea. They have been around for a long time and they have been applied in many contexts. But the message that is being sent by this report is that targeted sanctions should be recognised as a tool that is available to help ensure the protection of Journalists and media freedom around the world. It is there, it has been used in other contexts, and we want to focus attention on its availability for this purpose, to raise the cost for people who would violate the rights of Journalists and the free press.

Now, the US has been one of the models for the proposals in the report. The US, of course, has had various sanctions regimes for human rights and other reasons, in place for many years. The US has laws on the books that allow for the imposition of sanctions against particular countries. A historic example was the Federal Burma Act. The US also has statutes, as well as Executive Orders in place, allowing for sanctions for particular purposes, whether they are corruption or terrorist activity, and so forth. And a number of those laws also provide for the imposition of targeted sanctions for human rights violations. But the most significant piece of legislation, in that regard, is the Global Magnitsky Act of 2016, which was adopted after the murder of Mr Magnitsky in Russia. Congress originally legislated sanctions in that particular case and then adopted a law providing for – allowing for the imposition of targeted sanctions for violations of gross human rights anywhere in the world. And the Magnitsky Act allows for two types of sanctions to be imposed, which are essentially, the types of sanctions that are being recommended in the report. One is visa bans, denial of travel to the particular country, and the other is asset freezes. And in the US context, that not only means that your bank account and assets in the US are frozen, it also means you cannot make any transactions with US currency or engage in any transactions with any US persons or entities. So, depending on the global financial status of a country and the UK, obviously, is in a similar position, in this regard, these sanctions can be quite powerful.

Now, the Magnitsky Act has been implemented by an Executive Order, which allows for sanctions to be imposed for serious human rights violations, defined as extrajudicial killings, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged arbitrary detention or other serious violations of human rights. It allows for the imposition of sanctions on non-state actors and entities, including companies, and also, with respect to persons providing secondary support, contributing financially or otherwise or materially to serious human rights violations. There’s a congressional oversight provision, which is Congress can provide the information to the Executive Branch in making these determinations. Congress can also request that the Executive Branch make a determination and report back to Congress, regarding whether the Executive Branch has determined that an individual has violated – has committed a serious human rights violation and, if so, whether any sanctions will be imposed.

Now, some of you may know that Congress attempted to use this tool, in the context of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the Executive Branch, the Trump Administration, refused to provide a report to Congress in this context, as they have refused to provide so much information to Congress, in some many contexts. I don’t think that is necessarily the precedent for the future. I think future Executives will be more co-operative. But even in that context, the US Executive did impose asset freeze on 17 Saudi individuals and a travel ban on 16 named individuals. These are available on the Treasury Department website. Germany, France, the UK and in the Schengen area, also imposed sanctions for the Khashoggi murder, as did Lithuania.

Now, quickly, just a few examples of human rights sanctions that have been imposed. In addition to the Khashoggi murder, sanctions have been imposed on individuals for participating in extrajudicial killings against the Rohingya in Myanmar, against three Turkish officials for Turkey’s military incursion into Syria in this past October. Five Judges and two Prosecutors were sanctioned for their involvement in the Magnitsky trial, resulting in a flagrant violation of the right to a fair trial in Russia. A Slovak businessman and his six companies were sanctioned for involvement in the murder of a Journalist, who was investigating corruption by those companies. South Sudanese Security Force members have been sanctioned for extrajudicial killings, including for the purpose of silencing the press and a businessman, Benjamin Bol Mel, was also sanctioned for contributing to these violations and corruption by the South Sudanese President.

We also note that systemic restrictions on free press, such as internet shutdowns, could give rise to sanctions in particularly severe situations and as a precedent for this, the US, the UK, Canada and the EU all have issued sanctions, targeted sanctions, against Iran, responding to its widespread internet censorship and limits on access to an independent press and media. Thank you.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you [applause]. If I could just ask one legal question before we move on? Supposing I am targeted by the Magnitsky Act, the existing Act, and my property is frozen, my assets are frozen, and supposing the government has got it wrong. Sometimes governments do. Can I challenge that asset freeze, at the moment, under the US Magnitsky Act?

