Profiling the Poor in the Dutch Welfare State

TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Profiling the Poor in the Dutch Welfare State

Report on court hearing in litigation in the Netherlands about digital welfare fraud detection system (‘SyRI’)

On Tuesday, October 29, 2019, I attended a hearing before the District Court of The Hague (the Netherlands) in litigation by a coalition of Dutch civil society organizations challenging the Dutch government’s System Risk Indication (“SyRI”). The Digital Welfare State and Human Rights Project at NYU Law, which I direct, recently collaborated with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights in preparing an amicus brief to the District Court. The Special Rapporteur became involved in this case because SyRI has exclusively been used to detect welfare fraud and other irregularities in poor neighborhoods in four Dutch cities and affects the right to social security and to privacy of the poorest members of Dutch society. This litigation may also set a highly relevant legal precedent with impact beyond Dutch borders in an area that has received relatively little judicial scrutiny to date.

SR Report

Amicus Brief

Lies, damn lies, and algorithms

What is SyRI? The formal answer can be found in legislation and implementing regulations from 2014. In order to coordinate government action against illicit use of government funds and benefits in the area of social security, tax benefits and labor law, Dutch law allows for the sharing of data between municipalities, welfare authorities, tax authorities and other relevant government authorities since 2014. A total of 17 categories of data held by government authorities may be shared in this context, from employment and tax data, to benefit data, health insurance data and enforcement data, among other categories of digitally stored information. Government authorities wishing to cooperate in a concrete SyRI project request the Minister for Social Affairs and Employment to use the SyRI tool by pooling and analyzing the relevant data from various authorities using an algorithmic risk model.

The Minister has outsourced the tasks of pooling and analyzing the data to a private foundation, somewhat unfortunately named ‘The Intelligence Agency (‘Inlichtingenbureau’). The Intelligence Agency pseudonymizes the data pool, analyzes the data using an algorithmic risk model and creates a file for those individuals (or corporations) who are deemed to be at a higher risk of being involved in benefit fraud and other irregularities. The Minister then analyzes these files and notifies the cooperating government authorities of those individuals (or corporations) are considered at higher risk of committing benefit fraud or other irregularities (‘risk notification’). Risk notifications are included in a register for two years. Those who are included in the register are not actively notified of this registration, but they can receive access to their information in the register after a specific request.

The preceding understanding of how the system works can be derived from the legislative texts and history, but a surprising amount of uncertainty remains about how exactly SyRI works in practice. This became abundantly clear in the hearing in the SyRI-case before the District Court of The Hague on October 29. The court is assessing the plaintiffs’ claim that SyRI, as legislated in 2014, violates norms of applicable international law, including the rights to privacy, data protection and a fair trial recognized in the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the EU General Data Protection Regulation. In a courtroom packed with representatives from the 8 plaintiffs, reporters and concerned citizens from areas where SyRI has been used, the first question by the three-judge panel was to clarify the radically different views held by the plaintiffs and the Dutch State as to what SyRI is exactly.

According to the State, SyRI merely compares data from different government databases, operated by different authorities, in order to find simple inconsistencies. Although this analysis is undertaken with the assistance of an algorithm, the State underlined that this algorithm operates on the basis of pre-defined indicators of risk and that the algorithm is not of the ‘learning’ type. The State further emphasized that SyRI is not a Big Data or data-mining system, but that it employs a targeted analysis on the basis of a limited dataset with a clearly defined objective. It also argued that a risk notification by SyRI is merely a – potential – starting point for further investigations by individual government authorities and does not have any direct and automatic legal consequences such as the imposition of a fine or the suspension or withdrawal of government benefits or assistance.

But plaintiffs strongly contested the State’s characterization of SyRI. They claimed instead that SyRI is not narrowly targeted but instead aims at entire (poor) neighborhoods, that diverse and unconnected categories of personal data are brought together in SyRI projects, and that the resulting data exchange and analysis occur on a large scale. In their view, SyRI projects could therefore be qualified as projects involving problematic uses of Big Data, data-mining and profiling. They also made clear that it is exceedingly difficult for them or the District Court to assess what SyRI actually is or is not doing, because key elements of the system remain secret and the relevant legislation does not restrict the methods used, including the request to cooperating authorities to undertake a SyRI project, the risk model used, and the ways in which personal data can be processed. All of these elements remain hidden from outside scrutiny.

