Promoting Effective and Inclusive ICT Policy in Africa

Tag Archives: Human rights

  HomeCollaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  /  Human rights
02Sep

Lawyers Trained to Defend Digital Freedoms 

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Edrine Wanyama |

On July 28, 2022, 82 practicing advocates in Uganda were trained on defending digital rights and freedoms. The training was organised by the International Senior Lawyers Project, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), Uganda Law Society, and the Centre for Law and Democracy.

The sessions included an assessment of Uganda’s digital rights landscape, human rights issues affecting women journalists in Uganda, international freedom of expression norms, using international law to defend freedom of expression, and practices for shaping the legal framework for cybersecurity to effectively defend human rights.

In her opening remarks, the Uganda Law Society (ULS) vice president Diana Angwech stressed that it was crucial for the society to promote digital rights as they continued to face challenges.  She added that rights abuses tend to grow during certain seasons such as elections. The ULS Rule of Law Report of 2021 documented abuses such as the state revoking of broadcasting licenses without due process, attacks on journalists, including the assault of over 20 journalists and the shooting of journalists by state security agents while covering opposition campaigns and proceedings in 2021.

In setting the pace for the capacity building training, CIPESA unpacked Uganda’s legal regime for digital rights. The session covered the meaning, scope and importance of digital rights and emerging issues for lawyers’ attention. The rights covered include freedom of expression, access to information, data protection and privacy, rights of children and their protection, intellectual property, assembly and association, the right to be forgotten, anonymity, and equal access to digital technologies.

Uganda’s constitution provides for the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and the right of access to information. However, the country’s legislation including the Press and Journalist Act, Penal Code Act, Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019, Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 as amended 2015 and 2016, the Access to Information Act, 2005, the Official Secrets Act, Uganda Communications Act, 2013, Regulation of Interception of Communications Act, 2010, the Computer Misuse Act, 2011, the Anti-Pornography Act, 2014 and the Public Health (Control of COVID-19l) Rules 2021 limit the enjoyment of digital rights. These laws are largely marred by vague provisions and wide limitations which enable communications monitoring and interception, and undermine free expression.

Catherine Anite of the Small Media Foundation spoke about how Uganda was experiencing a deterioration in respect for press freedom. In 2022 Uganda fell seven places on the World Press Freedom Index ranking at 132 out of 180 countries analysed.

According to Anite, while gender equality is a prerequisite for human rights, democracy and social justice, gender disparities remain evident in the media. Female journalists across the globe face similar challenges, in addition to increased and appalling levels of violence both online and offline when compared to their male counterparts. She noted:

“Female journalists have reported suffering physical and online violence perpetrated by colleagues, public figures, strangers, anonymous perpetrators. We might be speaking about journalists but as lawyers some of these things apply to our contexts as well but we don’t speak about them. These trends have negatively impacted on diversity in media because of the exodus of female journalists, which has affected their equal participation in reporting, civil and political participation due to fears of violence.”

Toby Mendel and Raphael Vagliano, from the Centre for Law and Democracy, discussed international and regional laws  on freedom of expression which are applicable to Uganda. They highlighted provisions of such as  the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 19), the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Article 9), and the Declaration of Principles of Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa which, among others, require member states to facilitate the rights to freedom of expression and access to information online. Under these instruments Uganda is obligated to respect, protect, promote and fulfill rights.

Richard Wingfield, the Head of the Media Law Working Group at the International Senior Lawyers Project (ISLP), explored case studies on using international law to defend freedom of expression, including approaches to arguments, support and intervention as well as the filing of amicus briefs to support litigation. He explained that lawyers in Uganda could support litigation, even in cases where they are not directly involved such as by offering professional support towards impactful and successful litigation, so as to contribute to the realisation of justice for freedom of expression rights.

Practices for shaping the legal framework for cybersecurity to effectively defend human rights were discussed. Cybersecurity is critical for ensuring confidentiality of personal data at all levels.

Advanced digital surveillance and forensic tools are needed to deal with modern cyber  threats; but governments can abuse those tools if government authority is not adequately checked by confidence-inducing institutions.