Professor Sarah Cleveland

Yes, there is – OFAC, the Treasury Office, does have a procedure for administrative review. There also is the capacity, in the US system, to bring a legal challenge to sanctions listings. The effectiveness of such a challenge may depend who you are and what your relationship is with the United States, complicated area of law. I think, in general, the report, although we don’t go into due process issues specifically, due process is also a human rights concern, obviously, and one would want there to be sufficient transparency and sufficient opportunity to challenge a sanctions listing to ensure that these tools were not being used arbitrarily.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you very much. Now, we’re moving to The Honourable Irwin Cotler, who is also a member of the High Level Panel, who’s Chair of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights and was formerly Minister of Justice and Attorney-General in Canada. Thank you, Irwin.

The Honourable Irwin Cotler

Thank you and I’m delighted [applause] – I’m also delighted to participate in the common cause, which brings us together, effectively, the struggle against the cultures of corruption and criminality and the impunity, which underpin them, and which find increasing expression on the assaults on Journalists and journalism. Where the vast majority of the murders in 2019 and before, have, effectively, gone unpunished, where Journalists are increasingly silenced, intimidated and imprisoned for a – from a panoply of threats and actions. The whole resulting, of what I recall, and Amal has really compellingly articulated this, a global assault on media freedom, an assault on freedom of expression and the public right to know, where the very constituents of liberal democracy, the right to truth itself, are under attack. Accordingly, targeted sanctions that can protect, deter, condemn and punish human rights violations and human rights violators, those that are assaulting, increasingly, freedom of expression, have emerged not only as an important justice and accountability mechanism, but I would say an imperative one. Indeed, such targeted sanctions, as Sarah’s described them, the manner of travel bans and asset freezes, can be protective, as well, of a country’s security, integrity, economy, media freedom, indeed of its democracy itself, at the same time as it holds the human rights violators in other countries to account.

It is only appropriate, in speaking of the experience in Canada, while here in the UK, that this gathering has been held here, because the genesis for Magnitsky sanctions in Canada originated, effectively, in an encounter that I had with Bill Browder in 2010. I’d come to appear before a con – the UK Parliament, met with Bill Browder, who inspired me, as it was in the wake, then, of the torture and murder of Sergei Magnitsky, to initiate a Justice for Sergei movement in Canada, which resulted in 2011 tabled a private members’ bill, then, in the opposition, ‘Justice for Sergei Magnitsky’. In 2012, Boris Nemtsov, leading Russian Democrat, came to Canada, as he did to US and Europe, to support our Magnitsky legislation and then issued what I thought was a compelling characterisation of the legislation in the face of Russian criticism. He said this legislation was “pro-Russian legislation”. It was “the most pro-Russian legislation that you can have”, because it was, “protective of the Russian people”, at the same time as I said it would be protective of the Canadian security, economy, media freedom and the like.

In 2015, following the tragic assassination of Boris Nemtsov, a resolution was unanimously adopted in the Canadian Parliament, moving us for Justice for Sergei Magnitsky legislation re: Russia, to global Justice for Sergei Magnitsky legislation, along the lines that the US had adopted and reflecting the legislation in many of its particulars. In 2017, the legislation was adopted unanimously in Canada and an interesting footnote to that, because while the legislation was moving towards adoption, the Russian Embassy in Canada and President Putin himself, threatened Canada and Canadians with retaliatory measures, if we were to adopt this legislation. Our Raoul Wallenberg All Party Parliamentary Caucus for Human Rights then asked the Canadian parliamentarians to not only adopt the legislation, but if they could, to adopt it unanimously, so as to send a message to the Russian leadership that we will not be intimidated in this regard. And I’m delighted that the Global Justice for Sergei Magnitsky legislation was adopted unanimously, in both the House and the Senate and immediately thereafter, received royal assent.

And so, may I, at this point, conclude with some of the lessons learned and action to be taken, drawn from the Canadian experience. The first is the importance of government, parliament, civil society, all relevant stakeholders working together for the adoption and implementation of such legislation, which, in Canada, has been used to sanction human rights violators, Ministers, Legislators, Prosecutors, and Judges and the like, in countries such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Myanmar.

I might just, on the matter of the Khashoggi sanctions, because we adopted, also, sanctions similar to the United States, exactly the same officials, but was in – what was interesting was that in the summer of 2018, the Foreign Minister of Canada, Chrystia Freeland, at the time, tweeted a call for the release of the Badawis. The Saudi Arabian authorities erupted in fury, objecting to Canadian Ambassador, recalling their own Ambass – suspending all trade and investment. I mention this, because not one democracy at that time came to Canada’s defence. And as I wrote at the time, it was the silence of the democracies that enabled the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to feel that Saudi Arabia could respond with impunity and that led us down the road to the murder of Khashoggi.

