Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, Dunja Mijatovic, spoke with N1’s Ivana Dragicevic on the issues of human rights during the coronavirus pandemic, the most endangered groups in societies, the issues of new technologies and the use of AI, as well as freedom of the press.

You’re very active these days, often calling attention on the importance of protecting human rights in these extraordinary circumstances we’re in. You also published an annual report on the status of human rights in Council of Europe member countries, in which you’ve mentioned how the pandemic has brought to the surface persistent weaknesses and problems within the human rights’ protection system. Can you tell us which areas of human rights’ protection have you found to be particularly at risk in this moment?

We have to see the reality, look at the real picture of what is going on in Europe and around the world. The pandemic has already killed more than 200,000 people around the world, more than half of that in Europe. I’m saying this because we have to understand the situation is serious – many times I see that people don’t have accurate information and they fail to see how serious this situation is. When I look at these numbers, it’s not difficult for me as the human rights commissioner to understand why the governments have to enforce measures such as quarantine and a ban on movement. Those efforts have shown encouraging results in some countries and some governments are now beginning to relax restrictions gradually, but what I think is crucial here is that in that process of relaxing the restrictions we do not have a situation that some emergency laws and measures remain in force. My annual report, which you mentioned, is another proof that the current situation is even more complex because the governments and societies have not done earlier as much as they should have on the issues of human rights and freedoms. My takeaway from two years of work is the one I have described: Europe is still spinning in place, unsure which direction it wants to take, and unsure what its commitments are when it comes to human rights on which the member countries of the Council of Europe have voluntarily agreed on – no one had forced them to agree that human rights must be upheld. At times, we are only doing well when rules must be adopted, but the problems arise when we have to implement them and truly show what it means to respect human rights. As always when there is a crisis, the groups that are worst-hit are precisely those that are already marginalised, people who were dealing with problems before Covid-19. We’re talking about the rights of the Roma population, LGBTQ people, migrants, women, and all other groups we focus on when fighting for human rights.

What you, along with many others, are warning about right now is that these emergency measures must not be abused – they cannot stay in force forever, their duration must be strictly defined. On the other hand, there is a trend we see in some countries during the outbreak – which has become the centre of attention – passing very restrictive laws. For example, there was the law on courts in Poland, the situation in Hungary…

Unfortunately, we encountered that at the very beginning of the outbreak, there are many other countries that have taken that road apart from Poland and Hungary, and that is not encouraging for the wellbeing of their citizens. Such measures, all measures passed in the name of security, access to healthcare and other things that are so important in these difficult times, present a kind of a curtain, a way in which countries want to move to restrict human rights in the worst possible way. Here we are talking about the freedom of speech, movement, everything else we see as something the governments are, through various decrees, trying to use to make our societies more complicated and to push human rights out of sight. What I am doing in this time of crisis is extremely important, and that is monitoring everything that is happening, because we are constantly receiving information from the non-governmental sector from all 47 member countries. That information relates to all laws and measures which are potentially problematic, and which the governments are using to restrict human rights. I think that analysis, after this is over, will play an important part in deciding which road we will take. How we will recognise our mistakes, how the civil societies and individuals will have a stronger, more direct voice in demands addressed to member countries to respect human rights.

We’ve been talking about the new models in the world for a long time now, one of them is the issue of the use of digital technology and artificial intelligence. Before the coronavirus pandemic, there was a big debate on the issue of surveillance and the place all these tech tools available to us should have in democratic societies. Now, in the middle of the pandemic, we see concrete action taken by some countries – for example Russia is introducing surveillance systems – and on the other hand, in Europe there is talk on the use of apps when talking about facilitating the freedom of movement. Recently you have published an editorial in many European media outlets, including N1, where you warned that the pandemic cannot be carte blanche for snooping on people…

The question of new technologies and the use of artificial intelligence is something we have begun discussing a long time before the pandemic hit. It’s important to emphasise that AI is something we must accept as an element which can be of great benefit for humanity, because I think we hear too much about the fears of AI, concerns about how it will be utilised. Those concerns are important, but we must also recognise why they are important in the times of crises like the one we’re going through right now. If we’re talking about surveillance systems, that’s one example where we can say they can be misused. Many European countries are turning to digital devices which they’re trying to use as an aid in enforcing quarantine, to monitor the movement of the contagion and inform people on the potential exposure to those who have been infected. Those things shouldn’t be problematic because they are based on the efforts to prevent disease and contagion, which reduces pressure on the healthcare system and enables hospitals to continue operating normally. But the health imperative must not, in any circumstance, be interpreted as something that gives anyone carte blanche to snoop on people’s privacy. That is extremely important – the design, development, and use of those digital apps must be made in a transparent and democratic way. Unfortunately what we are seeing now is that some countries have not taken that path. Instead they are just trying to increase the surveillance, not just storing data on the people, but monitoring them, and we’ve seen all that before. It’s important to say that both the Council of Europe and all other international organisations will continue to monitor this closely, and I think the civil society is very involved here as well. On top of warning, we will continue explaining this issue, because we often forget about human rights in times of crisis. It’s as if we say – okay, this doesn’t matter right now, we’ll think about it later. However, “later” is too late and it may end up costing us much more. This is the time to point out we must move towards adopting new measures to prevent human rights’ violations. I hope that the member countries will be understanding because it is precisely times like this that make it obvious how important these freedoms are. From the freedom of speech to the freedom of movement and all those freedoms we take for granted. We see how important they are when they are in danger.