Game the system, leave your water tap running

The District Court asked a series of probing and critical follow-up questions in an attempt to clarify the exact functioning of SyRI and to understand the justification for the secrecy surrounding it. One can sympathize with the court’s attempt to grasp the basic facts about SyRI in order to enable it to undertake its task of judicial oversight. Pushed by the District Court to clarify why the State could not be more open about the functioning of SyRI, the attorney for the State warned about welfare beneficiaries ‘gaming the system’. Referring to a pilot project pre-dating SyRI, in which welfare authority data about individuals claiming low-income benefits was matched with usage data held by publicly-owned drinking water companies to identify beneficiaries who committed fraud by falsely claiming they were living alone while actually living together (to claim a higher benefit level), the attorney for the State claimed that making it known that water usage is a ‘risk indicator’ could lead beneficiaries to leave their taps running to avoid detection. Some individuals attending the hearing could be heard snickering when this prediction was made.

Another fascinating exchange between the judges and the attorney for the State dealt with the standards applied by the Minister when assessing a request for a SyRI project by municipal and other government authorities. According to the State’s attorney, what would commonly happen is that a municipality has a ‘problem neighborhood’ and wants to tackle its problems, which are presumed to include welfare fraud and other irregularities, through SyRI. The request to the Minister is typically based ‘on the law, experience and logical thinking’ according to the State. Unsatisfied with this reply, the District Court probed the State for a more concrete justification of the use of SyRI and the precise standards applied to justify its use: ‘In Bloemendaal (one of the richest municipalities of the Netherlands) a lot of people enjoy going to classical concerts; in a problem neighborhood, there are a lot of people who receive government welfare benefits; why is that a justification for the use of SyRI?’, the Court asked. The attorney for the State had to admit that specific neighborhoods were targeted because those areas housed more people who were on welfare benefits and that, while participating authorities usually have no specific evidence that there are high(er) levels of benefit fraud in those neighborhoods, this higher proportion of people on benefits is enough reason to use SyRI.

Finally, and of great relevance to the intensity of the Court’s judicial scrutiny, the question of the gravity of the invasion of human rights – more specifically, the right to privacy – was a central topic of the hearing. The State argued that the data being shared and analyzed was existing data and not new data. It furthermore argued that for those individuals whose data was shared and analyzed, but who were not considered a ‘higher risk’, there was no harm at all: their data had been pseudonymized and was removed after the analysis. The opposing view by plaintiffs was that the government-held data that was shared and analyzed in SyRI was not originally collected for the specific purpose of enforcement. Plaintiffs also argued that – due to the wide categories of data that were potentially shared and analyzed in SyRI – a very intimate profile could be made of individuals in targeted neighborhoods: ‘This is all about profiling and creating files on people’.

Judgment expected in early 2020

The District Court announced that it expects to publish its judgment in this case on 29 January 2020. There are many questions to be answered by the Court. In non-legal language, they include at least the following: How does SyRI work exactly? Does it matter whether SyRI uses a relatively straightforward ‘decision-tree’ type of algorithm or, instead, machine learning algorithms? What is the harm in pooling previously siloed government data? What is the harm in classifying an individual as ‘high risk’? Does SyRI discriminate on the basis of socio-economic status, migrant status, race or color? Does the current legislation underpinning SyRI give sufficient clarity and adequate legal standards to meaningfully curb the use of State power to the detriment of individual rights? Can current levels of secrecy be maintained in a democracy based on the rule of law?

In light of the above, there will be many eyes focused on the Netherlands in January when a potentially groundbreaking legal precedent will be set in the debate on digital welfare states and human rights.

November 1, 2019. Christiaan van Veen, Digital Welfare State & Human Rights Project (2019-2022), Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU School of Law.