Second thing is that the Canadian legislation I think is important not only to combat the culture of criminality and corruption, but to make the Canadian Government and Parliament the pursuers of international justice, as well as domestic justice. In other words, it is an important strategic development in our foreign policy as a whole.

Third, to not only prevent and deter human rights violations abroad, as Boris Nemtsov said, “This is progression legislation,” but to hold the – uphold the rule of law, justice and accountability in Canada itself, through the visa bans, asset freezes and the like.

The fourth thing was while such legislation does not bind the Canadian Government, it does empower the Canadian Government and Parliament to be protective of human rights and not be the enablers of human rights violations, which is occurring so much, in terms of the silence of democracies.

Fifth, even in a handful of states in which such Magnitsky sanctions exist, such as the US, Canada, now the UK Global Magnitsky sanctions, regrettably, they have rarely been used to protect Journalists or to counter systemic attacks against the media, which underpins the whole importance of this report, with respect to the sanctioning of human rights violators, who are particularly assaulting freedom of expression. Such targeted sanctions can be – have not been used, for example, to sanction the murder of 50 Journalists or the imprisonment of any of the 250 Journalists in 2019, which I think inspires us to ensure everything that Amal has spoken about, about the importance of this report in its implementation.

And finally, and this is something that I’ve learned in my own representation of human rights defenders and Journalists abroad, the adoption of such sanctions will send a message to human rights defenders and the Journalists among them that they are not alone. That we stand in solidarity with them, that we will not relent in our pursuit of justice on their behalf, and that the implementation of such sanctions is not only an international responsibility, in the pursuit of justice and accountability, but it will combat the cultures of criminality and corruption and the impunity that underpin it. Thank you [applause].

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you very much, and now, our final speaker, Lord Neuberger, David Neuberger, who is the Chair of the High Level Panel and was, of course, formerly, the President of the UK Supreme Court.

Lord David Neuberger

Thank you. Anyone who has listened to these previous speakers will appreciate the awesome responsibility of chairing this panel. Awesome in the traditional sense, as much as the more modern sense. I think, particularly as Lawyers, Politicians, Journalists, but probably everyone, realises, it is much easier to formulate principles that everyone will agree with or most people will agree with, right thinking people will agree with and – than it is to carry them out and put them into effect. It’s not that difficult to identify what human rights should consist of, what laws should be, but it’s much more difficult to enforce them, both in terms of providing for ways of enforcing and actually carrying out the enforcing. And for that reason, I think this sanctions report is very important, because it does ensure, as far as we can, that there is a mechanism for giving effect to what I imagine everybody in this room believes in. And at this time, as the speakers have emphasised already, it could not be more important to identify such sanctions.

So far as the UK is concerned, our legislation is not that dissimilar from what has been described as the US and the Canadian legislation. We have the Sanctions Act of 2018. The government has made it clear that it will be implemented through secondary legislation, which originally awaited Brexit. Now that that’s happened, we look forward to what we hope is a very effective statutory instrument with teeth. So much has been said already, that I have nothing further to add at this stage. Thank you very much [applause].

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Particular thanks for being brief.

Lord David Neuberger

Indeed.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Because we do want now to have time for questions and comments. I wonder if we can have a little bit of light, so, I can actually see? Thank you, and the first question is going to come from me, because I’m delighted to say that we have a Minister of the UK Government here, who is, I don’t know how, but who is going to be able to give a response to the report already, Lord Ahmad. Have we got a microphone?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Maybe if I – shall I just come up and…

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Yes.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

…speak here?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Please do.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

