Districts of São Tomé and Príncipe
São Tomé and Príncipe is divided into seven administrative districts since 1980. Six are located on the main island of São Tomé. Since 1995, the Pagué District has been replaced by the Autonomous Region of Príncipe. List of cities and towns in São Tomé and Príncipe
Freedom of religion
Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice and observance. It includes the freedom to change one's religion or beliefs. Freedom of religion is considered by many people and most of the nations to be a fundamental human right. In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, does not persecute believers in other faiths. Freedom of belief is different, it allows the right to believe what a person, group or religion wishes, but it does not allow the right to practice the religion or belief and outwardly in a public manner. Freedom of religion has been used to refer to the tolerance of different theological systems of belief, while freedom of worship has been defined as freedom of individual action. Freedom from religion is a far more pressing moralistic and peaceful solution.
Each of these have existed to varying degrees. While many countries have accepted some form of religious freedom, this has often been limited in practice through punitive taxation, repressive social legislation, political disenfranchisement. Compare examples of individual freedom in Italy or the Muslim tradition of dhimmis "protected individuals" professing an tolerated non-Muslim religion. In Antiquity, a syncretic point of view allowed communities of traders to operate under their own customs; when street mobs of separate quarters clashed in a Hellenistic or Roman city, the issue was perceived to be an infringement of community rights. Cyrus the Great established the Achaemenid Empire ca. 550 BC, initiated a general policy of permitting religious freedom throughout the empire, documenting this on the Cyrus Cylinder. Some of the historical exceptions have been in regions where one of the revealed religions has been in a position of power: Judaism, Zoroastrianism and Islam. Others have been where the established order has felt threatened, as shown in the trial of Socrates in 399 BC or where the ruler has been deified, as in Rome, refusal to offer token sacrifice was similar to refusing to take an oath of allegiance.
This was the persecution of early Christian communities. Freedom of religious worship was established in the Buddhist Maurya Empire of ancient India by Ashoka the Great in the 3rd century BC, encapsulated in the Edicts of Ashoka. Greek-Jewish clashes at Cyrene in 73 AD and 117 AD and in Alexandria in 115 AD provide examples of cosmopolitan cities as scenes of tumult; the Romans tolerated most religions, including Judaism and encouraged local subjects to continue worshipping their own gods. They did not however, tolerate Christianity until it was legalised by the Roman emperor Galerius in 311; the Edict of Milan guaranteed freedom of religion in the Roman Empire until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, which outlawed all religions except Christianity. Following a period of fighting lasting around a hundred years before 620 AD which involved Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Medina, religious freedom for Muslims and pagans was declared by Muhammad in the Constitution of Medina; the Islamic Caliphate guaranteed religious freedom under the conditions that non-Muslim communities accept dhimmi status and their adult males pay the punitive jizya tax instead of the zakat paid by Muslim citizens.
Though Dhimmis were not given the same political rights as Muslims, they did enjoy equality under the laws of property and obligation. Religious pluralism existed in classical Islamic ethics and Sharia, as the religious laws and courts of other religions, including Christianity and Hinduism, were accommodated within the Islamic legal framework, as seen in the early Caliphate, Al-Andalus, Indian subcontinent, the Ottoman Millet system. In medieval Islamic societies, the qadi could not interfere in the matters of non-Muslims unless the parties voluntarily choose to be judged according to Islamic law, thus the dhimmi communities living in Islamic states had their own laws independent from the Sharia law, such as the Jews who would have their own Halakha courts. Dhimmis were allowed to operate their own courts following their own legal systems in cases that did not involve other religious groups, or capital offences or threats to public order. Non-Muslims were allowed to engage in religious practices that were forbidden by Islamic law, such as the consumption of alcohol and pork, as well as religious practices which Muslims found repugnant, such as the Zoroastrian practice of incestuous "self-marriage" where a man could marry his mother, sister or daughter.
According to the famous Islamic legal scholar Ibn Qayyim, non-Muslims had the right to engage in such religious practices if it offended Muslims, under the conditions that such cases not be presented to Islamic Sharia courts and that these religious minorities believed that the practice in question is permissible according to their religion. Despite Dhimmis enjoying special statuses under the Caliphates, they were not considered equals, sporadic persecutions of non-Muslim groups did occur in the history of the Caliphates. Ancient Jews fleeing from persecution in their homeland 2,500 years ago settled in India and never faced anti-Semitism. Freedom of religion edicts have been found written during Ashoka the Great's reign in the 3rd century BC. Freedom to practise and propagate any religion is a constitutional right in Modern India. Most major religious festivals of the main communities are included in
Freedom of the press
Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the principle that communication and expression through various media, including printed and electronic media published materials, should be considered a right to be exercised freely. Such freedom implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state. With respect to governmental information, any government may distinguish which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public. State materials are protected due to either of two reasons: the classification of information as sensitive, classified or secret, or the relevance of the information to protecting the national interest. Many governments are subject to sunshine laws or freedom of information legislation that are used to define the ambit of national interest; the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This philosophy is accompanied by legislation ensuring various degrees of freedom of scientific research and press.
