Budapest Pride: banned? - Banning Pride as a violation of EU free movement

 

Attila Szabó, LLM in European law, Head of Legal Aid Service, Hungarian Civil Liberties Union

The author would like to thank Steve Peers and Máté Szabó, HCLU's professional director, for their ideas for the text!

 

Photo credit: Tételes istentagadó, via Wikimedia Commons

 

On 5 April, Renáta Uitz published a pinpoint blog post on Verfassungblog about how and why Budapest Pride, which has been held every year for 30 years in Hungary for the equality of LGBTQ+ people, was banned. Uitz describes in detail why this is contrary to Article 2 of the TEU and how this government action violates the European Court of Human Rights case law. The CEU (and Royal Holloway) professor also explains how Hungary got to this point.

 

I would like to add two things to this reflection. One is just brief: Hungarian civil society organisations are committed to organising and hosting Pride and the Mayor of Budapest also supported the organizers, despite the categorical legal ban, on the very same fundamental rights basis that Uitz explains: assembly and thus standing up for LGBTQ+ rights is a fundamental right and can only be restricted if it restricts another fundamental right. The abstract and unscientific paedophile arguments that the Hungarian government is operating with are not. Consequently, the restriction of rights is also contrary to the Hungarian Fundamental Law and goes against the ECtHR case law cited by Uitz.

 

It is another matter that the Hungarian legislator allowed for fines to be imposed on the basis of the face recognition system at banned rallies, such as the Budapest Pride, which was planned to take place despite the ban. The legal issues involved would require a separate blog post. A very careful Hungarian-language piece concludes that "the use of facial recognition technology to detect and punish offences, and thus to restrict assembly and free expression, may be objectionable on a number of points. Although (...) the prohibition rules (Article 5 of the EU AI Regulation) do not directly preclude the non-real-time use of facial recognition technology, there are nevertheless a number of fundamental rights concerns which render the use of the system unlawful. The primary avenue of redress may therefore be to invoke these fundamental rights violations."

 

My argument, which may be news to many, is that the restriction runs counter to one of the EU's four freedoms, the right of free movement and residence. This is what I want to convince readers of.

 

Freedom of movement: limited?

 

In my view, if a non-Hungarian EU citizen can enjoy the right to participate in an LGBTQ+ rights march in every EU country then she can not freely choose this given country.

 

Participation in Pride is a fundamental right that has become part of Atlantic and therefore European culture. All EU citizens have the right to express their support for LGBTQ+ people in any EU Member State within the framework of Pride. If an EU citizen is not allowed to participate in Budapest Pride because it cannot take place, he or she is not free to choose Hungary as a place of residence, as this means that he or she cannot freely exercise in that Member State the fundamental rights that he or she could exercise in another Member State. So, an EU citizen who is committed to LGBTQ+ rights cannot come to Hungary to work or study, because he cannot stand up for the rights he could stand up for anywhere else in any city.

 

One might think that restrictions on freedom of movement are only violated if hard barriers are put in place, but in my view this is not the case. If a Member State introduces an ideological, ideological, theoretical or even religious restriction that alienates other EU citizens from exercising their right to move and reside freely, then that right is infringed. This is particularly so in cases where the exercise of the right in question is consensual in the EU or protected by human rights court decisions and other international law standards. Participation in Pride is such a case.

 

In my view, this conclusion is true in all cases where an EU citizen wishes to stay in Hungary on a long-term basis, but is discouraged from doing so by this kind of unlawful restriction of a fundamental right, and also in cases where an EU citizen wishes to come to Budapest specifically for Pride. The latter case is not unprecedented either, as Budapest Pride in recent years has hosted many EU citizens who would not otherwise have stayed in Hungary for a longer period. So banning Pride is not only an obstacle to the free movement of those who would like to attend such an event but cannot, but also to those who attend a formally illegal event and face sanctions for doing so.

 

Based on Art 6 of Directive 2004/38, free movement also extends to people who make short-term visits, ie to participate in an event or demonstration. The Cowan and Bickel and Franz judgments show that free movement rights in the context of short-term visits go further than entry onto the territory – ie. equal treatment as regards victims’ rights and fair trial rights respectively.