It might be easier [pause]. Well, Elizabeth, thank you and I’m delighted to be here. Many of you know there’s a small matter of a reshuffle going on down the road, so I’m certainly pleased to be here in my current capacity. It’s very nice to be somewhere like this as Minister responsible for human rights, as well. May I firstly say a huge thank you to you, Elizabeth, for hosting us here and to Chatham House. It’s great to see a room filled with Journalists. I’m also glad to say it’s a room filled with Journalists, who won’t be asking the Minister all the questions, which is a novel situation. But I think it’s right. I was there when we launched this campaign and seeing where we’ve got to it today with so much still to do, it’s heartening to see the momentum which has been achieved. And in this regard, on behalf of the government, may I first and foremost put on record our thanks to all the members of the High Level Panel for their report. In particular, if I may, I’m grateful to the Chair, Lord Neuberger, for chairing the Panel and to Amal for her work as Deputy Chair. And if I may add onto that, she’s also the UK Government’s Special Envoy on Media Freedom. And, of course, my very good friend, and I’m allowed to call her my very good friend, because we’re out of the Chamber at the moment, you can normally only revert – refer to friends on your side, but Helena Kennedy, Baroness Kennedy’s, been a great asset. But there’s an added advantage, as a Minister in the House of Lords, I look towards Lord Neuberger and Baroness Kennedy, they can often hold me to account, not just on the stage here, but directly in the Chamber and I can tell you, they’re doing a sterling job in that respect.

But since last year’s Global Media Conference, this eminent group have generously dedicated their time and their considerable legal expertise to the practical and legal aspects of this incredibly important issue. We’ve already heard and directly about some of the accounts and, in particular, having you here today, Maria, I pay tribute to your courage, in this respect. I think we all acknowledge that. But you’re a one example of the kind of things that Journalists have to go through. Why? Simply for doing their job. As a longstanding champion of media freedom and human rights, the United Kingdom Government very much welcomes the Panel’s work to shine a direct light on human rights sanctions and how they can be used, as we’ve seen already from the US and Canadian experience, to protect Journalists and, indeed, other media workers.

The government also wholeheartedly agrees that sanctions are a powerful tool from cam – for converting impunity. Mr Cotler mentioned that specifically and he gave some good examples, and to they do bring direct accountability for those who commit serious human rights violations or abuses against the Jour – against Journalists, against media workers.

Now, on the specific issue of the UK policy, as you’ve already heard from Lord Neuberger, we’ve already passed the actual primary legislation to enable sanctions to be applied within the UK. I remember it well; I took the legislation through myself in the Upper House. But human rights sanctions have also been a particular personal passion of our Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, for many years. And for those who don’t yet know, he has been reappointed as Foreign Secretary, so that relationship very much continues, and that’s why he was very much determined. I remember a very early conversation with the Foreign Secretary on this very issue, about introducing a Global Human Rights Magnitsky style sanctions regime and this has been particularly a key priority. And I agree with Professor Cleveland upon – about the effectiveness, as we’ve seen elsewhere. And as we develop this regime in the UK, one thing I’ve certainly found is that the best way that sanctions work is working in conjunction with partners and there’s no good having a sanction scheme in one part of the world, which then doesn’t apply elsewhere. And I think we need to ensure the governance of how we work globally is something we look at very closely.

The issue of due process, again, was mentioned in various discussion. Let me assure everyone that the 2018 Sanctions Act specifically does allow for designated persons to challenge their listing. Elizabeth said, “Sometimes governments get it wrong.” I heard that point very clearly. But it is important that in our legislation, in all seriousness, we have the process established, which allows any designated person to actually seek review, whether that’s done through an administrator process, which our legislation allows for, or indeed, if that is not something that achieves a desired outcome, there will be a process available to challenge their listing in UK courts as well. I mentioned that just briefly, because I think it is important to ensure that whilst we talk about applying sanctions, where there are issues where sanctions perhaps have not been applied rightly or, indeed, the individual feels injustice, that there is a process open to them.

This will – from our perspective in the UK, we believe that having a sanctions regime will also send an important signal of UK intent. It will be a tangible sign, as Amal said, that we’re not sanctioning a particular country, we’re sanctioning individuals within those countries. We believe it will act as a force for good, promote our values and, indeed, defend international rule of law. And I can assure you, as the Minister responsible for human rights, this has been also a particular personal passion for me.

Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to hear from others, as well. If I have to dive out, you know what’s going on there. I’ll let you read into that as you judge. But I end just by saying this, that a free and independent media, you know, we, as Politicians, get scrutinised. We are held accountable. Sometimes we don’t like it, but it’s part and parcel of what defines a vibrant democracy and therefore, it’s important that governments, as we heard from the Panel, stand up, along with other partners, all societies stand up together to ensuring the freedom of press and the freedom of the media. It’s an essential agredent – ingredient of a vibrant and healthy democracy, but it’s also a huge benefit to society as a whole, as well, because in seeking the truth, and we’ve seen Journalists lose their lives, lose their lives simply for doing their job, that Journalists need to be protected.