November 1, 2019 Dev Account Uncategorized

Human Rights in the Digital Age: Can they Make a Difference?

TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Human Rights in the Digital Age: Can they Make a Difference?

This event brought together international policymakers, human rights practitioners, leading academics and representatives from technology companies to discuss the relevance of the international human rights law framework in a world increasingly dominated by digital technologies.

In only a few decades, we have witnessed tremendous change through digital innovation, from personal computers, a globe-spanning Internet, and ubiquitous smartphones, to rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence. As we express ever more of ourselves digitally, the economy is built around the data generated, which is then used to predict and nudge our future behavior. Surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2019) is being matched by the digitization of government, whether in national security, policing, immigration or court systems. And postwar welfare states are rapidly becoming digital welfare states (Alston & Van Veen, 2019).

The speed, magnitude and complexity of these developments have left little or no time for reflection let alone resistance on the part of most of those affected. Only now is the world waking up to the value-choices implicit in embracing many of these technological changes. And many of the initiatives designed to curb the excesses of the digital age are entirely voluntary, based in malleable conceptions of ethics, and themselves reliant upon technological solutions promoted by the very Big Tech firms these initiatives are supposed to regulate.

This event focused on the role of law, democratic institutions and human rights in the digital age. Can the societal impacts of digital technologies be meaningfully addressed in the language of rights? What difference does it make to insist on applying the lens of human rights law? What difference can international and domestic human rights accountability mechanisms make in the technology debate? Whose voices and issues are neglected in this debate and how can human rights law empower those on the margins of society?

The keynote speaker was Michelle Bachelet, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; and the panel moderated by Ed Pilkington, Chief Reporter, Guardian US, featured:

Philip Alston, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights and John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
Michelle Bachelet, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Chris Hughes, Co-founder of Facebook and Co-Chair of the Economic Security Project and Senior Advisor, Roosevelt Institute
Kumi Naidoo, Secretary General, Amnesty International
Shoshana Zuboff, Charles Edward Wilson Professor Emerita, Harvard Business School and author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (2019)

October 17, 2019. This event was co-hosted by the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University School of Law and Amnesty International with the Guardian as a media partner.

October 17, 2019 Dev Account Event Summary

GJC’s Ellie Happel Expert Witness in Case Blocking Trump Administration from Terminating TPS For Haiti

HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT

GJC’s Ellie Happel Expert Witness in Case Blocking Trump Administration from Terminating TPS For Haiti

On Thursday, April 11, 2019 Judge Kuntz of the Eastern District of New York issued a nationwide Preliminary Injunction that blocks the Trump Administration from terminating TPS for Haiti. Global Justice Clinic Haiti Project Director Ellie Happel was the first witness called by the plaintiffs in the case. Ellie’s expert testimony was based both on her experience living in Haiti during the time under consideration (2010–2017), and on the facts presented in the Global Justice Clinic report, Extraordinary Conditions: A Statutory Analysis of Haiti’s Qualification for TPS.

The Trump Administration ended TPS for Haiti in November, 2017. Judge Kuntz ruled that the decision by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to terminate TPS for Haiti was improperly influenced by the White House. The decision was “reverse engineered” to “get to no,” ruled Judge Kuntz, finding that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims they brought under both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The judge found that there was significant evidence that the decision to terminate was a “preordained outcome,” including evidence that suggesting that, in fewer than 30 minutes, a DHS employee reworked a memo that favored extending TPS for Haiti to one that supported termination. The Court found that the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim raises “serious concerns.” “Based on the facts on this record, and under the [relevant legal framework], there is both direct and circumstantial evidence [that] a discriminatory purpose of removing non-white immigrants from the United States was a motivating factor behind the decision to terminate TPS for Haiti.” Judge Kuntz concluded that “absent injunctive relief, Plaintiffs, as well as 50,000 to 60,000 Haitian TPS beneficiaries and their 30,000 U.S. Citizen children stand to suffer serious harm.”