 

Legal bases and arguments

 

The right to freedom of movement is a cornerstone of EU law, enshrined in Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Furthermore, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights reinforces this right, particularly Article 45, which explicitly states that every EU citizen has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. Although Article 51 of the Charter says that the Charter itself should only be taken into account in the application of EU law, I am not arguing that the Charter should be taken into account in relation to the right of assembly in the Member States. I say that the Charter should be taken into account in relation to Article 21 TFEU. Indeed, the restriction on the right of assembly restricts this EU right, guaranteed in TFEU Article 21, as follows.

 

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) plays a vital role in shaping and expanding the interpretation of EU freedom of movement, particularly in light of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The CJEU increasingly considers the Charter when assessing national measures that may restrict freedom of movement. This means that restrictions must not only be justified under EU law but also comply with fundamental rights.

 

Cases involving the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and their families have highlighted the CJEU's willingness to use the Charter to protect fundamental rights within the context of freedom of movement. The Charter has strengthened the protection of freedom of movement by providing a clear and comprehensive list of fundamental rights. It has also given the CJEU a stronger basis for challenging national measures that are deemed to be incompatible with these rights.

 

The Coman and Hamilton (C-673/16) judgment helps us to understand the context. This case dealt with the refusal of a Romanian authority to recognize the marriage of a Romanian citizen with a US citizen, a same-sex couple, celebrated in Belgium. The CJEU ruled that the term "spouse" in the context of EU freedom of movement includes same-sex spouses. The Court emphasized the need to respect the fundamental rights of EU citizens, including the right to respect for private and family life (Article 7 of the Charter) and the principle of non-discrimination (Article 21 of the Charter). This case significantly expanded the rights of same-sex couples in the EU, ensuring that their family life is protected when exercising freedom of movement.

 

Steve Peers wrote about the case that “[t]he Court added that any measure restricting free movement rights also has to comply with human rights guaranteed by the EU Charter of Rights, which has to be interpreted consistently with the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, “the relationship of a homosexual couple may fall within the notion of ‘private life’ and that of ‘family life’ in the same way as the relationship of a heterosexual couple in the same situation.”

 

In another case (C-808/21), the CJEU determined that EU citizenship, established by the Maastricht Treaty and articulated in Article 20 TFEU, implies a right for EU citizens to join political parties in other Member States, despite the absence of explicit provisions. The Court reasoned that denying this right undermines the effective exercise of voting rights in municipal and European Parliament elections, which are expressly granted to EU citizens. The CJEU emphasized the principle of equal treatment under Article 22 TFEU, stating that Member States cannot impose conditions on non-national EU citizens that are not applied to their own nationals. While acknowledging national identity and the Member States' authority over national elections, the Court asserted that EU values, such as democracy and equal treatment, limit national discretion. The Court's rulings enhance EU citizenship's political rights, reinforcing its role as a fundamental status within the EU legal order. Finally, the court linked the right to join political parties to Article 12 of the Charter, which concerns freedom of association.

 

Peers wrote in the Verfassungblog that “remarkably, the Court links the implied political rights of EU citizens in municipal and European Parliament elections not only to the express rights of EU citizenship, but also to democracy and equal treatment, as represented in Article 10 TEU and the EU’s values – putting them at the same rank as national identity. So national identity cannot constitute an exception to democracy or the rule of law et al – but must be reconciled with those values.”

 

I think that the EU understandings, based on the ECtHR rulings, is that restrictions on certain political freedoms are not only a violation of EU law if they discriminate against EU citizens, but also if they restrict those rights without discrimination. For, as I argued above, a Member State that falls below the standards of European fundamental rights is in fact restricting the free movement of its citizens by alienating the citizens of other States from the freedom of movement and residence. Who would like to study in Budapest without being able to choose to participate in the celebration of equality according to sexual orientation? I think it can be argued that far fewer people would do so than if this right were not restricted.

 

The EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency has a more detailed collection of relevant cases.  These cases demonstrate the CJEU's commitment to protecting fundamental rights within the context of freedom of movement. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights provides a vital framework for the CJEU's interpretation of EU law in this area.

 

Obviously, the facts of these cases are different from those of the Budapest Pride ban, but they follow a similar logical structure: that is, national measures become relevant under EU law when, in the exercise of free movement, they deprive an EU citizen of fundamental rights that would be guaranteed in another Member State.

