Policy paper

Global Human Rights Sanctions: consideration of designations

Published 6 July 2020

This note aims to highlight factors relevant to whether a person may be designated under the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 (‘the Regulations’).

The Regulations permit a Minister to designate a person only if the Minister has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is an “involved person” in relation to certain human rights violations or abuses^{[footnote 1]}. This means that the person must be linked, in one of the ways set out in the Regulations^{[footnote 2]}, to such activities. The Minister must also be satisfied that the designation is appropriate having regard to the purpose of deterring or providing accountability for such activities, and the likely significant effects on that person, as far as known.

Within the context of this statutory framework, in deciding whether a person should be considered for designation, the Government (HMG) will have regard to all relevant considerations. The following factors are likely to be relevant, but this list is not exhaustive:

1. HMG’s human rights priorities: Given the potential scope of application, HMG prioritisation of potential designations under this regime will be guided by the FCDO’s human rights priorities, including objectives relating to published FCDO human rights priority themes. At the point of the launch of the Regulations, these priority themes include media freedom, combatting modern slavery, preventing sexual violence in or related to conflict, freedom of religion or belief, torture prevention and the protection of human rights defenders.

2. The nature of the victim: In line with human rights priorities, HMG is likely to give particular attention to activities that are carried out in relation to individuals who seek to obtain, exercise, defend or promote human rights, such as journalists, civil society activists, human rights defenders and whistle-blowers. The safety of these individuals is our priority, and we will take particular care in cases where a designation might result in any reprisals or physical or mental harm to such persons. We may also consider whether the victim of the human rights violation or abuse has any particular links to the UK.

3. The seriousness of the conduct: HMG is likely to consider the scale, impact and nature both of the human rights violation or abuse and a person’s involvement in that human rights violation or abuse, including whether the conduct has a systematic nature or is part of a pattern of behaviour.

4. International profile and collective action: HMG is likely to give particular consideration to cases where international partners have adopted, or propose to adopt, sanctions and where action by the UK is likely to increase the effect of the designation in addressing the issue in question.

5. Non-state actors: HMG is likely to give particular attention to non-state actors who have acquired a significant degree of control, authority and organisation over people or an area.

6. The status and connections of the involved person: In circumstances where there are a range of persons who could be considered for designation by virtue of their involvement in a human rights violation or abuse, HMG is likely to consider which designation(s) would have most impact in providing accountability for the violation or abuse in question. This may involve considering, for example, the position of the person in the hierarchy of an organisation, and whether the person has particular links to the UK, including whether such persons would be particularly affected by travel or financial restrictions under the Regulations.

7. The effectiveness of other measures, including law enforcement: HMG is likely to give particular attention to cases where the relevant jurisdiction’s law enforcement authorities have been unable or unwilling to hold those responsible for human rights violations or abuses to account. Because sanctions are primarily a tool of foreign policy, involvement in human rights violations or abuses in the UK would normally be addressed through ordinary law enforcement measures. However, there may be exceptional cases where HMG will consider designating persons for involvement in human rights violations or abuses carried out by non-UK persons in the UK, such as where a person is no longer in the UK’s jurisdiction and we judge will not return to the UK for law enforcement purposes.

1. See regulation 4(2). In summary, there must be an activity that would be a serious violation of certain human rights if it was carried out by a State. The rights in question are the right to life; the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and the right to be free from slavery, not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. ↩

2. See regulation 6(2) and (3) of the Regulations. In summary, an “involved person” is responsible for or engages in such an activity; facilitates, incites, promotes or provides support for such an activity; conceals evidence of such an activity; provides certain goods or services that contribute to such an activity or to a person who is engaged in such an activity; profits or benefits from such an activity; fails to fulfil a duty to investigate such an activity; or contravenes the Regulations. A person is also involved if they are owned or controlled by a person who is or has been so involved, is acting on behalf of or at the direction of a person who is or has been so involved, or is a member of, or associated with, a person who is or has been so involved. ↩