国际特赦组织是一个全球性的人权运动。当不公正发生在一个人身上时，它对我们所有人都很重要。
自2019年8月5日以来的三年里，印度政府大幅加强了对查谟和克什米尔人民的镇压，包括对记者和人权维护者的镇压，使他们遭受多重人权侵犯。这些侵犯行为包括限制意见和表达自由的权利;人身的自由和安全;运动;隐私;以及补救和诉诸正义。当局犯下这些侵犯行为而绝对不受惩罚。
印度政府声称其行动是对“恐怖主义”的合法回应。但是，他们的行动不能被认为是对所谓的恐怖主义威胁的适当反应，因此构成侵犯人权。虽然国际人权法承认国家安全是限制某些人权的正当理由，但这种限制受到严格限制。
第一，只有当采取国家安全措施是为了保护国家的存在或其领土完整或政治独立不受武力或武力威胁时，才能援引国家安全来为限制某些权利的措施辩护。此外，国家安全不能作为施加含糊或任意限制的借口，只有在存在防止滥用的充分保障和有效补救措施时才可以援引国家安全。国际标准也清楚地表明，有系统地侵犯人权会破坏真正的国家安全，并可能危及国际和平与安全。对这种侵犯行为负有责任的国家不得以国家安全为理由，采取旨在镇压反对这种侵犯行为或对其人民实施镇压做法的措施。
第二，即使在可以合法地援引国家安全作为限制某些权利的理由的情况下，所采取的措施也必须由法律规定，并且必须符合必要性和相称性的要求。这意味着它们不能超出紧急情况所要求的范围，而且它们不能弊大于利。
具体而言，关于对言论自由权利的限制，联合国人权事务委员会明确指出，“缔约国必须极其小心，确保叛国法和与国家安全有关的类似规定，无论是被描述为官方机密或煽动法或其他，以符合第3款的严格要求的方式制定和适用。”《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第19条第3款将限制限制限于法律规定的和严格必要的限制。人权委员会继续指出:“例如，援引这类法律对公众进行压制或扣留是不符合第3款的。印度政府新闻局、议会批准废除第370条的决议;为查谟克什米尔与印度联盟的真正整合铺平了道路，2019年8月6日。
关于《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》限制和克减条款的锡拉库萨原则；原则1（B）六（29）。
锡拉库萨原则，原则1（B）（六）（32）
锡拉库萨原则，原则1（B）（六）（32）
联合国人权事务委员会，“第34号一般性意见：第19条：意见和言论自由”，第30段
大赦国际提供不损害国家安全的合法公共利益信息，或起诉传播此类信息的记者、研究人员、环境活动家、人权维护者或其他人。”
简报中记录的无情审讯、任意旅行禁令、行政拘留、压制性媒体政策以及阻止进入人权委员会的措施，阻止了查谟和克什米尔的记者和人权维护者自由交流情况，使他们无法有意义地进入该地区，因此侵犯了人们获取信息的权利。
大赦国际呼吁印度政府立即释放那些根据行政拘留和其他镇压性法律被任意拘留的人，并确保他们在正规法院得到迅速和公正的审判。政府还必须放弃对因行使言论自由而被捕的记者和人权捍卫者的所有政治动机指控，消除对查谟和克什米尔人民自由表达意见的不公正障碍，并为他们提供有意义的补救和司法。印度政府还必须采取步骤，增加查谟和克什米尔人民在决策过程中的代表性和参与度。政府在查谟和克什米尔采取非法监视措施、任意拘留和限制言论自由，同时隐瞒其行动，显然违反了国际人权法。因此，国际社会必须要求印度政府对其在查谟和克什米尔犯下的侵犯人权行为承担责任，要求立即对此类侵犯行为进行独立调查——尤其是因为它反映得如此糟糕，以至于人权理事会的一个成员国在这样的情况下不受惩罚。
印度已经被大赦国际曝光。世界已经看到了印度的真实面貌，它不再是一个民主或世俗的国家。它已经变成了一个独裁者和极端主义的印度教国家。
Amnesty International Exposed Indian Human Right Violations
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL IS A GLOBAL MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. WHEN INJUSTICE HAPPENS TO ONE PERSON, IT MATTERS TO US ALL.