Tools for cyber security such as BitDefender, malware-bytes, full disk encryption with bitlocker or file vault and strong password are critical tools for cyber security. Individuals must always be aware of potential data breaches by state authorities which often compromise individual privacy through surveillance and forensics. Common state excuses for cyber security violations were often justified by a need to protect national security, crime prevention and public order. Similarly, while laws create obligations for collectors and processors of personal data, those actors often violate the laws and, this necessitates legal intervention.

The lawyers were called upon to pay particular attention to problematic laws and policies, bills and practices so as to challenge them with the aim of establishing an enabling environment for the protection and enjoyment of digital rights.

The specific key emerging recommendations for lawyers from the capacity building training included to:

  • Collaborate with other stakeholders like civil society and academia to engage in litigation to promote freedom of expression, data and privacy rights.
  • Analyse bills and laws to establish gaps and push for repeal of regressive laws and amendment of regressive provisions.
  • Constantly write on topical issues on freedom of expression, data protection and privacy so as to raise awareness among individuals of their rights and expose any cases of violation for enhanced accountability and transparency.
  • Push telecommunication companies and internet service providers to comply with human rights when doing business, in compliance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
  • Respect individual data protection and privacy rights in their dealings to minimise conflict with the Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019 and regional and international human rights instruments on freedom of expressions, data protections and other human rights.
  • Make use of human rights reporting mechanisms such as the Universal Periodic Review and Special Rapporteur engagements to hold the government accountable for decisions undertaken in respect to digital rights.
  • Push and demand that the government complies with regional and international human rights standards, and signs and ratifies key instruments such as the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection so as to enhance digital rights protection.

Take deliberate efforts aimed at skilling themselves in the digital rights field. This will ensure that they are equipped with knowledge and skills on dealing with issues that affect digital rights.

the-africa-digital-rights-fund-le-fonds-africain-pour-les-droits-numeriques-fund
28Jul

How the ADRF is Building Capacity and Traction for Digital Rights Advocacy in Africa

Author CIPESA Posted on

By Apolo Kakaire |

Three years since it was launched and with USD 649,000 disbursed to 52 beneficiaries across 39 African countries, the Africa Digital Rights Fund (ADRF) is powering digital rights policy advocacy and engagement across the continent. According to several beneficiaries, the ADRF is a unique funding initiative that has broken ranks with traditional funders’ structures, and to considerable effect.

The Fund is lauded for adopting a simple application process, allowing for flexibility in implementation, breaking barriers for little-known actors, enabling grantees to build on previous initiatives to ensure greater reach and impact, and supporting local context-specific and responsive projects. This, according to grantees and collaborators who were part of a June 2022 virtual convening on ADRF advocacy experiences which was aimed at promoting learning and best practice.

The ADRF was launched in April 2019 in recognition of the growing role of technology in fostering democracy and promoting equity on the African continent amidst rising arrests of activists, network disruptions in several countries, and restrictive legislation that stifled innovation and human rights online. Moreover, assessments at the time had found that many digital rights interventions were limited in scope, thinly spread across the continent, faced resource limitations, and were often inconsistent in their engagement with digital rights work. 

“The situation called for partnerships to bring together different competences to advance digital rights on the continent through seed funding,” said Ashnah Kalemera, the Programme Manager at the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), the administrators of the ADRF.  Those partnerships required provision of flexible and rapid response funding to a range of entities that did not have the ability to attract funding from traditional funders, who have stringent application requirements and lengthy grant application processing times. 

With grants ranging between USD 1,000 and USD 20,000,  ADRF beneficiaries have undertaken various initiatives focused on technology in society, the public and private sectors. Besides the funding, grantees have also received capacity building in data-driven advocacy and impact communication and media relations. Across the continent, the Fund has helped to strengthen capacity in evidence-based research, collaborative advocacy and impactful policy engagements responsive to regulatory and practice developments that affect the internet freedom landscape.

At the June convening, select initiatives in Kenya, Namibia and Somalia supported by the Fund shared their advocacy experiences. In Somalia, the ADRF-supported work of Digital Shelter has seen a major breakthrough in stakeholder dialogue and engagement on hitherto undiscussed digital rights subjects such as digital inclusion, online civic space, gender-based violence online, digital entrepreneurship, civic participation and data protection and privacy. 