 

Conclusion: no pasarán

 

I argue that banning Budapest Pride is not only a violation of the Hungarian Fundamental Law, not only a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, not only a violation of Article 2 of the TEU, but also a violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence. There is the same human rights minimum without which an EU Member State cannot be considered so free, so grounded in European values, that a citizen of any other Member State is free to choose to travel and reside there. Member States must not violate the privacy prohibitions on which freedom of movement and residence are based, and they must not, in my opinion, exclude citizens of other Member States from joining political parties by excluding everyone equally. In the same way, Member States cannot exclude EU citizens from lawful assembly by European legal standards. If they do so, they restrict freedom of assembly.

 

Of course, many things can deter an EU citizen from moving to another Member State: from the climate, to the quality of social and health services, to tax policy. However, fundamental rights deterrence is different from other types of deterrence because of the Charter and the relevance of ECtHR jurisprudence. Denial of fundamental rights, on the other hand, carries a normative message: 'You cannot exercise certain fundamental rights here'. And it is no longer a matter of preference for the person, but of the exercise of his or her citizenship status. It is up to the Court of Justice of the European Union to work out the yardstick for this.

The New EU “Common System for Returns” under the Return Regulation: Evidence-Lacking Lawmaking and Human Rights Concerns

 

Dr. Izabella Majcher, Independent Consultant

Photo credit: Alamy Stock Photo 

On 11 March 2025, the European Commission published a proposal for a Return Regulation to replace the 2008 Return Directive. This new proposal also supersedes the Commission 2018 proposal to recast the Directive (discussed here and here). Negotiations on the 2018 recast proposal spanned several years, incurring significant costs, yet they stalled at the European Parliament level before even reaching interinstitutional negotiations between the Parliament and the Council of the EU. This raises questions about the necessity of launching fresh negotiations, their financial implications, and ultimately whether a comprehensive revision is needed at all. Why will this proposal pass through the negotiations if the previous one got stalled? In addition, opting for a regulation rather than a directive could make negotiations even more complex, as Member States recognize that a regulation’s provisions would be directly applicable in their domestic legal systems.

The underlying aim of the proposal is to increase the number of people returned, as it regrets that only around 20% of those issued a return decision actually leave. The proposal links this objective to the effectiveness of return. This objective is to be achieved through two main contributions of the proposal.

First, the proposal aims to streamline and harmonise return procedures, attributing the inefficiency of returns at the EU level to divergent national approaches. To address this, the Commission proposes shifting from a directive to a regulation and restricting the ability of Member States to provide stronger safeguards at the domestic level. Notably, the proposal criticises “significant room” the Directive leaves for national courts to interpret EU rules and removes the option for “more favourable provisions” option under the Directive (Art. 4). In the effort to create “modern, simplified and common” procedures, there is a risk that essential human rights safeguards will be eroded. It is crucial to remember that return procedures must comply not only with the principle of effectiveness but also with human rights standards. Second, the proposal upgrades “common standards and procedures” of return to a “common system for returns.” Besides the return standards and procedures, the “common system for returns” includes mutual recognition of return decisions (see discussion below), necessary resources and personnel to be ensured by the Member States, cooperation between Member States, support from EU bodies and agencies, and digital management systems. These measures are neither groundbreaking nor novel enough to justify an entirely new legislative text—especially considering the costs of adopting a new law.

The lack of an ex-ante impact assessment makes these questions even more pressing. Citing urgency and existing studies and consultations (most of which have not been made public), the Commission chose not to conduct an impact assessment for this proposal. None of these explanations is convincing, especially in light of the importance of evidence-based law-making. Under its own Better Regulation Guidelines, for every initiative that is likely to have significant economic, environmental or social impacts, the Commission should conduct an impact assessment to demonstrate the added value of the proposed measures and their coherence with key criteria—including impact on fundamental rights.

The proposal introduces some stronger human rights protections compared to the Directive, including the judicial form of appeal (Art. 26(1)), expanded monitoring of forced returns (Art. 15), basic needs provision during removal postponement (Art. 14(6)), and age assessment for children (Art. 19). However, these safeguards are overshadowed by the proposal’s overall coercive approach and several provisions that weaken rights. This analysis examines five key measures that are particularly problematic from a human rights perspective, questioning not only their human rights compliance but also their effectiveness.