Download Decision

In addition to Ellie’s role as an expert witness in this case, the Global Justice Clinic was involved in a FOIA lawsuit that divulged relevant records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State Department. These records were integral to this case and others challenging the Trump Administration’s termination of TPS for Haiti. Professor Margaret Satterthwaite served as a plaintiff in the FOIA lawsuit.

Download Complaint

April 16, 2019.

April 16, 2019 Dev Account Product

Attempted Digital Surveillance as a Completed Human Rights Violation

TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Attempted Digital Surveillance as a Completed Human Rights Violation

Why Targeting Human Rights Defenders Infringes on Rights

On March 1, 2019, this briefing paper on the spyware industry was submitted to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression as a response to the Special Rapporteur’s call for submissions concerning the surveillance industry and human rights.

This submission was made to underscore the need for further guidance on the prevention and remediation of such infringements of the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression, and to encourage the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression to address these issues in his report on commercial spyware.

Briefing Paper

The research presented in this briefing paper:

Uncovered a gap regarding the application of international human rights law to attempted digital surveillance of human rights defenders, as opposed to completed surveillance.

Explains that attempted digital surveillance of a human rights defender is evidence of the unlawful targeting of that individual on the basis of their opinion. It not only gives the targeted individual a reasonable basis to fear that they are subject to surveillance; it also provides notice that existing due diligence frameworks, export control regimes, and other regulatory measures have failed to protect against human rights violations.

The Global Justice Clinic states that when attempts to infect human rights defenders’ digital devices with commercial spyware are discovered, the targeted individuals should have the opportunity to seek protection and remedy, and such instances should prompt governments and companies to strengthen the safeguards against such abusive conduct.

March 1, 2019 Youssef Farhat Product

Guyanese Indigenous Council Rejects Canadian Mining Company’s Flimsy Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Calls for Rejection of Mining Permit

CLIMATE & ENVIRONMENT

Guyanese Indigenous Council Rejects Canadian Mining Company’s Flimsy Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Calls for Rejection of Mining Permit

The Global Justice Clinic has been working with the South Rupununi District Council (SRDC) since 2016. Through the clinic, students have provided data analysis and legal support for monitoring activity undertaken by the SRDC.

Last week, the South Rupununi District Council (SRDC), a legal representative institution for the Wapichan people, released a statement forcefully denouncing the procedurally and substantively defective environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) submitted by a Canadian mining company (Guyana Goldstrike) seeking to begin large-scale mining operations on Marutu Taawa through its Guyanese subsidiary (Romanex). Marutu Taawa, also known as Marudi Mountain, stands deep in the traditional territory of the Wapichan and holds historical, cultural, spiritual and biological significance for the entire region. Because Marutu Taawa sits at a critical watershed, the environmental impact of large-scale mining operations would threaten the ability of the Wapichan people to continue living in the ancestral lands they have called home for centuries. Notwithstanding the threat to the Wapichan people posed by large-scale mining, SRDC finds that Guyana Goldstrike’s ESIA relies on incomplete, inaccurate, or decades-old information to ignore the substantial environmental, public health, and cultural consequences that would occur if such mining operations were allowed to proceed. The SRDC also strongly condemns the mining company’s failure to consult the Council, as a legal representative institution of the Wapichan people. This failure to meaningfully consult stands in direct violation of both Guyanese and international law.

Given the inadequacy of the ESIA and Guyana Goldstrike’s flouting of domestic and international law, the SRDC has strongly encouraged the Guyanese Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to deny the Canadian company’s subsidiary the environmental permit needed to initiate large-scale operations in the territory. The SRDC also calls on the EPA to oversee a process that ensures that Guyana Goldstrike and Romanex adhere to Guyanese and international law and best practices in the international mining sector.

This post was originally published as a press release on September 28, 20218.

September 28, 2018 Dev Account Uncategorized

Government Control and Neglect of Women Living in Poverty

INEQUALITIES

Government Control and Neglect of Women Living in Poverty

American Poverty and Human Rights Series

On February 27, 2018, the Center hosted a workshop and a public panel to discuss the unique ways in which poverty affects women across the United States.