You mentioned vulnerable groups in society which are especially at risk now. How do you feel about the measures introduced in some countries, like Serbia and Bosnia, concerning elderly citizens?

I think it’s important to say that we see problematic things in the reports on the elderly population because it’s often said “elderly people” and no attention is given to the World Health Organisation’s standards which are much different from what we hear in the media and countries when they talk about the population that we must take special care of during the pandemic. I think the governments have chosen not to do it, not just because of the population in question but because health workers talk how that is the most vulnerable group and that one of the ways these people can be protected is that they stay at home. However, mechanisms have not been put in place that would help these people, for example to make sure they don’t have to stay in line in front of shops at 5 am, like they do in Serbia, or to make sure they are not left to their own devices with nowhere to turn for help. The situation is changing slowly as the measures are being relaxed, but I think the problem here is that we’re all feeling our way in the dark and it’s very important to recognise if the governments are making certain decisions in good faith or if there is a hidden agenda that leads to violations of human rights of the elderly population or some other group – in Bosnia, for example, there was a problem with children who could not go out. The question is who will take responsibility if there is another wave of infections or an increase in death toll.

There was a lot of talk on gender equality and abuse of women after the Istanbul Convention was ratified. This crisis has seen a spike in the dark statistic of the number of women who suffer abuse on the one hand, but, on the other, there is whole set of issues regarding gender equality during the lockdown – women, on top of work, are now additionally burdened with housework, caring for the sick, caring for children who are being home-schooled now. There are also tendencies in some countries to try and push through laws which are severely restrictive for women’s reproductive rights. How important is it to talk about this now?

Extremely important. From the beginning of my term, one of my priorities has been precisely women’s rights for many reasons, you’ve mentioned some vital ones. One of the most widespread problems is precisely the problem of gender inequality. Progress is very slow in bridging the wage gap between genders, dealing with workplace discrimination, the issue of true representation of women in decision-making processes… women are, sadly, still facing obstacles which prevent them from accessing services relating to their reproductive rights and health, and there is a seemingly endless current of sexist talk and hate speech, especially in cyberspace. And this is the problem we must deal with in the 21st century. It will keep happening and we cannot leave it aside. Information we have received in the last month and the half regarding violence against women and domestic violence is extremely important. It’s a social phenomenon we must fight against. The Istanbul Convention is an important part of that, but it’s a document many countries, including Croatia, have ratified, but in terms of implementation, we haven’t moved forward at all. Many good laws have been adopted, but if you look at what’s happening on the ground, what’s happening in rural areas of Council of Europe’s member countries, even in rich countries, is extremely problematic and we should be ashamed because no one still wants to admit this is one of the burning issues that Europe, and the world, must deal with. Conventions are good and it’s important that we have international framework to invoke, but true recognition has to happen – that this is something we all must fight, not just governments and the civil society, that this is not the problem of women, but of men, families, societies as a whole. It is so important that we don’t only see women fighting for women’s rights. If that is the problem that directly impacts families and the society, then it’s not just the problem of one half of the population.

The issue that became relevant to all in these times is the issue of workers’ rights. Extraordinary measures imposed are opening up questions on the future of labour, a great wave of layoffs, paying only minimum wages, cutting salaries. There is a lot of talk on the concept of economy, since different countries are taking different paths and they also have different social safety nets and mechanisms to keep people afloat to a certain degree. How much will those inequalities we see fundamentally affect human rights?