1) Mutual recognition of return decisions: Building upon the Commission Recommendation from March 2023, the proposal enshrines the mutual recognition of return decisions. Under this mechanism, a Member State that apprehended a person who has already received a return decision in another Member State may (and in the future shall) enforce that decision rather than issuing its own (Art. 9). This is made possible through a “European Return Order” (a form listing main elements of the return decision) made available among the states through the Schengen Information System (Regulation 2018/1860) or other information exchange channels. In theory, mutual recognition enhances efficiency, as only one state would conduct the return procedure. It is therefore unsurprising that the Commission presents it as a key element of the common system for return. However, this measure was already provided in a 2001 Council Directive, yet it does not appear to be regularly used.

Recognizing another state’s return decision comes with practical and legal challenges. Since grounds for legal stay are not harmonised at the EU level, a person may be in an irregular situation in one state but not in another. Although the proposal aims to harmonise procedures, Member States will still be allowed to grant residence permits on humanitarian, compassionate, or other grounds (Art. 7(9)). Since these residence permits are not harmonised, situations may arise where a state is required to remove a person who would otherwise qualify for a residence permit under its domestic law. Additionally, despite formal harmonisation, there will remain the scope for domestic interpretation of grounds for a legal stay (currently demonstrated by discrepancies between asylum recognition rates for the same nationality across the EU). So a state enforcing another’s return decision may face litigation, even though appeals against the decision would have to be lodged against the issuing Member State, according to the proposal. The enforcing state would also bear the costs of removal and potentially detention. Although the proposal provides for Frontex funding or compensation by the issuing state, accessing this financing may be cumbersome to organise. Mutual recognition is thus generally in the interest of the transit countries while disadvantageous for the destination countries.

Crucially, mutual recognition of return decisions and entry bans raises proportionality concerns as it effectively spreads across the EU the most restrictive approaches. As demonstrated above, despite the proposal's aim to harmonise procedures, there will still be room for domestic non-harmonised statuses (e.g., under Art. 7(9) of the proposal) as well as variations in the interpretation of harmonised statuses (e.g., refugee or subsidiary protection statuses). The Commission’s approach lacks coherence on this issue. It glorifies the mutual recognition of return decisions as a key efficiency measure, yet it makes no effort to introduce the mutual recognition of protection statuses—exposing a clear double standard in EU migration policy.  

2) Expansion of detention: the proposal significantly expands the legal basis for detention. Under the Directive, states may only apply detention unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a specific case. The proposal removes this requirement (Art. 29(1)-(2)), making detention the first resort measure, which is at odds with the CJEU case-law and HRC jurisprudence. The proposal introduces three new grounds for detention (Art. 29(3)), which are also questionable under international human rights law. Among the new grounds for detention is the need to determine or verify the person’s identity or nationality, even where there is no risk of absconding. This ground could lead to unnecessary and prolonged detention of individuals whose nationality is disputed, not recognized, or who are stateless.

Detention would henceforth also be allowed if the person poses “security risks,” defined as a threat to public policy or public or national security, the existence of serious grounds for believing that the person has committed a serious offence, or a clear indication of their intention to commit one (Art. 16). The proposal further provides for derogations from the detention regime otherwise applicable. States will be able to detain those covered by this ground in prisons (albeit separated from “ordinary prisoners”) rather than in dedicated detention centres, and for a period longer than the maximum permissible length under the proposal—potentially indefinite. Detention based on “security risks” blurs the lines between (administrative) immigration detention and criminal detention. Because it offers fewer guarantees to detainees, immigration detention is an exceptional measure that should only be applied on narrowly defined grounds related to imminent removal. Immigration detention is by no means intended to address security risks; rather, criminal laws should apply equally to anyone under the state's jurisdiction. Criminal pre-trial and post-conviction detention provide stronger due process guarantees and clearer time-limits. The proposal thus intends to sideline the CJEU case-law, as the court was adamant in stressing that detention on public order or safety grounds cannot be based on the Directive.

