فائزه سادات سجادی

The COVID-19 pandemic has effected implementation of states' international obligations, especially in terms of international human rights law. the right to health was violated more than any other right. In addition, although quarantines, social distancing, travel and access-to-information bans were imposed to protect public health, the inefficiency of some states led to the violation of the right to freedom of movement and access to information. This article, based on descriptive-analytical method, while examining the implementation of these three rights in the COVID-19 pandemic, asks which precluding circumstances can be invoked by states to justify violations of their obligations? it seems, given the high threshold for proving force majeure, the pandemic does not meet all the requirements of this factor, such as the impossibility of materially performing obligations. But invoking distress and especially necessity is worthy of consideration. Given the differences between states in terms of the severity of the pandemic and the capacity to deal with it, these factors cannot be considered as equally applicable to all states.

Some states have derogated the freedom of movement and access to information rights in order to protect the health of their citizens during the Corona epidemic. The present article uses a descriptive-analytical approach to answer the question that is it possible to derogate the mentioned human rights in the corona epidemic in accordance with international human rights law? The scale and severity of the corona pandemic has clearly brought it to the level of a state of public emergency. Therefore, potentially, including in the light of citing Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is possible to derogate those rights as a means of protecting public health. Of course, the validity of the derogation depends on announcing the situation to other states, implementation of the principles of necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination and other obligations under international law. Of course, it is difficult to say that all state has complied with these conditions, and it is necessary to examine the situation of each state separately. In general, states that have specifically derogated their obligations without compliance to above Article, have committed international wrongful act. Violations of the principles of necessity and proportionality can be pointed out, especially in the case of those states that have experienced a low prevalence of the disease and could restrict the mentioned human rights instead of derogating them