A new report published on 2 September 2026 by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and its member organisation Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) sheds light on the severe human rights impacts of the enforcement of Article 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code (lèse-majesté) since the country’s latest military coup in May 2014.
The report, titled “The unsayable – Q&A on Thailand’s lèse-majesté”, answers 15 frequently asked questions about Article 112 and its implications for human rights, civic space, the media, and democratic development in Thailand.
“The evidence of the serious human rights violation linked to the enforcement of Article 112 is overwhelming and causes great damage to Thailand’s international standing. Reform of Article 112 is long overdue and efforts by Thai civil society to peacefully campaign for such changes should be commended and protected,” said FIDH Vice-President Teppei Ono.
Statistics about lèse-majesté reflect the severity and scope of the human rights violations linked to the enforcement of Article 112. Between May 2014 and July 2026, at least 461 individuals were prosecuted under Article 112, with at least 199 receiving prison sentences. The 10 longest prison sentences imposed under Article 112 averaged approximately 30 years and six months, with the longest sentence reaching 50 years. At least 21 children were prosecuted under Article 112, with the youngest one aged 14.
As of July 2026, 29 individuals remained detained under Article 112. Of these, 12 were detained pending trial or appeal, while the judgments for the remaining 17 had become final. Among those behind bars is prominent pro-democracy activist and human rights lawyer Arnon Nampa, who has accumulated a prison term of over 31 years stemming from 11 lèse-majesté convictions for his speeches and online posts that called for monarchy reform. Three additional lèse-majesté cases remain pending.
At the international level, all the relevant key United Nations (UN) human rights mechanisms have consistently expressed their concerns over various aspects of the enforcement of Article 112 and declared it incompatible with Thailand’s human rights obligations under international law…
FIDH and TLHR call on states to use Thailand’s fourth UPR to raise their concerns over the ongoing abuse of Article 112 and make recommendations to the Thai government to bring this provision into line with international law. FIDH and TLHR also urge Thai authorities to establish a moratorium on new lèse-majesté prosecutions and to immediately release all those who are being deprived of their liberty under Article 112.
On 21 August 2026 UNPO has published a new report, “Disappearing Peoples and Voices: A Look into Enforced Disappearances as a Tool of Repression against Human Rights Defenders and Activists,” examining how enforced disappearances are used to silence political dissent and self-determination movements among unrepresented nations and peoples.
Enforced disappearances rank among the most severe human rights violations. Beyond stripping victims of their rights and freedoms, they function as a deliberate mechanism to silence activism and instil fear within entire communities. By removing activists, community leaders and human rights defenders from public life, these practices restrict communities’ ability to document abuses, advocate for their rights and participate meaningfully in national and international discussions on their future. They also create a chilling effect that discourages others from speaking out or engaging in advocacy for fear of similar reprisals. Yet those responsible for enforced disappearances often face minimal, if any, consequences.
Unrepresented nations and peoples are disproportionately affected by this practice, as their lack of equal representation, political participation, and meaningful access to self-determination leaves them with fewer protections and avenues to address enforced disappearances.
The paper follows two webinars held by the UNPO in commemoration of the International Day of Victims of Enforced Disappearances in 2024 and 2025, and it is part of the organisation’s Compromised Spaces campaign, which has documented how states target activists, journalists, and human rights defenders abroad.
Drawing on testimonies gathered directly from UNPO’s membership, the report examines case studies from seven member communities: the Baloch, Sindh, Ahwazi Arabs, Crimean Tatars, Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Iranian Kurds. While each community’s context is distinct, the analysis identifies recurring patterns across cases, including the use of counter-terrorism and national security pretexts to justify repression, the deliberate concealment of victims’ whereabouts, and the extension of these tactics across borders through transnational repression. The report, in fact, examines how states increasingly extend repressive practices beyond their own borders. Transnational repression can involve digital surveillance, intimidation, threats against family members, illegal deportations, political assassinations, and enforced disappearances. These practices create a situation in which leaving a country does not necessarily provide protection, as activists and diaspora communities may continue to face threats and reprisals abroad.
While enforced disappearances remain a global challenge, unrepresented peoples experience their impact disproportionately, given their limited access to formal channels of recognition and redress. The report underscores that, as methods of repression become increasingly sophisticated, including through the use of digital technologies, the importance of impartial and accessible human rights mechanisms capable of protecting those who are excluded and silenced.