It’s very difficult to say at this moment how all of that will be reflected as we move on, but it’s extremely important to recognise that people are losing their jobs; more than a half of the world’s population is in a dangerous position of losing their job or having their job change. How that will be fundamentally reflected on the right to work is a big question, and I don’t have an answer right now. We are monitoring many other organisations which are dealing with this issue in more depth, but it’s also important that we recognise which professions have been overlooked in a way up until now, and how little thought we have given to the importance of healthcare in our countries. How important it is to have a system which can tackle these problems. Not much is being said on the rights of medical workers, doctors, nurses, and all those in health institutions who are saving all of us right now. At the moment, I’m very focused on them and I’m trying to get as much information as possible from the ground. I received information from Italy, Spain, France, countries which have been hit very hard and in which the intensive care units were unable to handle the problems they were faced with, for various reasons. Member countries should be able to recognise, in the long term, and find a way to understand how important these people are in the community. There are also schools, education systems across countries, we must become aware of how much attention we pay them. There are also journalists. May 3, World Press Freedom Day, is a good opportunity to repeat how important it is to have independent and investigative journalism which will tackle crime, corruption and so on. These days we see so many news on that, and these stories have seen the light of day precisely because of journalists, the tools they have provided the people to find out what is happening in countries. Even in this time, when we all should show more empathy and understanding, more desire to help those who need help more than us. So I think it’s a complex system we find ourselves in, and it’s extremely important to recognise the priorities. Will we, once we’ve found the vaccine, go back to our old habits or will we use this pandemic to turn the page and work towards a better world, a world in which human rights will be respected genuinely, and not just on paper?

Precisely in the day before the World Press Freedom Day, May 3, you sent a press release in which you talked about the importance of media today. Misinformation, manipulation, and purposefully disseminated lies are on the rise, we’re still facing political pressure, there have been unprecedented cases over the past few years where journalists have been killed in Europe… Today, on the other hand, we see the risks freelancers find themselves in, reporters who are covering global stories but are prevented from travelling because of the pandemic, the problems for investigative journalism because they are often denied opportunity to reach information in states of emergency. How important is it to constantly talk about the importance of journalism? We still witness, in Croatia for example, whenever there is a campaign on the importance of media and journalism, there is a barrage of negative commentary and hate speech against journalists on social media.

When we talk about the freedom of expression and the rights of journalists, I think my position is clear when you look at my past work both within the Council of Europe and the OSCE, where I worked as a representative on freedom of the media. There is no democracy without freedom of the press, without freedom of expression – which is of vital importance in times of crisis. We can’t call ourselves free if we cannot speak freely. Journalists are those who give us information from all sides so that we can fully understand issues. Attacks on journalists are unacceptable in democratic societies. The situation is, unfortunately, like you described, and much more complex. Daphne Caruana Galizia was murdered in Malta and we still don’t see the results of the investigation. Jan Kucian was killed in Slovakia. Lyra McKee in Northern Ireland. All of this is happening in Europe, a place we understood to be a safe zone for journalists for decades. That is not the case anymore. It’s not just about these horrific murders either. The way governments are treating journalists, the narrative, the rhetoric some politicians are aiming at journalists is unacceptable. Public servants are trying to stop information of importance from being published by any means necessary, and that is also unacceptable in Council of Europe member countries. Not just because of documents, but because that is a right we absolutely must protect. Journalists are in a very difficult situation at the moment, they cannot report as they would like, but I still don’t see any obstacles in reporting on the problems we are facing as a society at the moment. On the contrary. I follow a lot of media outlets, yours among others, and I’m trying to analyse how free the journalists are. I think there is generally pluralism, but that isn’t enough. In one of my reports, just after the pandemic began, I talked about journalists who are trying to talk and write about corruption in healthcare, procuring equipment, and how often those stories lead to legal proceedings being launched against those journalists, like for example what happened in Serbia. Right now, it shows that the governments are still trying to control the media. There is also a problem of the way the media is reporting on migrants during the pandemic, where language used, mostly by politicians, is unacceptable. All of that has an impact on the general atmosphere. People in these times are looking for someone to blame. And if we don’t have correct information and if the media and journalists cannot do their job freely, then that problem gets bigger and I think it will come back as a boomerang when all of this is over and we see which rights were hit the hardest. I hope that freedom of expression will not be one of them and that journalism in Europe will emerge even stronger than before.

You mentioned migrants and the narrative around them. You spoke out on many occasions in the past years on the issues of violating refugees’ human rights both in Croatia and the region. Before the pandemic, there was a situation where Greece, after people had come to its border with Turkey, as a member of the EU, of the Council of Europe, decided to suspend the international right to asylum for a period of 30 days. How important is it to talk about this topic in these times?