The depth to which these laws are entrenched in a country's legal system can go as far down as its constitution. The concept of freedom of speech is covered by the same laws as freedom of the press, thereby giving equal treatment to spoken and published expression. Sweden was the first country in the world to adopt freedom of the press into its constitution with the Freedom of the Press Act of 1766. Freedom of the press is construed as an absence of interference by outside entities, such as a government or religious organization, rather than as a right for authors to have their works published by other people; this idea was famously summarized by the 20th century American journalist, A. J. Liebling, who wrote, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one". Freedom of the press gives the printer or publisher exclusive control over what the publisher chooses to publish, including the right to refuse to print anything for any reason. If the author cannot reach a voluntary agreement with a publisher to produce the author's work the author must turn to self-publishing.
Beyond legal definitions, several non-governmental organizations use other criteria to judge the level of press freedom around the world. Some create subjective lists, while others are based on quantitative data: Reporters Without Borders considers the number of journalists murdered, expelled or harassed, the existence of a state monopoly on TV and radio, as well as the existence of censorship and self-censorship in the media, the overall independence of media as well as the difficulties that foreign reporters may face to rank countries in levels of press freedom; the Committee to Protect Journalists systematically tracks the number of journalists killed and imprisoned in reprisal for their work. It says it uses the tools of journalism to help journalists by tracking press freedom issues through independent research, fact-finding missions, a network of foreign correspondents, including local working journalists in countries around the world. CPJ shares information on breaking cases with other press freedom organizations worldwide through the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of more than 119 free expression organizations.
CPJ tracks impunity in cases of journalist murders. CPJ staff applies strict criteria for each case. Freedom House studies the more general political and economic environments of each nation in order to determine whether relationships of dependence exist that limit in practice the level of press freedom that might exist in theory. Panels of experts assess the press freedom score and draft each country summary according to a weighted scoring system that analyzes the political, economic and safety situation for journalists based on a 100-point scale, it categorizes countries as having a free, party free, or not free press. Every year, the Committee to Protect Journalists releases its comprehensive list of all journalists killed in relation to their work, including profiles of each journalist and a database, an annual census of journalists in jail as of midnight on December 1. 2017 was a record year for journalists jailed with 262 journalists behind bars. Turkey and Egypt accounted for more than half of all journalists jailed globally.
Every year, Reporters Without Borders establish a subjective ranking of countries in terms of their freedom of the press. Press Freedom Index list is based on responses to surveys sent to journalists that are members of partner organizations of the RWB, as well as related specialists such as researchers and human rights activists; the survey asks questions about direct attacks on journalists and the media as well as other indirect sources of pressure against the free press, such as non-governmental groups. In 2016, the countries where press was the most free were Finland, Norway and New Zealand, followed by Costa Rica, Sweden and Jamaica; the country with the least degree of press freedom was Eritrea, followed by North Korea, Syria, China and Sudan. The problem with media in India, the world's largest democracy, is enormous. India doesn't have a model for a democratic press; the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression has published a report on India stating that Indian journalists are forced—or feel compelled for the sake of job security—to report in ways th
2011 São Toméan presidential election
A presidential election was held in São Tomé and Príncipe in 2011, the first round beginning on 17 July 2011 with a run-off held on 7 August 2011. Incumbent President Fradique de Menezes has served the maximum two terms and could not constitutionally seek a third term; the final result saw former president Manuel Pinto da Costa, aged 74, elected in a narrow victory against Speaker of Parliament Evaristo Carvalho. The first round was contested by 120 candidates; the candidate from President de Menezes' party, Force for Change Democratic Movement–Liberal Party, was Delfim Neves, who jointly represented the MDFM–PL and his own Democratic Convergence Party. Pinto da Costa, who ran independently, won the most votes but failed to receive the majority required to claim an outright victory. Carvalho, of the ruling party Independent Democratic Action, a former prime minister and the incumbent Speaker of the National Assembly, placed second. A run-off to be contested between Pinto da Costa and Carvalho was announced on the same day.
