Source: http://freeassembly.net/foaa-online/positive-obligation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:51:28+00:00

Document:
The obligations of the State to promote and protect freedom of association under international law are twofold. On the one hand, there is a negative obligation not to interfere with rights (see Association Section 6). On the other hand, there is a positive obligation upon the State to facilitate the exercise of the right. UN Human Rights Council, First Thematic Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/27, 21 May 2012, at para. 63; IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser/L/V/II Doc. 66, 31 December 2011, para. 157.
States should take measures so that citizens who wish to come together to form associations are facilitated and encouraged to do so by the overall social, legal and political framework. An enabling environment for the exercise of the right to freedom of association should be free from fear, threats or intimidation. UN Human Rights Council, First Thematic Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/27, 21 May 2012, at para. 63. It is the duty of the State to prevent attacks and investigate violations of the right. See IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser/L/V/II Doc. 66, 31 December 2011, para. 157. As underscored by regional bodies (e.g., the IACtHR and the ECtHR), the obligations of the State should not be limited to the association’s formation but should extend to the association’s ability to carry out the purposes for which it was established. The protection afforded by the right to freedom of association lasts for an association’s entire life. United Communist Party of Turkey and others v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 30 January 1998, para. 33; IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser/L/V/II Doc. 66, 31 December 2011, para. 155.
The Court has established that the States have the duty to provide the necessary means for human rights defenders to conduct their activities freely; to protect them when they are subject to threats in order to ward off any attempt on their life or safety; to refrain from placing restrictions that would hinder the performance of their work, and to conduct serious and effective investigations of any violations against them, thus preventing impunity. Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras (Merits, Reparations, and Costs), IACtHR, Judgment of 3 April 2009, para. 146; see also Venice Commission, Opinion on the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations (Public Associations and Funds) as Amended of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 15 December 2014, para. 33.
the Court has often reiterated that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are not theoretical or illusory, but practical and effective … It follows from that finding that a genuine and effective respect for freedom of association cannot be reduced to a mere duty on the part of the State not to interfere; a purely negative conception would not be compatible with the purpose of Article 11 nor with that of the Convention in general. There may thus be positive obligations to secure the effective enjoyment of the right to freedom of association. Ouranio Toxo and others v. Greece, ECtHR, Judgment of 20 October 2005, para. 37.
14. The requirement under article 2, paragraph 2, to take steps to give effect to the Covenant rights is unqualified and of immediate effect. A failure to comply with this obligation cannot be justified by reference to political, social, cultural or economic considerations within the State. Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No. 31 (The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, 26 May 2004, para. 8.
legal provisions concerning associations need to be well crafted. They need to be clear, precise and certain. They should also be adopted through a broad, inclusive and participatory process, to ensure that all parties concerned are committed to their content. In addition, they should be subject to regular review to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of associations, and should be adapted in a timely manner to reflect the ever-changing environment in which associations operate, including as a result of the advancement and use of new technologies. OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission, Joint Guidelines on Freedom of Association, 2015, para. 22.
Given the important role of human rights defenders in democratic societies, the free and full exercise of this right [to freedom of association] imposes upon the State the duty to create the legal and factual conditions for them to be able to freely perform their task. Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras (Merits, Reparations, and Costs), IACtHR, Judgment of 3 April 2009, para. 146; see also Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil (Preliminary Objections and Merits), IACtHR, Judgment of 28 November 2006, para. 77 (“The States have the duty to provide the resources necessary for human rights defenders to conduct their activities freely; to protect them when they are subject to threats and thus ward off any attempt against their life and safety…”).
States have an obligation to create an enabling environment free from fear, threats and intimidation to enable exercise of the right to freedom of association. UN Human Rights Council, First Thematic Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/27, 21 May 2012, at para. 63.
“create all conditions necessary in the social, economic, political and other fields, as well as the legal guarantees required to ensure that all persons under its jurisdiction, individually and in association with others, are able to enjoy all those rights and freedoms in practice.”  UN General Assembly, Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, G.A. Res. 53/144, 9 December 1999 [referred to as Declaration on Human Rights Defenders], article 2 and 12; see also UN Human Rights Council, First Thematic Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, UN Doc A/HRC/20/27, 21 May 2012, at para. 8.
