Human Rights traditionally refer to rights and freedom that are inherent to every human being. They are based on Human Rights Law and concern the respect for dignity and worth of a person. These rights are universal, inalienable, indivisible, inter-related and interdependent. Members of Societies are detained for varied reasons and are made up of different age groups and gender. The United Nations through its numerous agencies, associated Conventions, Treaties and Resolutions have laid down guidelines that govern the rights of those under detention. Article 5 of General Assembly Resolution 45/111 clearly stipulates that except for those limitations that are demonstrably necessitated by the fact of incarceration, all prisoners shall retain the human rights and fundamental freedom set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As such, the Medical and Health Care of People under Detention should not be any different from the other members of societies. The Right to Health and Medical Care is stipulated under various Articles contained in the UN Bill of Human Rights (UDHR, ICCPCR and ICESCR) as well as other Conventions, e.g. Convention against Torture (CAT), Convention on Rights of the Child (CRC) and Convention for the Extinction of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The United Nations have also developed specific guidelines and instruments for Treatment of People under Detention. These include the General Assembly Resolution 45/111 December 1990 elucidating the Basic Principles for Treatment of Prisoners, ECOSOG resolution 663C and 2076 regarding the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners which covers rules pertaining to accommodation and Medical Services, General Assembly Resolution 37/194 on Principles of Medical Ethics relevant to the role of health personnel, particularly Physicians, in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Matched MeSH terms: Human Rights/legislation & jurisprudence*
Sustainability standards for seafood mainly address environmental performance criteria and are less concerned with the welfare of fisheries workers who produce the seafood. Yet human rights violations such as slavery and human trafficking are widespread in fisheries around the world, and underscore the need for certification bodies and other seafood supply chain actors to improve social performance, in addition to addressing environmental challenges. Calls for socially responsible seafood have referenced human rights law and policy frameworks to shape the guiding principles of socially responsible seafood and to provide the legal machinery to implement these aspirations, but practical guidance on how to achieve this is lacking. To provide clarity on this challenge, we reviewed the literature concerning human rights in the seafood supply chain, and prepared an analysis of opportunities and challenges to implement socially responsible seafood through relevant human rights, legal and policy instruments. We observe that human rights laws are generally framed in favour of addressing violations of civil and political rights, but there remains considerable scope for applying economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights in this context. Other challenges include weakly defined ESC rights infringements, a lack of straightforward mechanisms to enforce human rights entitlements, and practical difficulties such as resources to support and secure rights. On the positive side, governments can draw on international instruments to inspire national policies and legislation to eliminate illegalities from the seafood supply chain. However, for socially responsible seafood principles to translate into tangible actions, these objectives must be rooted in clear legal obligations and be supported by sufficient national capacity and political will.
Matched MeSH terms: Human Rights/legislation & jurisprudence*
Over the last three decades in response to a rise in substance use in the region, many countries in East and Southeast Asia responded by establishing laws and policies that allowed for compulsory detention in the name of treatment for people who use drugs. These centers have recently come under international scrutiny with a call for their closure in a Joint Statement from United Nations entities in March 2012. The UN's response was a result of concern for human rights violations, including the lack of consent for treatment and due process protections for compulsory detention, the lack of general healthcare and evidence based drug dependency treatment and in some centers, of forced labor and physical and sexual abuse (United Nations, 2012). A few countries have responded to this call with evidence of an evolving response for community-based voluntary treatment; however progress is likely going to be hampered by existing laws and policies, the lack of skilled human resource and infrastructure to rapidly establish evidence based community treatment centers in place of these detention centers, pervasive stigmatization of people who use drugs and the ongoing tensions between the abstinence-based model of treatment as compared to harm reduction approaches in many of these affected countries.
Matched MeSH terms: Human Rights/legislation & jurisprudence