The proposal extends the maximum permitted length of detention in ordinary cases from 18 months to 24 months (Art. 32(3)). While states are not required to maintain detention for the maximum period, in practice, they often do. As a result, the proposal would lead to longer detention periods across the EU. This stands in stark contrast to the Commission’s previous stance, which claimed that the Directive had a beneficial effect on detention lengths in Member States by generally shortening them. Additionally, the proposal clarifies that these limits apply within a given Member State. So, if a person is transferred between states (for instance, under the mutual recognition mechanism), the detention period may start anew. The proposal also facilitates extended and unnecessary detention by removing the principle that detention shall only be maintained as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence. However, this requirement stems from the ECtHR's well-established case-law, so the Member States remain bound by it in any case.

The expansion of detention thus conflicts with several safeguards flowing from the right to liberty. Additionally, as pointed out by the EPRS, detention is neither necessarily effective (since there is no evidence to suggest that more detention leads to higher return rates) nor efficient (due to the considerable costs involved).

3) Generalized restriction on freedom of movement: the proposal introduces five freedom-restricting measures (including reporting obligations, residing in a specific place and electronic monitoring), labelling them as “alternatives to detention” (Art. 31). However unlike genuine alternatives to detention, these measures are not to be imposed instead of detention (i.e., when detention would otherwise be lawful) but in addition to detention – when detention is not or no longer justified (Art. 32). Labelling such measures as “alternatives to detention” is therefore misleading and creates confusion. Under the framework of detention and its so-called alternatives, individuals risk being either detained or subjected to these restrictive measures depending on the perceived level of the risk of absconding. Given the expansive definition of the risk of absconding (Art. 30), personal freedom would effectively become the exception rather than the rule. Although the proposal includes some human rights safeguards flowing from the right to freedom of movement within a State—such as individual assessment and proportionality requirements—these may not be sufficient to counterbalance the broad scope of restrictions.

Another set of freedom-restricting measures introduced in the proposal relates to the new obligation to cooperate and remain available for the return process (Art. 23). To ensure a swift, efficient, and effective return, the proposal subjects individuals to geographical restrictions (such as confinement to a designated area or residence at a specific address) and/or reporting duties for the duration of the return procedure. Notably, the proposal does not establish any additional conditions for imposing these measures. Subjecting every person in the return procedure to geographical restrictions is an indiscriminate and disproportionate measure. It fails to meet the necessity requirement under the right to freedom of movement, which demands that any restriction be necessary in the individual case for achieving the legitimate objective.

4) The downgrading of “voluntary” departure/return: The proposal rebrands "voluntary departure" (currently used in the Directive) as "voluntary return," which reduces clarity. A return that follows a return decision is not truly voluntary, as it is not based on the person’s informed and free consent. Even "voluntary departure" under the Directive is misleading, with "mandatory" or "accepted" return previously suggested as more accurate. The shift to "voluntary return" only deepens the confusion, likely aligning the language with assisted voluntary return and reintegration programs run by the International Organization for Migration.

Additionally, the proposal removes the priority currently given to "voluntary" departure/return, making removal the default option. The minimum 7-day departure period has also been eliminated, further downgrading the role of “voluntary” departure/return (Art. 12–13). This shift contradicts key legal principles and the Commission’s own position. The CJEU in Zh. and O. confirmed that “voluntary” departure/return is rooted in the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, this form of return is in states’ interests—it is cheaper and easier to organize. As the Commission acknowledged in its 2021 strategy, “voluntary” departure/return helps ensure more effective and sustainable outcomes. The explanatory memorandum applauds the increase in the uptake of “voluntary” departures/returns and, due to the absence of an impact assessment, it remains unclear why this form of return is now being restricted. While the proposal limits “voluntary” departures/returns, it simultaneously promotes them by introducing a new provision dedicated to return and reintegration assistance (Art. 46(3)). This inconsistency ultimately undermines both legal principles and practical considerations.