“Prior to ADRF’s support, people in the country had no appreciation for digital rights and the consequences of internet shutdowns. The Fund helped us to engage the government to talk about policies and legislation and when the conversation started, the Minister [of Communications and Technology] was very open and he was surprised that there was a local group addressing these issues,” said Ayaan Khalif, Co-founder of Digital Shelter. “The ADRF was an eye opener and helped us partner and link with other organisations and to understand what works in other countries.” 

Aayan added that applying for the ADRF funding was an easy process. She said: “We were almost giving up on donor funding after so many rejections. The ADRF process was simple. Some donors complicate things. The [application templates] are in English but sometimes it is as if it is in another language.”

The inroads made by Digital Shelter underscore the importance of collaboration and partnership in advancing digital rights in the region. Zakarie Ismael, the eGovernment Implementation Advisor in Somali’s Ministry of Communications and Technology, stated that the government of Somalia, through the ministry has responded to the appeals of Digital Shelter and other actors by prioritising the technology sector, including through the ICT Policy and Strategy 2019-2024. That government responsiveness has been crucial to the work of digital rights activists. As Ayaan noted, “It makes it easy to make inroads when you have people backing you up in policy advocacy. Our partnership with the government has been very practical in this regard.”.

As legislative and oversight bodies, national parliaments have a key role in advancing  digital inclusion and rights-respecting digital policies and practices. Indeed, some grantees, including Mzalendo Trust in Kenya, have dedicated efforts to promoting citizen-parliamentary engagement on digital rights. With the suspension of parliamentary proceedings in Kenya at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, the ADRF supported functionality upgrades to the Dokeza and Bonga Na Mzalendo platforms. The upgrades enabled citizen participation through remote annotation and submission of memoranda on bills including on the controversial Huduma Initiative. 

Mzalendo Trust has also worked to promote an inclusive digital economy in Kenya. Like Ayaan, Slyvia Katua, a Programme Officer at Mzalendo Trust, lauded the ADRF for using a simple and straightforward application process. “The application requires you to outline what issues you are targeting, what solutions you offer and what impact you foresee,” she said. 

Meanwhile, Josephat Vijanda Tjiho, from the Internet Society (ISOC) Namibia Chapter, appreciated the ADRF grant process for allowing them to build from one project to another. “We organised forums on digital media and elections, then stepped up to privacy and data protection especially around the Covid-19 pandemic and thereafter a campaign against online violence against women and children. Our ideas [which the ADRF supported] were building from one to the other and this made our application process quite smooth,” Tjiho said. 

ISOC Namibia conducted research and convened engagements with different stakeholders on data protection, gender-based violence online and access to information. “Based on our engagements, the Namibia Access to Information (ATI) Act was passed in June 2022 and this was partly made possible through support from the ADRF,” stated Tijho. For its campaign against gender-based violence, ISOC Namibia successfully collaborated with prominent personalities including a technologist, musician and pageant as part of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence. The campaign fed directly into work on research and workshops on gender-based violence in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region for which ISOC Namibia partnered with CIPESA, Meta, Pollicy, Genderlinks and University of Pretoria Centre for Human Rights.

According to Neema Lugangira, a Member of Parliament (MP) in Tanzania, undertaking digital rights advocacy without involving parliament has created huge gaps in ensuring that policy and legislation around digital rights are rights-respecting and are effectively implemented. She faulted civil society organisations seeking policy reforms for concentrating on other arms of the government and ignoring parliaments yet they play a key role in policy formulation and oversight. She urged ADRF grantees and other digital rights actors to actively engage MPs as part of their programming. “We should prioritise capacity building for MPs because they are ignorant about digital rights,” said Lugangira.

The experiences of ADRF grantees indicate the potential of rapid response and flexible funding in positively shaping the digital rights landscape in Africa through targeted research, advocacy and movement building.

