• When quarantines, curfews or lockdowns are included in emergency measures, the failure to provide clear and timely information about how these measures will be regulated impacts not only the right to receive information but also other rights, such as freedom of movement. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been many examples in the OSCE region of states implementing lockdowns without initially providing explicit information to the public about protection for survivors of domestic violence, as evidenced by the fact that these states later took measures to provide such information.86 Specifically, women were not informed about the fact that they would be permitted to leave their homes to escape domestic violence, without being subjected to penalties for violating quarantine. When such information is not provided, women will remain with abusive partners, which can lead to further infringements of their basic rights (e.g., the right to be free from violence; the right to physical and psychological integrity). Information about services that survivors of domestic violence can access while social distancing must take into consideration the potential lack of access to mainstream media for specific groups of women. For instance, if women with hearing disabilities (when there are no sign language interpreters for government briefings87), ethnic minority women and homeless and refugee women88 are not able to access information, their ability to exercise their right to social services will be limited. • Emergency measures that restrict the dissemination of certain information and/or limit sources of information about a pandemic, emergency or other crisis to specific authorized agencies and outlets limit the freedom of expression. In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, such measures have limited the freedom of expression of frontline health workers, a large majority of whom are women, to voice criticism of government responses to the pandemic and to expose weaknesses in healthcare systems (such as shortages of protective equipment).89 Freedom of expression should also be considered in conjunction with the right to take part in civic activism (the right to attend public gatherings is discussed below) and with the fact that CSOs representing women’s interests were largely excluded from the planning of national emergency responses. 86 See, e.g.: UN Women Ukraine, “Rapid Gender Assessment of the Situation and Needs of Women in the Context of Covid-19 in Ukraine”, May 2020, p. 36, <https://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eca/attachments/publications/2020/06/rapid%20gender%20assessment_eng-min.pdf?la=en&vs=3646>. 87 Women Enabled International, “COVID-19 at the Intersection of Gender and Disability: Findings of a Global Human Rights Survey, March to April 2020”, op. cit., note 61, p. 17. 88 Schindler, F., “Das eigene Zuhause ist für viele Frauen kein sicherer Ort“ [“Your Own Home Is Not a Safe Place for Many Women”], Welt website, 22 March, 2020, <https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article206709651/ Ausgangssperre-wegen-Corona-Fuer-Frauen-eine-bedrohliche-Situation.html>. 89 See, e.g.: Letsas. G and Mantouvalou, V., “COVID-19 and Free Speech: ‘Gagging’ NHS Staff Is Not Proportionate and Lawful”, London School of Economics website, 17 April 2020, <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/covid-19-and-free-speech/>; and Luxmore, M., “Russian Doctor Who Criticized Government’s COVID-19 Response Detained”, RFERL website, 3 April 2020, <https://www.rferl.org/a/head-of-russian-doctors-union-arrested-ontrip-to-equip-provincial-hospitals-battling-virus/30527912.html>. 29