Covid-19 has been a threat to the globe since early 2020. The governments of the States have taken and or have been still taking all necessary measures to protect their citizens from viruses and to save their lives. In doing so, the States have been complying with the obligations they have under the international human rights instrument.
However, there are exceptions to this. There are some authoritarian States who have been using Covid-19 as an excuse or justification for the violation of important rights of the citizens including the freedom of movement. Can I name the government of North Korea, among those, as one?
Covid-19 began its operation in early 2020 and effective vaccines were not, then, invented. In order to invent effective vaccines, research and efforts were ongoing, then, at the academic and institutional levels.
In early 2020, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression called for inputs for the preparation of a report on ‘Academic Freedom’.
I contributed to the preparation of this report. And as the fact of the invention of a vaccine for Covid-19 and its widespread dissemination are linked and relevant to academic freedom, one of my submissions was on the following words: “UN Special Rapporteur may kindly note that at the time of this writing, the whole world has been captured by the serious threat of Covid-19.
There is no effective vaccine and its widespread dissemination. The facts of the invention of vaccines and their widespread dissemination are related to the effective implementation of the right to academic freedom. States may, thus, be encouraged, it is submitted, to take effective measures giving full implementation of academic freedom at domestic levels”. The report (A/75/261) was presented at the 75th session of the UN General Assembly. The report and my submissions are available on the webpage of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
After the invention of effective vaccines, the governments began their domestic efforts, in good faith, to combat the spreading of the virus and to save the lives of their citizens.
In order to do so, the governments were to impose restrictions on the movements of their citizens. And with regard to the freedom of movement, the governments were to comply with the due instructions given under the relevant human rights instruments, for example, article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the General Comment No. 27 of the Human Rights Committee of the ICCPR.
It should be noted that even though the UDHR is not, itself, a legally binding instrument, States around the globe have been incorporating the provisions of UDHR at their domestic levels since 1948. And many of its provisions have subsequently been incorporated into the legally binding human rights instruments including the ICCPR.
The UDHR, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the ICCPR are, together, known as the International Bill of Human Rights.
It is true that not all States of the globe have acted in good faith to combat COVID-19. Let me focus on the activities of the North Korean Government during the pandemic.
According to Human Rights Watch, “North Korean authorities have imposed excessive and unnecessary Covid-19 measures since January 2020. Saying they were necessary to contain the coronavirus, the authorities have built or upgraded fences, guard posts, petrol roads, and other infrastructure on the border.
The increased border security has almost entirely stopped unauthorized cross-border economic activity, which has contributed to severe shortages of food, medicine, and other necessities. They have also greatly reduced attempts by North Koreans to seek asylum abroad, violating the right to freedom of movement”.
With regard to the freedom of movement, there are provisions in article 13 of the UDHR which have subsequently been incorporated into article 12 of the ICCPR to which North Korea has been a State party since 1981.
Article 12 of the ICCPR provides that “1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. 2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.”
"It must be noted that these rights are not absolute. And it does mean the States can impose restrictions on these rights. Article 12(3) is relevant which provides that “the above-mentioned rights shall not be the subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.”
In 1999, Human Rights Committee, through General Comment No. 27, interpreted Article 12(3) of the ICCPR. According to paragraph 14 of General Comment No. 27, “Article 12, paragraph 3, clearly indicates that it is not sufficient that the restrictions serve the permissible purposes; they must also be necessary to protect them. Restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve the desired result, and they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected”.
Finally, I would like to draw a conclusion examining whether the Covid- 19 could be a justification for the measures undertaken by the North Korean Government.
I would do it through the lens of the above-mentioned international human rights standards. And it certainly seems that the North Korean Government has been undertaking unnecessary, excessive and disproportionate measures violating human rights including freedom of movement.
The writer Muhammad Muzahidul Islam is a Barrister-at-Law, Human Rights Activist and an Advocate at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