24May

CIPESA Submission to the ACHPR on Ratification of the African Protocol on Disability Rights

Author Evelyn Lirri Posted on

The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) has made a submission to the Africa Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) on the situation and issues on the continent that have a critical human rights dimension for persons with disabilities in the context of ICT. In the submission made in April 2022 and addressed to the Working Group on the Rights of Older Persons and People with Disabilities in Africa, CIPESA reiterates the urgent need for member states to ratify the  Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Africa so that it comes into force.

CIPESA notes that four years after its adoption, the Protocol has been signed by less than a dozen countries and only two countries (Cameroon and Mali) have ratified it. For the protocol to come into force, at least 15 countries are required to ratify it.

“The adoption of the Protocol was a major step forward in protecting and advancing the rights of persons with disabilities, but the failure to sign and ratify it undermines these efforts,” submits CIPESA. The submission adds that, without a doubt, African governments must do more to ensure that persons with disabilities access and use digital technologies and that there is sufficient disaggregated data to inform programme interventions. Ratifying the protocol will be a major- but insufficient step in this direction.

In line with the Protocol’s provisions requiring State Parties to: put in place policy, legislative, administrative, and other measures to ensure persons with disabilities enjoy the right to access information (Article 24); ensure the systematic collection, analysis, storage and dissemination of national statistics and data covering disability to facilitate the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities (Article 32), CIPESA recommends that the Working Group prioritises and engages the Member States to:

  • Ratify the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Africa as a matter of utmost priority, and promote awareness of its content and the rights it protects.
  • States parties should issue periodic reports to the African Commission, in accordance with Article 62 of the African Charter, on legislative and other measures undertaken for the full realisation of the rights of persons with disabilities.
  • Enhance the development, implementation, and enforcement of relevant and enabling national policies and legislation on accessible communication products and services such as disability laws, Codes of Practice, consumer rights regulations, and ICT and disability policies.
  • Offer tax exemptions and incentives for innovation as well as investment in assistive devices and software tailored to the needs of persons with disabilities.
  • Promote the awareness of, and access of persons with disabilities to specialist devices and technologies such as manual Perkins Brailler, hand-held magnifiers, hand frames/slates and communication boards, screen readers, text-to-speech software, and Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC).
  • Promote meaningful participation of persons with disabilities in decision-making and policy development processes at national and regional levels through affirmative action and other efforts that promote fair representation.
  • Ensure that information on emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic, conflicts/wars, and natural calamities, is inclusive and provided in accessible and appropriate formats and languages, whether it is in SMS, audio, visual or document form.
  • Ensure the systematic collection, analysis, storage, and dissemination of national statistics and data covering disability to increase the availability of high-quality, timely, and reliable disaggregated data by disability, in order to facilitate the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities. The statistics and data should be disseminated in formats accessible to persons with disabilities.
  • Promote multi-stakeholder cooperation between governments, the private sector, civil society, and other relevant actors to promote the rights of persons with disabilities in accordance with the Protocol.

Read CIPESA’S full submission here. 

22Apr

Advancing Internet Freedom in Africa Through the Universal Periodic Review: Lessons and Gaps

Author CIPESA Posted on

By CIPESA Staff Writer |

Since its establishment in 2006, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) has provided a unique process for reviewing the human rights records of all United Nations (UN) Member States. Over the years, however, there has been limited participation by African civil society in the review process. In particular, there is limited work by African actors to promote internet freedom through this process.

Accordingly, since 2018, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), Small Media Foundation and a coalition of regional partners have been working to support civil society organisations across Africa to engage with the UPR process through capacity development in research and advocacy. The project has made up to 16 UPR submissions on digital rights in Africa with a focus on the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, the Gambia, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe. 

To further concretise CIPESA and Small Media’s efforts, a survey was commissioned to gauge the awareness, engagement and existing capacities of stakeholders in relation to the UPR process and their development needs with regard to UPR advocacy, campaigning, and research. Conducted between July 2019 and December 2021, the survey recorded a total of 134 respondents from all 16 countries on which CIPESA, Small Media and partners made UPR submissions focused on digital rights. The respondents included activists, academics, diplomats, lawyers, journalists, government officials, development actors, and civil society organisations. 