In the three years since 5 August 2019, the Indian government has drastically intensified the repression of the people of Jammu & Kashmir, including journalists and human rights defenders by subjecting them to multiple human rights violations. These violations include restrictions on rights to freedom of opinion and expression; to liberty and security of person; to movement; to privacy; and to remedy and access to justice. The authorities have committed these violations with absolute impunity.
The Indian government claims its actions are a legitimate response to “terrorism”. However, their actions cannot be considered a proportionate response to the purported threat of terrorism and so constitute human rights violations. While national security is recognized by international human rights law as a legitimate justification for the restriction of certain human rights, such restrictions are strictly circumscribed.
Firstly, national security may be invoked to justify measures limiting certain rights only when they are taken to protect the existence of the nation or its territorial integrity or political independence against force or threat of force. Furthermore, national security cannot be used as a pretext for imposing vague or arbitrary limitations and may only be invoked when there exist adequate safeguards and effective remedies against abuse. International standards are also clear that the systematic violation of human rights undermines true national security and may jeopardize international peace and security. A state responsible for such violation shall not invoke national security as a justification for measures aimed at suppressing opposition to such violation or at perpetrating repressive practices against its population.
Secondly, even where national security can legitimately be invoked as a justification for restricting certain rights, the measures introduced must be provided for by law and must meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality. This means that they must not go any further than is required by the exigencies of the situation and that they must not do more harm than good.
Specifically, with regard to limitations on the right to freedom of expression, the UN Human Rights Committee is clear that “Extreme care must be taken by States parties to ensure that treason laws and similar provisions relating to national security, whether described as official secrets or sedition laws or otherwise, are crafted and applied in a manner that conforms to the strict requirements of paragraph 3.” Paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the ICCPR limits restrictions to those that are provided by law and strictly necessary. The Human Rights committee goes on to provide that “It is not compatible with paragraph 3, for instance, to invoke such laws to suppress or withhold from the public. Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Parliament approves Resolution to repeal Article 370; paves the way to truly integrate J&K with Indian Union, 6 August 2019.
Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Principle 1(B) (VI) (29).
Siracusa Principles, Principle 1(B) (VI) (32)
Siracusa Principles, Principle 1(B) (VI) (32)
UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), “General Comment No. 34: Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression,” para 30
Amnesty International information of legitimate public interest that does not harm national security or to prosecute journalists, researchers, environmental activists, human rights defenders, or others, for having disseminated such information.”
These measures of relentless interrogations, arbitrary travel bans, administrative detention, and repressive media policies, and blocking access to the human rights commission documented in the briefing prevent journalists and human rights defenders in Jammu & Kashmir from communicating freely about the situation and deny them meaningful access to the region, hereby infringing on people’s right to access to information.
Amnesty International is calling on the Indian government to immediately release those arbitrarily detained under administrative detention and other repressive laws and ensure that they are tried promptly and fairly in a regular court. The government must also drop all politically motivated charges against journalists and human rights defenders arrested for exercising their freedom of expression and remove the unjust barriers placed on the people of Jammu & Kashmir from expressing themselves freely and provide them access to meaningful remedy and justice. The Indian government must also take steps to increase the representation and participation of the people of Jammu & Kashmir in decision-making processes. The government’s efforts to put in place unlawful surveillance measures, arbitrary detention, and restrictions to freedom of expression and simultaneously conceal its actions in Jammu & Kashmir clearly violate international human rights law. Accordingly, the international community must hold the Indian government accountable for the human rights violations it has been committing with absolute impunity in Jammu & Kashmir by calling for an immediate and independent investigation into such violations – not least because it reflects so poorly that a member of the Human Rights Council is acting with such impunity.
India has been exposed by Amnesty International already. The world has seen the real face of India, it is no longer a democratic or secular state. It has already been transformed into a dictator and extremist Hindu state.
Reference Link:- https://www2.apdnews.cn/en/item/22/0906/axjczgkz616554712f539f.html