It’s part of what we seek to do, in defending and strengthening our democracy, our human rights and, indeed, our freedoms. And that’s why we must work together to uphold and defend media freedom and the vital work that Journalists do around the world and that’s why, again, from – on behalf of the UK Government, I know I speak for the Canadian Government, as well, if I may, Mr Cotler, I’m sure, yeah, that resonates with you, that we pay tribute to the incredible work the Panel is doing and we continue to look forward to working with you, as you go from further reports, and indeed, you go through your work and programme. And we do hope that this particular initiative is something supported by other countries around the world, as well.

I end, if I may, on a personal reflection. One of the great inspirations in my life has been the personal example of someone who was a Barrister himself, but – and I speak of Mohandas Mahatma Gandhi Ji, and, of course, he was here at Lincoln’s Inn many years ago, but he does inspire people. And so, in your darkest hours of many in this room, when you are challenged by the defence of human rights, I’m reminded of one of his most famous quotes, when he said, “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others,” and that’s exactly what our Panel is doing, so thank you [applause].

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you. Thank you so much. Now, we do have the Canadian representative here, but first, I’m going to ask the two speakers, sorry, the two in the audience who put up their hands. Have we got microphones? And if I could ask for names, affiliations and please be terribly brief, because we haven’t got long.

John Wilson

Right, I will. John Wilson, a Journalist and a Member of Chatham House. How are you going to enforce or implement sanctions against people in a country like China, where the country itself does not accept, as the rule of law, the values which we espouse in the West?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you very much for that one and we’ll take the other one here.

William Horsley

Thank you very much. William Horsley, Journalist and press freedom advocate. I’d like to ask Amal Clooney and the Panel about the problem of normalisation of non-compliance and aggression and perhaps what role there should be for the inter-govern – international organisations? Some of course with – which are treaty-based, like the Council of Europe, others, the OSCE, which has found a mechanism to try and uphold freedom of expression and safety of Journalists. Others, perhaps like the Commonwealth and the Francophonie, which have not been willing to do so. And what risk is there that that kind of dialogue within those organisations, without it being on the agenda, or without having mechanisms of enforcement, can actually encourage normalisation of non-compliance and encourage impunity?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you very much. I’m going to give those two questions to the Panel now. Sarah, just because you’re next to me, the question on enforcement and implementation in countries like China?

Professor Sarah Cleveland

So, the core feature of these types of sanctions is that it restricts the ability of an individual to interact with the sanctioning country. It doesn’t require the co-operation of a state where the violations occurred, right? And this – the core pillar underlying the sanctions proposal is that these sanctions should be used to apply and enforce core international human rights protections that are globally established and recognised. And so, you can impose sanctions on a Chinese national and what it means is, they can’t spend US dollars, they can’t use property in the United States or the UK or Canada, they can’t travel to that particular country. And as the Minister indicated, obviously, such a sanctions tool is more effective if it is imposed by multiple countries, rather than simply one. But a few countries exercise a lot of power in an magnetic appeal, with respect to these types of sanctions and so, their effectiveness can be outsized, even if they come from just one country.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

And they’re enforceable because they’re within the government’s…

Professor Sarah Cleveland

Exactly.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

…remit. Amal, do you want to do international organisations?

Amal Clooney

Yeah, I mean, look…

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Normalisation.

Amal Clooney

…if the UN system were working the way we would like, if the Security Council were not constantly blocked through vetoes, if there were – if the International Criminal Court had universal jurisdiction, we wouldn’t need these, we wouldn’t need a media freedom campaign, led by a number of states, we wouldn’t need regional organisations to play such an important role. But in the absence of these global mechanisms working the way we would like, I do think organisations like the EU, if the EU adopted this kind of sanctions regime, I think that would go a long way. I think if the Commonwealth, I know the Commonwealth Journalists Association has produced some very strong principles on media freedom, if those were adopted at the next CHOGM, that would be very helpful. So, I think, in the absence of a working global mechanism to enforce human rights, we do need to look for coalitions of the committed and institutions that are based on common liberal values, to fill some of the gaps.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you. I can see all these hands. Now back to me. I’m going to ask the Canadian representative, if I may, from the High Commission, if she would kindly give the Canadian Government response to the report.