The survey found that there is limited participation by African civil society in the UPR process despite the review process providing a framework within which activists and human rights defenders can lobby and hold governments to account to promote internet freedom. The number of internet freedom-related submissions on Africa is still small though growing, which is a reflection of the low number of actors conducting internet freedom work and participating in UPR reviews. 

While there is a relatively high level of awareness of the existence of the UPR process, partly the result of training efforts by various organisations in recent years, the level of knowledge about the process is limited. Similarly, the level of participation in the review is moderate, with only 27% having taken part in national consultations and one in four having participated in submission of stakeholder reports. It is also noteworthy that even for those processes that many respondents had participated in, such as stakeholder submissions, those efforts were often led by entities based outside the continent. Only one third of respondents had ever received UPR-related capacity development.

The survey findings indicate the need for skills and knowledge development in UPR engagement including advocacy and follow-up on recommendations; making stakeholder submissions; and participating in national consultations and review sessions. Further, it is crucial to capacite legacy human rights organisations to embrace digital rights work. Other skills development needs identified included data collection; analysis and report writing to feed into submissions; stakeholder engagement; and diplomacy and international negotiations. 

Specifically on digital rights, skills building in understanding the legal and regulatory environment for the digital sector at national, regional and global levels, as well as coalition building strategies, and communications for advocacy, were identified. Other skills needed included digital security for human rights  defenders; knowledge of the full range of the UN Human Rights Mechanisms; and crafting human rights policy recommendations.

In line with the capacity gaps identified by the survey, CIPESA and Small Media convened CSOs, activists and human rights defenders from the 16 countries for a three days workshop on UPR advocacy and coalition building for digital rights. The workshop, which was held in Kampala, Uganda on March 20-22, 2022, featured sessions on local engagement and mobilisation, international and regional legal frameworks, researching digital rights and identifying policy issues, campaign and advocacy planning and impact communications, among others.  

Speaking at the opening of the workshop, CIPESA’s Programme Manager Ashnah Kalemera stated that the training sought to capacitate organisations to more effectively leverage the UPR for advancing digital rights. “Increasing African-based organisations’ participation in the UPR, national level uptake and follow up on recommendations by governments requires growing skills and engendering collaboration among stakeholders,” said Kalemera.

The workshop builds on CIPESA’s multi-country efforts in building skills and knowledge in collaborative internet policy research, research methods, communicating research, and data-driven advocacy, among others, towards a free, open and secure internet in Africa.

See the Internet Freedom and UPR in Africa Survey report here.

15Apr

CIPESA Makes Submission to the OHCHR on Human Rights in the Tech Sector

Author CIPESA Posted on

Submission |

The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East & Southern Africa (CIPESA) has made submissions to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on how businesses in the technology sector can improve the observance of human rights. 

The submissions, made in February 2022 in response to a call for inputs on the application of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) to the activities of technology companies, will feed into a report the OHCHR will submit to the Human Rights Council in June 2022. 

Below is a summary of CIPESA’s submission.

Emerging Trends

The digital age presents new challenges and ways of working that necessitate a review of how the UNGPs can be applied in the technology sector. Increasingly, states have become purchasers of digital technologies from technology companies to facilitate the implementation of various national programmes which present previously unforeseen risks to privacy as they facilitate mass surveillance. Commonly implemented national programmes posing threats to individual privacy include national digital identification systems, voter registration using digital biometric systems, mandatory SIM card registration, smart cities programmes, and installation of national video surveillance (CCTV) programmes integrating facial recognition systems.

Furthermore, digital technologies have fallen prey to retrogressive legal measures undertaken by states. Across Africa, countries have enacted legislation which compel telecommunications service providers to embed capability within their systems to facilitate the interception of communications by state security agencies, and the state acquisition of software and hardware equipment to facilitate surveillance and interception. 

In addition, some states have taken advantage of digital tools to carry out cyber attacks, censor online content, disseminate propaganda and disinformation. Moreover, many African governments have adopted laws limiting anonymity and the use of encryption.