The issue of migration is high on my list of priorities. I’ve been to Greece, on the islands, on the mainland, in Moria, the refugee camp on the island of Lezbos, and I’ve seen things with my own exes, I spoke to people, I’ve also visited the Vucjak camp in Bosnia, which has thankfully been shut down. It’s important for me to say, when I talk about migrations, I’m talking about everything I’ve seen and experienced with migrants, with the civil society which is trying to help, as well as with states’ governments. The way we are treating migrants and migrations in Europe is something that will, in a way, seal our fate. In a good way, or in a bad way. Many times I said I was ashamed to see how we treat migrants. Many were not very tolerant of that, but I still feel the same, not just as a human rights commissioner, but also as a human being. Media is also very important here, and the language used. This whole time we’ve been hearing the phrase “illegal migrants.” When we use that phrase, what we’re actually saying is that those people are illegal, migrations are classified as an illegal activity. That’s discriminatory and it creates a public perception that migrants are doing something bad. In general, perception is created that these people don’t deserve to have rights. It’s not that simple. A lot needs to be done to finally show solidarity to the countries which, so to say, have been hit the hardest – Greece, Italy, Malta, Spain. What we see however is a complete absence of solidarity and understanding, as well as a narrative used by Europe’s politicians, and a frightening and unacceptable rhetoric. At the moment, regardless of our not talking about it very much, migrations are still happening. This week I took part in a discussion of the human rights committee in the European Parliament where we have talked precisely about the situation on the Mediterranean and the fact that, while we’re sitting here talking, people are dying and ships can’t dock to save them. Solidarity is key, as well as awareness that migrations are not a mystery for Europe. Especially when we talk about the Western Balkans and Croatia as a member of the EU, we know that people from this part of the continent have always travelled in search of a better life. We don’t have the right, because of international law, to stop anyone from pursuing their dreams, but at the same time countries must do a lot more about the asylum policies, access to asylum, process of registering migrants. That’s all well known, what is a mystery to me is the way we are dealing with that issue, the amount of racism, xenophobia, undemocratic behaviour when we talk about this topic, pointing our fingers to the migrant population for all the existing problems. I think all of that is deeply problematic and takes attention away from real problems in societies.

You mentioned undemocratic behaviour. After Hungarian government and Prime Minister Orban were loudly criticised across Europe for their moves during the crisis, Croatian Foreign Minister Grlic-Radman was asked on an N1 programme to comment on the situation in Hungary, since Croatia is currently holding the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU. His response was that democracy in Hungary is an issue of perception. Is democracy a question of perception and are human rights, by extension, a question of perception?

That’s the minister’s opinion that he is entitled to, but for me the situation in Hungary is not an issue of perception, but of reality which has been going on for the last 10 years and it’s been well-documented by many international organisations. I can say it all began in 2010 with the so-called media package, when the EU did not have the strength to tackle the changes that were taking place in Hungary. Now we see the results. There are virtually no free media there, civil society is nearly invisible, with some exceptions, and that goes hand-in-hand with the relationship with migrations, the new measures adopted during the pandemic, as well as the laws concerning transgender population. Those are all serious problems and serious violations of human rights in a country that is a member of the EU. I have a constructive dialogue with the Hungarian government, we disagree on many issues, but I also don’t have a perception different from the one I just described to you.

Considering the pandemic, public gatherings have been banned, as well as right to protest, what do you think about that?

There is a positive example in Poland, considering everything that has been happening over the last month. The government and the parliament wanted to adopt a law that would ban abortion completely. That’s nothing new in Poland. But, what happened was that, regardless of the lockdown, women and organisations found a way to protest. Riding bicycles while carrying signs, honking their car horns in city centres, and so on. I don’t know if that helped to shelf the act for a while and wait for a time when it will be possible to have a democratic public discussion on such a rigorous law. People are finding many ways to express their opinion.

The basis of a legal state is the protection of the individual before the law. In Croatia, aside from the pandemic, there was an earthquake in the capital, many courts were closed. How important is it to secure legal protection in a crisis?

Many Council of Europe member countries have introduced measures which have an impact on the rule of law. That includes limitations of the work of legal authorities. The protection of public health is a vital interest which deserves protection and may be the cause of temporarily limiting some human rights. However, those extraordinary measures may be abused for certain political goals – for example to silence the opposition or limit human rights in general. Precisely because of that it is crucial that we have clear limitations of the conditions and extensions of power. The judiciary is an extremely important factor here and it is very important that the safety of people, including public health, may be guaranteed in a democracy which fully respects the rule of law. That’s why parliamentary oversight and court review of the established emergency state are essential to avoid abuse.

We have lived through a time dominated by talks on the concept of national security, is it now time we talk, locally and globally, on the concept of human security?

What we must do, once all of this is over, is finally understand the importance of freedom. Of respecting the dignity of people and everything we push to the side and forget while we listen to the narrative that everything will be okay if we are safe. If we are safe, and we aren’t free, then we don’t have human rights.