Privacy International v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs et al.
Decision Date: October 17, 2016
The U.K. Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled that the obtaining by Security and Intelligence Agencies of Bulk Communications Data (BCD) from telecom operators was lawful under domestic law, namely Section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, but that both the BCD and the Bulk Personal Datasets (BPD) regimes failed to comply with European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) principles until their existence and processes were made public. The campaign group, Privacy International, claimed that the acquisition and use of bulk personal and communications data by MI5, MI6 and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) infringed the right to private life under Article 8 ECHR. The Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the three security services argued that the use of these powers was lawful and essential for the protection of national security. The Court reasoned that the obtaining of BPD and BCD under rules and arrangements that were not publicly accessible fell foul of the ECHR Article 8 requirement that such measures must be "in accordance with law" because the rules were not sufficiently foreseeable or accessible and were not subject to adequate oversight.
 
Appleby v. U.K.
Decision Date: May 6, 2003
The European Court of Human Rights held that an environmental group’s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly had not been breached when the private owner of a town center refused permission for them to campaign and collect signatures on its premises. The environmental group, Washington First Forum, sought access to a shopping mall in an effort to campaign against a proposal to build on the only community playing field in the vicinity. The Court found that States have a positive obligation to regulate the access to private property only when “the bar on access to property has the effect of preventing any effective exercise of freedom of expression or it can be said that the essence of the right has been destroyed.”  However in this case, the Court found that the Applicants had not been effectively prevented from communicating with their fellow citizens as they could and had exercised their rights through other means.
 

The Case of Max Kebenuly Bokaev and Talgat Tulepkalievich Ayanov
Decision Date: November 28, 2016
The Court No. 2 of Atyrau City, Kazakhstan convicted two activists of disseminating false information, inciting social discord, and violating laws regulating public assembly. The Court relied on expert and witness testimony to conclude that the activists misinformed the masses to agitate them against government officials and people of Chinese ethnicity. The Court held that these activities were in violation of national laws and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In doing so, the Court dismissed the activists’ defense that they simply disseminated already public information. Both activists were sentenced to five years in prison, fined $1,500, and banned from civic activities for three years after their release.

RUSSIA: On May 26, 2017, the Russian Supreme Court upheld an order to liquidate a regional office of Jehovah’s Witnesses on the grounds that the organization disseminated banned extremist pamphlets. This is a continuing trend. On April 20, 2017, the Russian Supreme Court has already declared that the Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses was an extremist organization and banned its activities in Russia.  
 
On May 25, 2017, a new bill stripping privacy from online messengers’ users was introduced for review to the Russian Duma (Parliament). The bill demands that messengers identify their users, prevent sharing of information that violates Russian law, and allow the Russian authorities to disseminate socially important information, such as emergency messages.  
 
KAZAKHSTAN: On May 24, 2017, the lower chamber of the Kazakh Majlis (Parliament) adopted a law that prohibits persons to nominate themselves for the post of the country’s president. The law allows only registered civil society organizations and political parties to nominate candidates.
 
KYRGYZSTAN: On May 22, 2017, The Supreme Court rejected an appeal brought by two prominent human rights activists alleging that the President of Kyrgyzstan insulted them when he claimed that their work was motivated by their need to satisfy their foreign grants. The President’s lawyers defended his actions, arguing that what he said was true – the activists received foreign funding - and that he had no intent to insult them.
 
UZBEKISTAN: On May 19, 2017, Polina Braunerg, a human rights activists passed away form natural causes. She has attempted to leave the country for treatment since 2014, but the authorities denied her freedom of movement to even seek treatment outside of her city of residence.