Pressure on tech companies

Some governments continue to apply undue pressure on technology companies including social media platforms to provide personal information, take down content, and shut down the internet. Others have adopted repressive legislation to control the spread of information on social media, or to regulate internet intermediaries by placing undue liability on them for content on their platforms. During the Covid-19 pandemic, states developed various contact tracing systems and applications without adequate legal frameworks, or an assessment of the human rights impact of the applications. Also, state responses to hold companies accountable remain ad hoc, fragmented and not aligned with international standards.

Questionable company practices
Across the continent, social media, online search, fintech and advertising companies have adopted business models that are based on surveillance capitalism and thus continue to threaten the privacy of users, in some cases without users’ explicit knowledge or consent. Further, social media platforms have also contributed to the spread of harmful content online, which companies have failed to take effective measures to address. Also, social media content policies do not always adopt definitions of content that are rights-respecting, and their practices around content moderation are problematic. Content is often moderated using automated systems which lack local context, are discriminatory and embed bias.

Moreover, some platforms’ practices around content takedowns remain inaccessible, their content policies are not uniformly applied, and redress mechanisms do not always apply the rules of natural justice. In addition, some companies have continued to develop and sell surveillance technology to autocratic governments on the continent, which is subsequently used against human rights activists, government critics, and opposition leaders, which further exacerbates risks to human rights.

Trade of privacy for business continuity

The total sum of the government measures coupled with the pressure imposed on tech sector players is continent-wide trade of privacy for business continuity by technology companies. This is commonly seen in state surveillance through electronic technologies, including interception of communications, hacking of information of target persons especially political dissidents, activists and human rights defenders. The tech sector has, however, not done enough to ensure that individual privacy is guaranteed for their customers. 

In a continent where strong privacy laws remain scanty, the increased usage of online platforms and social media in the absence of adequate safeguards and oversight over companies remains a critical risk for privacy rights. The enjoyment of human rights and freedoms, especially freedom of expression and  access to information, association, assembly and movement have sharply declined.

Recommendations

Addressing human rights risks in business models:

  • The commitment to respect human rights as envisaged by the UNGPs  should be integrated at all levels in the company hierarchy and embedded across all its functions and processes.
  • Companies should take steps to mitigate risks within their existing business models, and continuously innovate new business models that are rights-respecting.
  • There is a need for continued research to promote greater understanding of the human rights risks in technology business models on the continent. 
  • Multistakeholder engagement should be promoted as it is a critical avenue to promote shared understanding of the human rights risks and impacts of technology in Africa.

Human Rights Due Diligence and end-use

Companies should do the following:

  • Conduct due diligence to identify, prevent or mitigate risks of harmful impact on their business. The due diligence should be conducted from project design and development phase of new products, services and solutions, and thereafter periodically through the lifecycle including promotion, deployment, sale and use.
  • Assess and monitor the effectiveness of their responses to human rights risks, with results of

such assessments guiding decision-making.

  • Review their state clients’ human rights records and ensure they do not develop, sell or offer

them technology products, services or solutions that contribute to or result in adverse human

rights impacts.

Accountability and remedy 

  • Companies should be transparent and accountable in how they address their human rights impact. Such transparency and accountability can be enhanced through periodic reporting to external stakeholders including through public reports.
  • Create platforms and avenues for engagement, information sharing and feedback between technology companies and various stakeholders.  
  • Implement credible and effective complaints reporting and handling mechanisms.
  • Companies should put in place measures to monitor and promote rights-respecting and responsible business practices and culture, and to remedy and mitigate adverse impacts caused by their actions.

The State’s duty to protect

  • Put in place administrative, policy, legislative, institutions to hold technology companies accountable for human rights violations, provide effective remedies for victims of rights violations related to technology, require companies to conduct due diligence and to have proper safeguards to protect the public from harm.
  • Develop laws, policies, regulations, standards, and guidance, including at the regional level to embed and ensure responsible business practices by technology companies and greater respect for human rights in the digital context.
  • Take measures to promote the use and adoption of digital technologies and address the growing digital divide, including by removing barriers to internet access and digital technologies.

See the full submission here.

1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 23