A joint submission to Draft General Comment No. 38 on Article 22 (Freedom of Association) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was prepared by Eurasian Harm Reduction Association – EHRA, Eurasian Coalition for Health, Rights and Sexual Diversity – ECOM, Eurasian Women’s Network on AIDS – EWNA, Sex Workers’ Rights Advocacy Network – SWAN.
Freedom of association remains under pressure across the region, with governments introducing or implementing laws that expand state control over civil society organizations (CSOs) and constrain their access to funding. While all eleven countries – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Russia – formally recognize this right in their constitutions, the practical environment for non-governmental and community-led organizations (CLOs) varies widely. Two countries – Kyrgyzstan and Georgia – adopted foreign-agent-style legislation in 2024, and several others have discussed or maintained analogous mechanisms that limit organizational independence.
The submission covers following issues:
- Restrictive legislation: foreign agent laws and similar measures.
- Challenges to registration of community-led organizations.
- Funding restrictions and access to resources.
- Audits, inspections and pressure on organizations.
- Restrictions on feminist and women’s rights assemblies.
- Overall trends and implications.
Read the full submission
Human Rights Committee Draft General comment No. 38, Article 22: right to freedom of association is available on OHCHR website and the following articles among others cover the issues highlighted by the submission of EHRA, ECOM, EWNA and SWAN:
- 9. While the right to freedom of association in article 22 (1) applies to everyone, restrictions and interferences of the right may have a differentiated and heightened impact on marginalized, disenfranchised or disadvantaged persons, groups, communities and peoples. Particularly affected individuals include women, especially women human rights defenders, women journalists and women trade unions members and representatives, Indigenous Peoples, people living in rural or remote areas, people living in overseas territories, environmental and land rights defenders, children and young people, trade union members and representatives, LGBTQI+ persons, persons with disabilities, persons who use drugs, migrants and asylum-seekers, convicted persons, in particular when they are deprived of their voting rights, and members of political parties, especially when they are in opposition to the Government. Therefore, the right to freedom of association must be interpreted and implemented by taking into consideration the structural and intersecting barriers that might hamper the concrete and effective realization of the right for these persons, groups and communities
- 14. Article 22 (1) covers the whole life cycle of an association, including the right to terminate an association when its members consider it is not in their interest to continue with the association. The right to freedom of association not only guarantees the formation of associations but also the right of such associations to carry out their activities freely. For example, it covers the right to seek, receive and expend funding and other material resources, including those coming from outside the State party, without the risk of being labelled a “foreign agent” or a threat to national security. It also covers the right of the association to document, preserve and have access to its own archives.
- 44. In this regard, the use of domestic legislation to criminalize an association, its members, human rights defenders or journalists for their activities must not only respect article 22 but also meet the strict criminal legality principle as enshrined in article 15 of the Covenant. The criminal legality principle is non-derogable and therefore no circumstances such as counterterrorism or anti-money-laundering measures can justify its infringement. The same applies to vaguely worded legislation adopted to combat “extremism”, “extremist activity”, funding coming from abroad or “undesirable” organizations.
- 49. The list of legitimate grounds for restriction set out in article 22 (2) is exhaustive. Motives such as those invoked for justifying “foreign agent” or similar laws, such as “public transparency” or “social transparency”, misused for targeting associations that receive funds from abroad are not covered by the legitimate goals listed in article 22 (2).