Canadian High Commission Representative

Thank you very much, Elizabeth, and thank you Chatham House for this event. I want to thank this very esteemed Panel for the insightful report and also the opportunity to offer brief remarks on behalf of Canada. We’re very pleased to see that the High Level Panel of lever – Legal Experts has chosen sanctions as the topic of its first report, in what will be a series of reports. And we are pleased, also, to see that the Panel benefitted from Canadian expertise, through the participation of the Honourable Irwin Cotler. We welcome the independent arm’s length role of the Panel, as it seeks to advice states on how to better protect Journalists and media freedom around the world. We will be incorporating its work into our own policy development.

Canada strongly believes that media freedom remains a cornerstone of democratic societies. Journalists play an essential role in defending and advancing the truth. Journalists will also be allowed to report facts freely, independently and without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, and all too often, the right to freedom of expression of Journalists continues to be violated. In this context, the international community needs to change behaviours by working collectively and implementing a wide array of robust mechanisms to protect Journalists and defend press freedom. It is our view that sanctions can serve as a valuable tool to influence behaviour and promote compliance with international laws, norms and standards, by seeking to end impunity.

In Canada, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act provides the Canadian Government with a powerful foreign policy response to defend human rights and to combat acts of significant corruption internationally. We are supportive of efforts around the world to adopt legislation to enable countries to impose sanctions. Sanctions serve to hold to account individuals responsible for, and implicit in, human rights violations. Sanctions, when applied in a co-ordinated way, make us more effective. To this end, we have worked closely with our partners, including in the UK and in the EU, as they have considered their own sanctions legislation. Canada is also supportive of applying sanctions, in response to human rights violations against Journalists. And as already mentioned, Canada did impose sanctions in November 2018 against 17 Saudi nationals, in response to the extrajudicial killing of Jamal Khashoggi. We appreciate the thoughtful and thorough examination of the issues presented in the report and take note of the recommendations. We look forward to the continued work of the Panel, particularly as Canada prepares to host the second Global Conference for Media Freedom in Quebec City later this year. Thank you.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Great, thank you very much [applause]. Okay, someone has had his hand up down there for a long time and then there’s a lady here. If someone else has got a – yeah, okay.

Euan Grant

Yeah, and thank you very much. The name’s Euan Grant, Chatham House Member and former Law Enforcement Intelligence Analyst, covering the ex-Soviet States. My question leads on from the comment made about the Slovak Journalist, Ján Kuciak, and his fiancé. Is there any chance of developing that, which I think is a very powerful case, which has had attention, but not the attention it deserves, to throw into the face of the authoritarian states that the European and NATO countries are looking at this very seriously? And so, we’re not – we can’t be accused of hypocrisy, we can then turn to the real authoritarians and say, “What about you?” and a partial defence, when they start taking hostages in counter reprisals. Thank you.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you very much, and over here?

Cinzia De Santis

Yes, hi, my name is Cinzia De Santis, from a charity, Healing Venezuela. The question is for Mr Cotler. Canada has been very good at raising the flag about the crisis in Venezuela, but did sanctions work there to protect Journalists? What else can be done? Isn’t it too late for Venezuela?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you very much, and there’s a lady just there.

Ameera Gudra

Thank you. Ameera Gudra, a Journalist and a human right defenders and I just want to thank you all and for the work and this opportunity. And I just want to say, like sanctions – it’s a comment, sanction can really works and international jurisdiction it can work. Syrian Centre for Media and the Freedom for Expression two weeks ago, and it’s over three years, force a shift arresting of one of the criminal accused to participating kidnapping of Lawyer and the human right defender, Razan Zeitouneh, in Syria in 2013 and now a case is going to be – to hold in France. He’s not a Syrian, the perpetrator – he’s not French, he’s a Syrian, as a Journalist, is a Syrian, and the crime, it didn’t happen in France, but yet, an action can happen, even after seven years. So, thank you so much and all efforts really can make a difference. Thank you so much.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you so much for that. Amal, can I give you the question about the Slovak?

Amal Clooney

Yeah, so…

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

No?

Amal Clooney

…could you just repeat what the question was? I understand the example. Did you – do you get what the question was?