Specifically, States have to take measures to protect individuals from threats; this includes the elimination of impunity. UN General Assembly, Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, G.A. Res. 53/144, 9 December 1999, article 12 (2); see also UN General Assembly, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights Defenders, Hina Jilani, UN Doc. A/61/312, 5 September 2006, para. 101.
It is crucial that individuals exercising this right are able to operate freely without fear that they may be subjected to any threats, acts of intimidation or violence, including summary or arbitrary executions, enforced or involuntary disappearances, arbitrary arrest or detention, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, a media smear campaign, travel ban or arbitrary dismissal. UN Human Rights Council, First Thematic Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/27, 21 May 2012, para. 64.
An environment of threat, intimidation and impunity may not only lead to individual cases of violations of the right to freedom of assembly, but also leads to a general chilling effect for the exercise of the right. The IACtHR recognized such chilling effects specifically as a violation of the right to freedom of association.
the States have the duty to provide the necessary means for human rights defenders to conduct their activities freely; to protect them when they are subject to threats in order to ward off any attempt on their life or safety… Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras (Merits, Reparations, and Costs), IACtHR, Judgment of 3 April 2009, para. 145; see also Valle-Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia (Merits, Reparations, and Costs), IACtHR, Judgment of 27 November 2008, para. 91; and also Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil (Preliminary Objections and Merits), IACtHR, Judgment of 28 November 2006, para. 77 (“The States have the duty to provide the resources necessary for human rights defenders to conduct their activities freely; to protect them when they are subject to threats and thus ward off any attempt against their life and safety…”).
The said due diligence is accentuated in contexts of violence against the trade union sector. … executions like these not only restricted the freedom of association of an individual, but also the right and the freedom of a specific group to associate freely without fear … this intimidating effect was accentuated and made more severe by the context of impunity that surrounds the case.  Cantoral Huamani and Garcia Santa Cruz v. Peru, IACtHR, Judgment of 10 July 2007, paras. 146-148.
will only be fully discharged if individuals are protected by the State, not just against violations of Covenant rights by its agents, but also against acts committed by private persons or entities that would impair the enjoyment of Covenant rights. UN Human Rights Committee, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, General Comment No. 31, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 1326, 29 May 2004, para. 8.
The Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association has emphasized that States’ failure to take appropriate measures or exercise due diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress the harm caused by non-state actors may constitute a violation of the right of freedom of association. This positive duty to prevent violations includes refraining from acquiescing to or enabling violations. UN Human Rights Committee, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, UN Doc. A/HRC/32/36, 31 May 2016, para. 25. When rights are interfered with, authorities have to provide adequate remedies to secure or restore the exercise of human rights (see Association Section 13).
Regional human rights bodies equally recognize the positive obligations of the State to prevent third-party interference with the right.
The ECtHR has recognized a State’s duty to provide protection against third party individuals seeking to disrupt the right to freedom of association. In Ouranio Toxo and Others v. Greece, the Court held that States are obligated to take such measures, especially when the interference was foreseeable: Ouranio Toxo and others v. Greece, ECtHR, Judgment of 20 October 2005, para. 43.
… it is incumbent upon public authorities to guarantee the proper functioning of an association or political party, even when they annoy or give offence to persons opposed to the lawful ideas or claims that they are seeking to promote… Ouranio Toxo and others v. Greece, ECtHR, Judgment of 20 October 2005, para. 37.
freedom of association also gives rise to positive obligations, such as to prevent attacks on it, to protect those who exercise it, and to investigate violations. These positive obligations must be adopted, even in the sphere of relations between individuals, if the case merits it. Cantoral Huamani and Garcia Santa Cruz v. Peru, IACtHR, Judgment of 10 July 2007, para. 144.
Freedom of association can only be exercised in a situation in which the fundamental human rights are fully respected and guaranteed, in particular the right to life and safety. The Court underscores the State’s obligation to investigate crimes against union leaders effectively and with due diligence, bearing in mind that the failure to investigate such facts has an intimidating effect, which prevents the free exercise of trade union rights. Cantoral Huamani and Garcia Santa Cruz v. Peru, IACtHR, Judgment of 10 July 2007, paras. 146-148.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.