A/HRC/44/22 80. While numerous statements by the President, Mr. Duterte, are subsequently clarified by his spokesperson and other officials as not to be taken literally, the widespread killings, detentions, red-tagging and score-settling by State actors, including in the campaign against illegal drugs, suggest that his public comments may have incited violence and may have had the effect of encouraging, backing or even ordering human rights violations, with impunity. The use of such language could amount to a violation of the prohibition against arbitrary deprivation of life in article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.111 IV. Conclusions 81. The legal, constitutional and institutional framework in the Philippines contains human rights safeguards, as well as checks and balances. The challenge has always been one of implementation – and circumvention. The long-standing overemphasis on public order and national security at the expense of human rights has become more acute in recent years, and there are concerns that the vilification of dissent is being increasingly institutionalized and normalized in ways that will be very difficult to reverse. 82. In just the first four months of 2020, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, OHCHR documented continued killings of persons suspected of drugs offences, and of human rights defenders. Charges were filed against political opponents and civil society members, including for sedition and perjury. A major media network was forced to stop broadcasting after being singled out by the authorities. Red-tagging and incitement to violence have been rife, online and offline. The response to COVID-19 has seen the same heavy-handed security approach that appears to have been mainstreamed through the ramped-up campaign against illegal drugs and by counter-insurgency imperatives. While important measures were taken to mitigate the economic impact of the pandemic on vulnerable communities, threats of martial law, the use of force by security forces in enforcing quarantines and the use of laws to stifle criticism have also marked the Government’s response. 83. Persistent impunity for human rights violations is stark, and practical obstacles to accessing justice within the country are almost insurmountable. Human rights advocacy is routinely equated with insurgency, with the focus being diverted to discrediting the messengers rather than examining the substance of the message. This has muddied the space for debate, for disagreement and for challenging State institutions and policies, which has resulted in deep mistrust between the Government and civil society – a rift in urgent need of repair. 84. The country faces major systemic challenges, from structural poverty, to inequalities, to armed conflict, to natural disasters, and now, the nationwide impact of COVID-19. OHCHR welcomes the important efforts to improve protection of economic and social rights and access to essential goods and services across the country. It is crucial, however, that this be guided by a human rights-based approach that is focused on “leaving no one behind”. Efforts to address criminality and the proliferation of illicit drugs, and to prevent and counter violent extremism and armed conflict, must be grounded in evidence, be consistent with the rule of law, and embody full respect for human rights. Accountability for violations committed both by State and by non-State actors, with full transparency and respect for due process, is essential for rebuilding public confidence. 85. Given the widespread and systematic nature of the alleged killings, and the failure of domestic mechanisms to ensure accountability thus far, there have been strong calls for an international accountability mechanism. In June 2019, a group of 11 special procedure mandate holders called upon the Human Rights Council to 111 16 See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36.