Panel

Opening remarks
Nikki Reisch, Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU Law

Keynote address
Khiara M. Bridges, Boston University School of Law; and author of The Poverty of Privacy Rights

Panelists
Martin Guggenheim, NYU Law Family Defense Clinic
Chanel Porchia-Albert, Ancient Song Doula Services
Cherisse Scott, SisterReach
Melissa Torres-Montoya, National Network of Abortion Funds
Melissa Upreti, UN Working Group on Discrimination against Women

Workshop

Participants included women from the following organizations and institutions:

Ancient Song Doula Services
Black Mamas Alliance/Feminist Women’s Health Center
Boston University School of Law; Center for Human Rights and Global Justice,
NYU Law (host & co-convener)
Center for Reproductive Rights (co-convener)
Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice, Berkeley Law (co-convener)
Columbia Human Rights Institute
Human Rights and Gender Justice Clinic
CUNY Law (co-convener)
Human Rights Watch
National Advocates for Pregnant Women (co-convener)
Reproductive Justice Clinic
SIA Legal Team (co-convener)
UN Working Group on Discrimination against Women
US Human Rights Network

Members of the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights’ team were also invited to discuss the role of civil society in engaging with UN special procedures.

Both events were convened in partnership with the Center for Reproductive Rights; CUNY Law School’s Human Rights and Gender Justice Clinic; the SIA Legal Team and Berkeley Law School’s Center for Reproductive Rights and Justice; National Advocates for Pregnant Women. The panel was co-sponsored by the NYU Law chapter of If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice and NYU Law Women.

February 27, 2018 Youssef Farhat Event Summary

NYU Clinics File Lawsuit Seeking Disclosure of Trump Policy Behind Termination of TPS for Haitians

HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT

NYU Clinics File Lawsuit Seeking Disclosure of Trump Policy Behind Termination of TPS for Haitians

On Thursday January 25, 2018, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers’ Guild and Margaret Satterthwaite, NYU School of Law professor and director of the Global Justice Clinic (GJC), filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to obtain records documenting the reasons behind the U.S. government’s decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians. NYU School of Law’s Immigrant Rights Clinic provided legal counsel.

Download Lawsuit

On November 20, 2017, the Trump Administration terminated TPS for Haiti, stating that the conditions caused by the earthquake no longer exist. Many reports, including Extraordinary Conditions: A Statutory Analysis of Haiti’s Qualification for TPS, published by the GJC in October, show that families in Haiti continue to face displacement, homelessness, one of the worst cholera epidemics in the world, hunger, and other challenges that make Haiti unsafe for return. The termination will affect the estimated 58,000 Haitian TPS holders and their families. TPS is set to terminate in July of 2019.

President Trump’s recent racist statements towards certain foreign nations, including Haiti, make the public’s right to access information that influenced the decision to terminate TPS that much more urgent.

January 25, 2018.

Communications from NYU clinics do not represent the institutional views of NYU School of Law or the Center, if any.

January 25, 2018 Dev Account Uncategorized

With TPS set to terminate, GJC files a Freedom of Information Lawsuit against DHS and USCIS

HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT

With TPS set to terminate, GJC files a Freedom of Information Lawsuit against DHS and USCIS

National Immigration Project et al. v. DHS et al. (Haiti TPS FOIA)

On November 20, 2017, the Trump Administration terminated TPS for Haiti, stating that the conditions caused by the earthquake no longer exist. With TPS set to terminate in July 2019, the Global Justice Clinic, together with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers’ Guild, filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit against DHS and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement to obtain records documenting the reasons behind the government’s decision to terminate TPS for Haitians. The lawsuit was filed in January 2018 with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, and NYU School of Law’s Immigrant Rights Clinic provided legal counsel.

Download Complaint

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) provides protection from deportation or removal and enables the beneficiary to apply for a work permit. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) designates countries for TPS if they are experiencing armed conflict, have suffered a natural disaster, or face other extraordinary yet temporary conditions that make them unable to safely repatriate their nationals living in the United States. DHS designated Haiti for TPS after the 2010 earthquake and subsequently extended it four times. As of November 2017 there were more than 50,000 Haitian people with TPS in the United States, out of a total population of 300,000 people from various countries with TPS.

