Ensure quarantines, lockdowns, and travel bans comply with rights norms

Ensure quarantines, lockdowns, and travel bans comply with rights norms

International human rights law, notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), requires that restrictions on rights for reasons of public health or national emergency be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. Restrictions such as mandatory quarantine or isolation of symptomatic people must, at a minimum, be carried out in accordance with the law. They must be strictly necessary to achieve a legitimate objective, based on scientific evidence, proportionate to achieve that objective, neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in application, of limited duration, respectful of human dignity, and subject to review.

Broad quarantines and lockdowns of indeterminate length rarely meet these criteria and are often imposed precipitously, without ensuring the protection of those under quarantine – especially at-risk populations. Because such quarantines and lockdowns are difficult to impose and enforce uniformly, they are often arbitrary or discriminatory in application. 

Freedom of movement under international human rights law protects, in principle, the right of everyone to leave any country, to enter their own country of nationality, and the right of everyone lawfully in a country to move freely in the whole territory of the country. Restrictions on these rights can only be imposed when lawful, for a legitimate purpose, and when the restrictions are proportionate, including in considering their impact. Travel bans and restrictions on freedom of movement may not be discriminatory nor have the effect of denying people the right to seek asylum or of violating the absolute ban on being returned to where they face persecution or torture.

Governments have broad authority under international law to ban visitors and migrants from other countries. However, domestic and international travel bans historically have often had limited effectiveness in preventing transmission, and may in fact accelerate disease spread if people flee from quarantine zones prior to their imposition.

In China, the government imposed an overly broad quarantine with little respect for rights:

In mid-January, authorities in China quarantined close to 60 million people in two days in an effort to limit transmission from the city of Wuhan in Hubei province, where the virus was first reported, even though by the time the quarantine started, 5 million of Wuhan’s 11 million residents had left the city. Many residents in cities under quarantine expressed difficulties obtaining medical care and other life necessities, and chilling stories have emerged of deaths and illnesses: A boy with cerebral palsy died because no one took care of him after his father was taken to be quarantined. A woman with leukemia died after being turned away by several hospitals because of concerns about cross-infection. A mother desperately pleaded to the police to let her daughter with leukemia through a checkpoint at a bridge to get chemotherapy. A man with kidney disease jumped to his death from his apartment balcony after he couldn’t get access to health facilities for dialysis. Authorities have also reportedly used various intrusive containment measures: barricading shut the doors of suspected infected families with metal poles, arresting people for refusing to wear masks, and flying drones with loudspeakers to scold people who went outside without masks. The authorities did little to combat discrimination against people from Wuhan or Hubei province who traveled elsewhere in China.

In Italy the government has imposed a lockdown but with greater protections for individual rights. The Italian government adopted progressively restrictive measures since the first major outbreak of COVID-19 cases in the country in late February. Authorities initially placed ten towns in Lombardy and one in Veneto under strict quarantine, prohibiting residents from leaving the areas. At the same time, they closed schools in affected regions. Citing a surge in cases and an increasingly unsustainable burden on the public healthcare system, the government on March 8 imposed a slew of new measures on much of the country’s north that put in place much more severe restrictions on movement and basic freedoms. The next day, the measures were applied across the country. Further measures imposed included restrictions on travel except for essential work or health reasons (upon self-certification), closure of all cultural centers (cinemas, museums), and cancellation of sports events and public gatherings. On March 11 the government closed all bars, restaurants, and stores except food markets and pharmacies (and a few other exceptions) across the country. People who disobey the travel restrictions without a valid reason can be fined up to 206 euros and face a three-month prison term. All schools and universities were closed throughout the country. People have been allowed out to shop for essential items, exercise, work (if unable to perform work from home), and for health reasons (including care for a sick relative).

Other governments, such as those in South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore have responded to the outbreak without enacting sweeping restrictions on personal liberty, but have reduced the number of travelers from other countries with significant outbreaks. In South Korea, the government adopted proactive and ramped-up testing for COVID-19. It focused on identifying infection hotspots, conducting a large number of tests on at-risk people without charge, disinfecting streets in areas with high numbers of infections, setting up drive-through testing centers, and promoting social distancing. In Hong Kong, there have been concerted efforts to promote social distancing, handwashing, and mask-wearing. Taiwan proactively identified patients who sought health care for symptoms of respiratory illness and had some tested for COVID-19. It also set up a system that alerts the authorities based on travel history and symptoms during clinical visits to aid in case identification and monitoring. Singapore adopted a contact-tracing program for those confirmed to have the virus, among other measures. However, the government’s decision to deport four foreign workers for violating a mandatory 14-day leave of absence from work and ban them from working in the country raises concern of disproportionate penalties.  

Recommendations:

Governments should avoid sweeping and overly broad restrictions on movement and personal liberty, and only move towards mandatory restrictions when scientifically warranted and necessary and when mechanisms for support of those affected can be ensured. A letter from more than 800 public health and legal experts in the US stated, “Voluntary self-isolation measures [combined with education, widespread screening, and universal access to treatment] are more likely to induce cooperation and protect public trust than coercive measures and are more likely to prevent attempts to avoid contact with the healthcare system.”

When quarantines or lockdowns are imposed, governments are obligated to ensure access to food, water, health care, and care-giving support. Many older people and people with disabilities rely on uninterrupted home and community services and support. Ensuring continuity of these services and operations means that public agencies, community organizations, health care providers, and other essential service providers are able to continue performing essential functions to meet the needs of older people and people with disabilities. Government strategies should minimize disruption in services and develop contingent sources of comparable services. Disruption of community-based services can result in the institutionalization of persons with disabilities and older people, which can lead to negative health outcomes, including death, as discussed below.