At the same time, the report highlights how greater international awareness and collective action can help amplify the voices of affected communities. The same technologies that facilitate repression can also support the search for disappeared persons, maintain connections across borders, and strengthen advocacy. UNPO’s webinars demonstrate the value of bringing affected communities together to share their experiences, raise awareness, and support one another in seeking greater international attention.
A 2019 report released today by the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) clearly demonstrates that people who protect the environment and human rights are increasingly being monitored, threatened, harassed – and even murdered.
The civil society democratic space is shrinking. Since 2012 more than 70 countries have introduced legal restrictions aimed at citizens involved in civil society organisations. The situation has become increasingly dangerous for people fighting for democracy, environmental protection and human rights. People who defend nature are particularly vulnerable.
…The report presents the results of a comprehensive study carried out by the SSNC … based on testimonies given by 25 environmental organisations around the world with whom SSNC collaborate:
• 88 percent … state that the situation for civil society … has deteriorated in recent years.
• 80 percent state that they find it difficult to carry out their activities as planned…
• 24 percent state that employees or individuals from the organisation’s target groups have been killed as a result of their environmental work.
• 52 percent state that they can give examples of when they or their target groups have been harassed or threatened by private companies.
• 68 percent perceive that decision-makers … regard the environmental movement as a threat.
14 August 2026: 2025 brought extreme challenges for those working in international development and human rights. Many long-held values were questioned, and, indeed, rapidly jettisoned by some actors. The US’ rapid international funding shutdown jeopardized the lives and health of millions and ended thousands of vital education, poverty, governance and rights projects. MRG was thankful to escape relatively lightly, though we are affected by increased competition for every other funding source in our sector, and are aware of the grave impacts on many organizations with which we are in partnership or whose work complements our own.
We have welcomed the gathering pace of global social media regulation over the last year, having long highlighted social media’s power to propagate hate, discrimination, violence and polarization. Nevertheless, we have watched with alarm the explosive rise of Artificial Intelligence with its capacity to concoct falsehoods and make decisions with the inherited biases of our societies.
Climate change continues to devastate, with minorities and indigenous peoples often most affected despite contributing least. Renewed drought in Somalia. Intense tropical storms across Asia and the Caribbean. From the DRC to Myanmar, Palestine to Ukraine, conflicts devastating lives and lands. Some states continue to reject or undermine multilateralism, sidelining the UN and failing to pay their dues. Democratic backsliding has become more common than not. The bulwark the UN provided is needed now more than ever, and yet it is now more than ever in question.
This year has shown us just how deeply every struggle is intertwined.
Today’s conflicts will have grave environmental consequences for generations to come, not only where they are fought but across our shared world. Weakened and silenced multilateral institutions will struggle to protect peace in such precarity. History reminds us that when challenging circumstances prevail, those in power will scapegoat those who are different – aided no doubt, by new digital tools.
We are shifting power and funding to the global grassroots. In 2025, we renewed this commitment to localization by refreshing the statutes of our Africa office and beginning work towards new offices in Asia and the Middle East. Subgranting directly to minority and indigenous rights defenders is an evergrowing component of our strategy. We are cultivating new networks and partnerships to achieve louder voices in support of progress. We co-design with communities and influence decisionmakers at the local, national and international levels, to amplify the voices of those who so often go unheard and unheeded.
At MRG we refuse to give up. While seeking maximum impact, we continue to work towards the day our organization is no longer needed.-Claire Thomas, Executive Director, Minority Rights Group
Paris, 24 July 2026. “Never in recent years have human rights been attacked with such brutality.” These are the words with which FIDH President Alexis Deswaef opens the editorial that sets the tone for the 2025 activity report.
FIDH brings together nearly 200 human rights organisations from around the world. Despite a global context increasingly hostile to human rights and in the face of rising authoritarianism on every continent, FIDH is stepping up its proactive work through the documentation of violations, advocacy initiatives and strategic litigation, as well as by mobilising its network to support the work of human rights defenders.
