The smartphone versus the baton
Summary Reflecting on events from the first half of 2021, IFEX’s Europe and Central Asia Editor explains how the Lukashenka regime’s crackdown on Belarus’s independent…
Summary Reflecting on events from the first half of 2021, IFEX’s Europe and Central Asia Editor explains how the Lukashenka regime’s crackdown on Belarus’s independent…
NEW YORK, WASHINGTON D.C. – A group of fifty civil society organizations and experts are joining calls by Members of Congress and United States nominees…
Isr., MApp 2065/13 A. v. State of Israel, (March 22,2013) HCJ 442/71 Lansky v. Minister of the Interior, IsrSC 26(2) 337 (1972)
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2): Prosecution of An Opposition Leader in Turkey
Summary Since January 2021, our region has witnessed a phenomenal emergence of massive, broad-based uprisings, as citizens push back against the reversal of democratic reforms…
Commemorating the fifth anniversary of the Rabat Plan of Action, Dr. Agnès S. Callamard sent the video address below for the Rabat+5 Symposium organized by the Government of…
Introduction Conflicts over artistic expression frequently stem from tensions within societies, which are based on opposing political, social or religious views and traditions. Some of these…
Frédéric Gras’ presentation for the Justice for Free Expression Conference being held on 4-5 April, 2016. Download the full pdf version below.
The U.K. First-Tier Tribunal of the General Regulatory Chamber for Information Rights held that a Transitional Risk Register (“TRR”), relating to sweeping changes to the country’s National Health System (“NHS”), should be disclosed under The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) but that a Strategic Risk Register, relating to the changes, was exempt from disclosure. The court found that a public authority must release risk registers evaluating health policy if the request is made when policy consultation and formulation has been largely completed, but not during a period of consultation and when the register includes more sensitive policy information. In the present case, the Court ruled in favor of the public interest in transparency because at the time of the TRR request, the Report largely covered operational and implementation risks being faced by the Department of Health (“DOH”), rather than direct policy considerations. On the other hand, the Court found that the public interest in the Government having safe space to formulate policy took precedence at the time of the SRR request because the request was made at a time when the government was engaged in ongoing policy deliberations.