Professor Sarah Cleveland

I can.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

No, well, we’ll give it to Sarah, here, so, just for the…

Amal Clooney

Sorry.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

…shortage of time, yeah?

Professor Sarah Cleveland

Just very briefly, I think it’s an excellent idea and I think maybe one that the High Level Panel should consider to further develop and publicise an example within Europe, right, which would make the point that these aren’t simply about tools that the West imposes on non-Western countries, but that this is a universal concern. I think it’s an excellent point, thank you.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you. Irwin, do sanctions work? Did they work in Venezuela, in relation to Venezuela?

The Honourable Irwin Cotler

Well, Venezuela is perhaps a country where more officials were sanctioned by Canada under the Magnitsky sanc – than any other country. This included political leaders, military leaders, Police, legislators and the like. But as the question put it, you know, more needs to be done. Two and a half years ago, the Organisation of American States appointed – well, they got an Independent Panel of Legal Experts. I was one of them. There were two distinguished jurors, from Argentina and Costa Rica, to look into whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed in Venezuela. In May 2018, we reported that seven major crimes against humanity are being committed in Venezuela and we recommended that Venezuela stayed party to the International Criminal Court, that it, in fact, be referred to the International Criminal Court for a prospective investigation and prosecution.

A little over a year ago, Canada, France, Germany, along with Latin American countries and others, seven state parties to the ICC, made the first ever collective referral in the history of the ICC of Venezuela. Regrettably, to date, the ICC has not yet opened an investigation, with respect to those crimes against humanity. And so, one of the first things is, we need to, in fact, continue to make representations to the ICC about the importance, not the imperative, of opening an investigation, not allowing the impunity to continue to reign in Venezuela.

The second is to use the International Court of Justice. We’ve seen it now, with regard to Gambia, and I think here, too, and we have made some recommendations, with respect to Venezuelan officials being brought before the International Court of Justice. And third, we are about to announce, so I guess I’m announcing it here, the beginning of a Venezuelan accountability initiative, which is going to be part of a global accountability initiative that has already been launched re: Syria, etc. But this will be with regard to Venezuela for evidence gathering legislation, sanctioning and the like, to return to whole question of crimes against humanity in Venezuela, to the radar screen of the international community from which it has been gradually removed, so that we can combat the cultures of criminality and corruption and the impunity that still reigns in Venezuela.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you, is that a UN – are you putting that to the UN, or it’s just a – this new initiative?

The Honourable Irwin Cotler

This new initiative is to…

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Is just among a group of governments?

The Honourable Irwin Cotler

No, it’s actually…

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

It’s just going to be…?

The Honourable Irwin Cotler

It’s actually amongst a group of NGOs and, particularly, international legislators and the like. But the point is to get action, with regard to Venezuela, to facilitate an ICJ initiative, for example.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Okay, thank you. We have so many hands up. Can we get the microphones around? Yes, in that row and then further up here?

Stephen Porter

Hello, and my name’s Stephen Porter. I’m a private independent Member of Chatham House. Sarah Cleveland has already referred to the Executive Order of Donald Trump preventing sanctions being applied, either to individual Saudi Arabian people or to the Head of State, effective Head of State, bin Salman. Whenever you get major, very powerful, rich countries, committing human rights abuses or state sponsored murders, you will get the problem that there is a lot to lose in bringing sanctions against them, and the British Government and the United States Government have shown – I mean, they raised their eyebrows a bit over the butchering of Khashoggi, but very soon after, they went and carried on with normal meetings. So, what is – I’m very heartened to see such a groundswell of opinion to bringing sanctions, but when it’s rich, powerful countries, what else can be done to make sure those sanctions are enforced?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you and a few rows up. Alright, we’ll have that one, and we’ll come back.

Leonard Stall

Sorry, can I – I haven’t got a microphone.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Yes.

Leonard Stall

My question is very much linked.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Your name and affiliation, please?

Leonard Stall

My name is Leonard Stall, I’m a Journalist. My question is very much linked to the last speaker. It strikes me that I – we’re all a big fan of sanctions and the work is fantastic. But the reality is that the sanctions are being laid against soft targets and not the leaders of regimes, who are complicit in these problems. And Irwin Cotler mentioned the “silence of democracies”. I think this is a real problem and it may, in fact, encourage some of these leaders to silence Journalists forever, rather than locking them up, because it’s easier and nobody – people turn a blind eye. I would…

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you.