Pinto da Costa received the backing of the majority of eliminated candidates, he was expected to win comfortably. Pinto da Costa won the runoff, held 7 August, by five percentage points, he is scheduled to remain as president for a term of five years. Manuel Pinto da Costa served as São Tomé and Príncipe's first president from independence in 1975, he governed the islands as a one-party socialist state under the Movement for the Liberation of São Tomé and Príncipe. In 1991, the legalisation of opposition political parties led to the country's first election under a democratic system. Pinto da Costa was not a candidate in that election and instead announced he would retire from politics; the MLSTP did not present an alternative candidate and Miguel Trovoada was elected unopposed. Despite his previous declaration, Pinto da Costa returned to participate in the presidential elections of 1996, but was narrowly defeated by Trovoada. In 2001, he ran against incumbent president Fradique de Menezes, was again unsuccessful.
Pinto da Costa resigned from the MLSTP in 2005. The party is led by Aurélio Martins, who placed sixth in the first round vote count. Other major candidates included former prime minister Maria das Neves and former defence minister Elsa Pinto, both independents. Pinto da Costa's main rival, represented the ADI, which won the parliamentary elections in August 2010 and is the ruling party of incumbent Prime Minister Patrice Trovoada. A total of 92,639 citizens were registered to vote. In the first round, the national electoral commission, headed by Victor Correia, recorded a turnout of 68%. Of the 120 candidates, Da Costa and Carvalho won the most votes, but neither candidate received enough support to claim a majority. Delfim Neves and Maria das Neves both won substantial vote counts, but only the first two placeholders went through to the run-off. After the results were confirmed, most of the eliminated candidates, including Delfim Neves, Maria das Neves and Aurélio Martins, endorsed da Costa's bid for the run-off.
Missions from the African Union, Community of Portuguese Language Countries and the Economic Community of Central African States sent observers to monitor the election, declared free and fair. The only major controversy observed was a boycott by around 30,000 from five small villages on São Tomé's northern shore, in protest over grievances with living conditions that had not been addressed; the polls were re-opened in these villages on 20 July. Several analysts have raised concerns that Pinto da Costa's victory may trigger a return to the authoritarian rule seen during his previous period in power. Pinto da Costa's campaign website
Transparency (behavior)
Transparency, as used in science, business, the humanities and in other social contexts, is operating in such a way that it is easy for others to see what actions are performed. Transparency implies openness and accountability. Transparency is practiced in companies, organizations and communities. For example, a cashier making change after a point of sale transaction by offering a record of the items purchased as well as counting out the customer's change on the counter demonstrates one type of transparency; the term transparency has a different meaning in information security where it is used to describe security mechanisms that are intentionally in-detectable or hidden from view. Examples include hiding utilities and tools which the user does not need to know in order to do their job, like keeping the remote re-authentication operations of Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol hidden from the user. In Norway and in Sweden, tax authorities annually release the "skatteliste" or "tax list".
Regulations in Hong Kong require banks to list their top earners – without naming them – by pay band. In 2009, the Spanish government for the first time released information on how much each cabinet member is worth, but data on ordinary citizens is private. Radical transparency is a management method where nearly all decision making is carried out publicly. All draft documents, all arguments for and against a proposal, all final decisions, the decision making process itself are made public and remain publicly archived; this approach has grown in popularity with the rise of the Internet. Two examples of organizations utilizing this style are Indymedia. Corporate transparency, a form of radical transparency, is the concept of removing all barriers to —and the facilitating of— free and easy public access to corporate information and the laws, social connivance and processes that facilitate and protect those individuals and corporations that join and improve the process. Accountability and transparency are of high relevance for non-governmental organisations.
In view of their responsibilities to stakeholders, including donors, programme beneficiaries, staff and the public, they are considered to be of greater importance to them than to commercial undertakings. Yet these same values are found to be lacking in NGOs; the International NGO Accountability Charter, linked to the Global Reporting Initiative, documents the commitment of its members international NGOs to accountability and transparency, requiring them to submit an annual report, among others. Signed in 2006 by 11 NGOs active in the area of humanitarian rights, the INGO Accountability Charter has been referred to as the “first global accountability charter for the non-profit sector”. In 1997, the One World Trust created an NGO Charter, a code of conduct comprising commitment to accountability and transparency. Media transparency is the concept of determining how and why information is conveyed through various means. If the media and the public knows everything that happens in all authorities and county administrations there will be a lot of questions and suggestions coming from media and the public.
People who are interested in a certain issue will try to influence the decisions. Transparency creates an everyday participation in the political processes by the public. One tool used to increase everyday participation in political processes is freedom of information legislation and requests. Modern democracy builds on such participation of the media. There are, for anybody, interested, many ways to influence the decisions at all levels in society; the right and the means to examine the process of decision making is known as transparency. In politics, transparency is used as a means of holding public officials accountable and fighting corruption; when a government's meetings are open to the press and the public, its budgets may be reviewed by anyone, its laws and decisions are open to discussion, it is seen as transparent. It is not clear however if this provides less opportunity for the authorities to abuse the system for their own interests; when military authorities classify their plans as secret, transparency is absent.