5) Externalisation of return: The proposal allows Member States to remove individuals—except unaccompanied children and families with children—to a third country with which they have an agreement or arrangement for return (Art. 17). This “return hub” would then be responsible for the further removal. In effect, the proposal establishes a legal basis in EU law for the externalisation of return. On paper, outsourcing returns may seem attractive to Member States. However, as a recent migration deal has shown, such measures often face legal challenges, operational hurdles, and high costs for the outsourcing state. The Commission itself considered “externally-located return centres” in 2018 but identified serious legal and practical challenges, including the risk of violating non-refoulement and conflicts with EU values.

Return hubs raise human rights concerns, particularly regarding detention and onward return. While the proposal requires third countries to uphold international human rights standards, including non-refoulement, it fails to specify how and by whom compliance would be assessed. Similarly, although independent monitoring is mandated, its scope and mandate remain undefined. Member States may not be able to escape responsibility for human rights violations in return hubs. Under the proposed framework, their involvement may be substantial enough to establish jurisdiction, as seen in recent UN Human Rights Committee decisions.

Concluding thoughts

As this analysis has shown, several measures in the Commission’s proposal risk violating fundamental human rights, including the prohibition of refoulement, arbitrary detention, and torture or ill-treatment. The generalised restrictions on freedom of movement and the downgrading of “voluntary” departure/return are not in line with the EU law principle of proportionality. At the same time, these measures are unlikely to improve the effectiveness of return, even when effectiveness is reduced to the sheer number of persons returned—let alone efficiency, which considers the human and financial resources required. In fact, detention does not necessarily lead to higher return rates, while being costly. Similarly, forced removal is more expensive and complex to organize than “voluntary” departure/return. The so-called “innovative solutions”—such as mutual recognition of return decisions and return hubs—lack clarity and may prove far more difficult to implement than envisioned on paper.

Moreover, the proposal fails to meet other key criteria for EU policymaking as outlined in the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines. The de-prioritisation of “voluntary” departure/return contradicts the criterion of sustainability. The criterion of coherence is also put into question. Internally, the downgrading of “voluntary” departure/return is inconsistent with the promotion of “voluntary” assisted return and reintegration. Externally, the use of “alternatives to detention” as standalone restrictive measures distorts the concept, which is meant for people who would otherwise be lawfully detained. Ultimately, the proposal disregards several core criteria of EU lawmaking—shortcomings that could have been identified through an ex-ante impact assessment.

The proposal fails to acknowledge that, despite its arsenal of measures to increase return numbers, not everyone in an irregular situation can or will leave EU territory. The obligation to issue a return decision for every person in an irregular situation—without a mandatory prior assessment of refoulement risks or other legal bars to removal (such as family and private life or health conditions)—inevitably creates a group of unreturnable individuals. This issue already existed under the Directive and is further exacerbated by the proposal. Currently, Member States may issue a residence permit for humanitarian or other reasons instead of a return decision, or withdraw/suspend an existing return decision for such reasons (Art. 6(4)). However, as the EPRS observed, these considerations are not automatically assessed within the return procedure.

Rather than addressing this gap, the proposal eliminates this possibility from the list of exceptions. Member States will only be able to withdraw or suspend a return decision (Article 7(9)); abstaining from issuing a return decision on such considerations will not be an option anymore. Impediments to return will be assessed only at the appeal stage of the return procedure, which undermines the effectiveness and efficiency of return policies let alone human rights compliance. Instead, an automatic assessment should be conducted before issuing a return decision, and a regular status should be granted to those who cannot be returned. Regular pathways for stay are widely recognized as a viable alternative to return and a normal feature of migration governance. A genuine "Common System for Returns" should at least recognize regularisation measures for unreturnable persons.

A legislative proposal based on coercion and restrictive measures—without any supporting evidence due to a missing impact assessment—would never see the light of day in the EU if its addressees were not people whose voices are typically unheard. People fall into irregular situations in many different ways and many have lived in and contributed to European societies for decades. They remain invisible, and those who defend their rights face increasing criminalisation. In this context, responding to the demands of some Member States, the Commission has enjoyed wide flexibility to propose unrestricted coercive measures—with little accountability for their impact on those affected. However, law-making without evidence sets a dangerous precedent. In the future, such an untransparent approach could extend beyond undocumented migrants, affecting asylum seekers, migrants in a regular situation, and ultimately EU citizens. Now, it is up to the European Parliament and the Member States in the Council to reaffirm the EU’s founding principles: democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.