January 25, 2018 Youssef Farhat Product

Center Briefs Top UN Women’s Rights Body on Tax, Tax Abuse, and Gender Equality

INEQUALITIES

Center briefs top UN Women’s Rights Body on Tax, Tax Abuse and Gender Equality

On November 10, 2017, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, together with coalition partners the Center for Economic and Social Rights, the Tax Justice Network, IWRAW-AP, and Professor Kathleen Lahey of Queens University Faculty of Law, hosted a closed briefing on Tax Systems, Tax Abuse, and Women’s Rights in Geneva with the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.

Report & briefing

This briefing came on the heels of the Paradise Papers leak, the latest in a long line of revelations of abusive tax practices through which wealthy individuals and corporations take advantage of a global network of financial secrecy jurisdictions to deprive states of public tax revenues essential to realizing human rights.

The briefing built on the CEDAW Committee’s pioneering work to hold states like Switzerland to account for the impacts of their tax and financial secrecy policies on women’s rights. Committee members were very engaged in the interactive discussion. The topics examined included how domestic and international tax policies and practices fundamentally affect women’s rights and substantive equality and implicate states’ treaty obligations under CEDAW; why the time is ripe to increase attention to the effects of systemic tax abuse on inequality; and how the CEDAW Committee can continue its leadership in this area.

Several of the organizations hosting this briefing co-authored a shadow report for the CEDAW Committee in 2016 on Switzerland’s financial secrecy policies and a similar submission to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights concerning the United Kingdom’s tax policies and practices.

This post was originally published as a press release on November 10, 2017.

November 10, 2017 Youssef Farhat Uncategorized

Global Justice Clinic Calls for Transparency in the Development of Haiti’s Mining Sector

CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT

Global Justice Clinic Calls for Transparency in the Development of Haiti’s Mining Sector

On July 24th, the Haitian media reported that Senator Hervé Fourcand submitted a draft mining law to Parliament for its consideration. This law has not been made available to the public despite repeated requests made by GJC collaborator, the Kolektif Jistis Min (KJM), a collective of Haitian social movement organizations that support communities affected by metal mining. The passage of the mining law would unlock the sector. The law that currently governs mining in Haiti is seen as outdated, and considered the key obstacle to future metal mining.

In late August, GJC Haiti Project Director Ellie Happel and Oxfam America staff met with members of Congress and the State Department in Washington, D.C. The objective of the meetings in D.C. was to request that U.S. actors encourage the Haitian government to disclose the draft law and to hold a meaningful public debate about its content. Such a debate is crucial at this time, since Haiti does not yet have a modern mining industry, and the human rights and environmental risks attendant to the nascent sector are significant. At the beginning of December, Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois submitted a letter to the President of Haiti’s Parliament, suggesting that he makes the draft law public and stating concerns about the human rights and environmental risks that mining poses. Four other members of Congress signed the letter.

The lack of access to information about Haiti’s mining sector is a longstanding problem. In 2013, the Haitian Senate passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on mining, citing the “opacity” of information about the country’s mineral resources. In 2015 GJC and KJM testified at a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the situation of the right to access to information in Haiti. The Commission found the testimony about the “existing obstacles to the exercise of the right of access to public information”—specifically in the context of mining—“troubling.”

GJC provides an extensive analysis of the draft mining law in its report co-authored with Hastings College of Law, Byen Konte, Mal Kalkile? Human Rights and Environmental Risks of Gold Mining in Haiti. GJC found that this version of the draft law fails to adequately protect Haiti’s environment, violates the Haitian Constitution of 1987, and does not respect the rights of Haitian communities. GJC created a brief analysis of the law to use in advocacy efforts. GJC translated it into Kreyòl, and KJM similarly uses it in advocacy efforts in Haiti, including to inform radio interviews.

Download Brief Analysis

August 29, 2017.

August 29, 2017 Dev Account Uncategorized