This can be seen as either negative. While a liberal democracy can be a plutocracy, where decisions are made behind locked doors and the people have fewer possibilities to influence politics between the elections, a participative democracy is more connected to the will of the people. Participative democracy, built on transparency and everyday participation, has been used in northern Europe for decades. In the northern European country Sweden, public access to government documents became a law as early as 1766, it has been adopted as an ideal to strive for by the rest of EU, leading to measures like freedom of information laws and laws for lobby transparency. To promote transparency in politics, Hans Peter Martin, Paul van Buitenen and Ashley Mote decided to cooperate under the name Platform for Transparency in 2005. Similar organizations that promotes transparency are Transparency International and the Sunlight Foundation. A recent political movement to emerge in conjunction with the demands for transparency is the Pirate Party, a label for a number of political parties across different countries who advocate freedom of information, direct democracy, network neutrality, the free sharing of knowledge.
21st century culture affords a h
Freedom of movement
Freedom of movement, mobility rights, or the right to travel is a human rights concept encompassing the right of individuals to travel from place to place within the territory of a country, to leave the country and return to it. The right includes not only visiting places, but changing the place where the individual resides or works; such a right is provided in the constitutions of numerous states, in documents reflecting norms of international law. For example, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that: a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others, that a citizen has the right to leave any country, including his or her own, to return to his or her country at any time; some people and organizations advocate an extension of the freedom of movement to include a freedom of movement – or migration – between the countries as well as within the countries.
The freedom of movement is restricted in a variety of ways by various governments and may vary within the territory of a single country. Such restrictions are based on public health, order, or safety justifications and postulate that the right to these conditions preempts the notion of freedom of movement. Restrictions on international travel on people are commonplace. Within countries, freedom of travel is more limited for minors, penal law can modify this right as it applies to persons charged with or convicted of crimes. In some countries, freedom of movement has been limited for women, for members of disfavored racial and social groups. Circumstances, both legal and practical, may operate to limit this freedom. For example, a nation, permissive with respect to travel may restrict that right during time of war. Restrictions may include the following: national and regional official minimum wage tariff barriers to labour-market entry. In some jurisdictions, questions have arisen as to the extent to which a private owner of land can exclude certain persons from land, used for public purposes, such as a shopping mall or a park.
There is a rule of law that a landowner whose property has no public access can be awarded an easement to cross private land if necessary to reach his own property. Conversely, public nuisance laws prevent alternate use of public streets designated for public transit from being used for block parties and playing basketball. Parents or other legal guardians are able to restrict the movements of minor children under their care, of other adults who have been deemed incompetent to govern their own movement. Employers may set some restrictions on the movements of employees, terminate employment if those restrictions are breached. Governments may sharply restrict the freedom of movement of persons who have been convicted of crimes, most conspicuously in the context of imprisonment. Restrictions may be placed on convicted criminals who are on probation or have been released on parole. Persons who have been charged with crimes and have been released on bail may be prohibited from traveling. A material witness may be denied the right to travel.
Governments sometimes restrict access to disaster-stricken areas, or to places where public health threats exist. Where an individual presents a health threat due to infection with a contagious disease, the government may quarantine that person, restricting their movement for the safety of others. Though travelling to and from countries is permitted, most governments restrict the length of time that temporary visitors may stay in the country; this can be dependent on country of country travelled to among other factors. In some instances, indefinite stay may be allowed on humanitarian grounds, but in most other cases, stay is limited. One notable exception to this is the Schengen Area, where citizens of any country in the EU enjoy indefinite stay in other EU countries. Furthermore, restrictions on the right to relocate or live in certain areas of a country have been imposed in several countries, most prominently China. In a child custody dispute, a court may place restrictions on the movement of a minor child, thereby restricting the ability of the parents of that child to travel with their child.
The Visa Restrictions Index ranks countries based on the number of other countries its citizens are free to enter without visa. Most countries in the world require visas or some other form of entrance permit for non-citizens to enter their territory; those who enter countries in defiance of regulations requiring such documentation are subject to imprisonment or deportation. Most countries require that their citizens leave the country on a valid passport, travel document issued by an international organization or, in some cases, identification document. Conditions of issuance and the governments' authority to deny issuance of a passport vary from country to country. Under certain circumstances, countries may issue travel documents to aliens, that is, to persons
Santomean passport
The Santomean passport is issued to citizens of São Tomé and Príncipe for international travel. As of 1 January 2018, Santomean citizens had visa-free or visa on arrival access to 58 countries and territories, ranking the Santomean passport 77th in terms of travel freedom according to the Henley Passport Index. Visa requirements for Santomean citizens List of passports
São Tomé and Príncipe portal 