Leonard Stall

…like the Panel…

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

…forgive me, but…

Leonard Stall

…to comment on that.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

…we’re meant to be finishing at quarter to, so if the next questioner, who is up here…?

Amal Clooney

There’s a woman with a microphone who hasn’t…

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Oh, okay. Yes, sorry, carry on.

Nasani Jafragi

Right, I’m Nasani Jafragi and I must admit the last two speakers, they’re absolutely exactly what I wanted to say about India.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Okay, so, that’s…

Nasani Jafragi

What are we doing about India and the problems that are there? You’ve got a friend of ours, like Karan Thapar, who was the only – one of the few Journalists who has the guts to interview the Prime Minister Modi before he was elected and even tried, for many – well, for many years, to ask him for another interview and not only did he refuse, but his channel was closed down. So, what is anybody doing about India, because we are following, basically, we’re heading towards the same situation? I mean, it’s ethnic cleansing going on and, of course, because it is such a powerful nation today, nobody wants to talk about it. So, what’s going to happen?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you. thank you for that. Now, I have promised Geoffrey Robertson here, could you bring the microphone, thank you.

Geoffrey Robertson

I’m a member of a lot of low level panels that have been urging Magnitsky laws and I want to say this is a terrific report. I’ve had 15 minutes to speed read it and it’s great. But a couple of things, for heaven’s sake, define Journalists broadly. It’s the camera people who are most at risk and the human rights monitors, everyone who digs out information should be included.

Secondly, Magnitsky light, so far. What we really need, for an effective sanctions regime, as Boris Nemtsov said, “The only way you’ll stop Putin killing people in your country is if you stop his cronies sending their children to Eton.” Now, as sanctions proper Magnitsky must include the families, must include the wives who – husbands who have their bank accounts stopped, but also, the parents who get sent to Harley Street, as well as the children who get sent to Eton. We don’t usually visit the sins of the father on the children, but in this case, where human rights violations, we must. And finally, there has to be that independent body, the US Treasury is not – a determination by the US Treasury is really not impactful. We know who President Trump targets, i.e. his enemies and it may come to that. So, independence of the body that lists and an ability to take yourself off the list.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you very much. Three of those questions were really the same. Sanctions have just gone against the light targets. What about these countries: India, China, Russia, you know, where – what about doing that, how difficult it is? Are countries likely to actually want to sanction the officials of these big governments? Lord Neuberger, do you want to have a…?

Lord David Neuberger

I think these are all – all the last questions are absolutely spot on, in terms of what they’ve identified as a problem. I think the problem, in a general terms, is one that I’ve alluded to very generally, which is that it’s easy to formulate rules, it’s much more difficult to put them into effect. And I think all one can do is to keep on hammering away at the door, creating a culture of what is unacceptable and what is acceptable and in the hope that it will start to prevail. Of course, power politics often gets in the way of principle and one has to accept that in this imperfect world, there will be the sorts of problems that you’ve – have been identified in the questions. All we can do is to try and create a climate of shaming people, whether they’re good governments, into taking on the bad governments, or people in the bad governments being shamed into behaving themselves, and our paths are limited. All we can do is to listen to you, listen to others, in terms of how we might best achieve a good result, a good outcome. But the sort of problems we face are well identified in the questions you’ve mentioned.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

I would like to end the meeting, as well as recommending the report, some copies of which are here in the room, by actually asking you, David, what else is the Panel going to do?

Lord David Neuberger

Well, we have a number of reports that we’ve got. I think that they were alluded to in Amal’s speech briefly. We’ve got reports on specific items, like blasphemy and hate speech, sedition and defamation, misinformation and disinformation, anti-terrorism and public order, espionage and official secrets, and systemic restrictions on ability of the media to function. And then, in terms of actual action, we’ve got the report on sanctions that you’ve got, we’ve got a report coming out on asylum and visas for Journalists who are under threat or attack, Consular assistance, investigations, transparency and finally, a toolkit for legislators and Judges. So, it’s quite an ambitious target and the timescale we’ve set ourselves, or that Amal, in particular, a hard taskmaster, has set us, is quite demanding. But it helped concentrate the mind.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG

Thank you very much and Geoffrey, your points [applause] will be well noted.