Among the notable achievements of 2025, mention may be made of the contribution to: the release of 99 human rights defenders, thanks to the joint action of FIDH and its member organisations; the recognition by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of the severity of the crisis in Nicaragua; the conviction by French courts, under universal jurisdiction, of a leader of a Syrian armed group; the inclusion, for the first time, of human rights in the final texts of COP 30 in Belem.
By filing a complaint against Franco-Israeli soldiers and raising the alarm over the crackdown on the Palestine solidarity movement in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, FIDH also remained engaged on the situation in Gaza and is committed to a long fight for justice.
In the face of multiple attacks, refusing to give up is what drives the Federation forward. Guided by the same vision for over a century — the absolute universality of human rights — and the conviction that to act is the best way to hope, FIDH will continue to turn warnings into action wherever it can.
On 31 July 2026, Adil Zawahir, Alexandra C Panait and Kulsoom Rizvi published a blog post on their study of how dissidents are stopped from entering or leaving their countries
When we think of state censorship, we often picture prison cells, violent police crackdowns or control of newsrooms. However, our report titled The weaponisation of travel bans to silence speech and dissent published today by Index on Censorship reveals a quieter, less visible tool of state repression that is devastating civil society across the world.
We found that rather than protecting public safety, governments are increasingly manipulating “national security” or “public order” exemptions to trap journalists, fracture families and exile critics. Our research shows that these bans are highly adaptable tools that occur around politically sensitive events such as protests, elections and crackdowns on democratic activity. Their shared, devastating objective is to control narratives, block external scrutiny and create a chilling effect on free expression.
As we researched this topic, we strongly felt that to understand the severity of this crisis, the spotlight must remain entirely on the impacted individuals. The victims of this widespread authoritarian trend pay with their lives and livelihoods being upended by arbitrary and undemocratic measures.
Our analysis highlights that in authoritarian contexts, travel bans act as overt tools of absolute repression. In Saudi Arabia, they function as a form of “quasi-detention”, ensuring that prisoners of conscience remain silenced long after they are physically released from their cells. Take the example of Salma Al-Shehab, a doctoral student at Leeds University, who was imprisoned simply for tweeting in support of women’s rights. Upon her release, she was handed an eight-year travel ban, effectively destroying her academic career by barring her return to the United Kingdom.
Similarly, in Algeria, our research shows how journalists like Mustapha Bendjama find themselves trapped in a bureaucratic nightmare. Extrajudicial travel bans, known as ISTNs, are routinely issued by security agencies without formal judicial oversight, leaving targets in a legal vacuum with no clear avenues for appeal. Bendjama shared with us that this forced isolation acts as a “mental imprisonment” that has dried up his sources and severely compromised his ability to conduct rigorous journalism.
One of our most troubled findings was that the chilling effect of these restrictions extends well beyond authoritarian states, creeping into hybrid democracies. In India, administrative tools like “Look Out Circulars” are deployed to trap critical voices within the country’s borders. Sanna Irshad Mattoo, a Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist, was prevented from travelling to New York to accept her award, sending a clear message that international recognition offers no immunity from state retaliation.
In Georgia, foreign journalists who report critically on the country’s democratic backsliding have been arbitrarily denied re-entry at the border using generic legislative clauses. French journalist Clément Giradot was refused entry after reporting on political demonstrations, a decision that suddenly separated him from his home, his Georgian wife and his young child without any concrete legal justification.
It became clear to us that these are not isolated administrative errors. We believe they are part of a coordinated assault on international human rights. Whether it is Nicaragua arbitrarily revoking citizenship to render critics stateless, Belarus forcing exiled dissidents into jeopardy by refusing to renew passports abroad or the United States deploying visa revocations and social media screenings against lawfully present critics, the goal appears to be one: to enforce widespread self-censorship and fear.
The international community can no longer treat these administrative traps as routine border control measures. We urgently recommend taking action. States must do away with these opaque directives, end the use of secondary travel bans as a form of collective punishment against families and align their domestic laws with international human rights standards. Furthermore, democratic host nations must step in to provide secure legal status and alternative travel documents for exiled dissidents while applying sustained diplomatic pressure to demand the lifting of these arbitrary restrictions globally.
Respecting and protecting freedom of speech should not know any ideological boundaries or state borders. With this report, we express our solidarity with the brave ones who raised their voices and with many more who were silenced and never known. While researching and interviewing participants at the front lines of this injustice, we were reminded of the importance of academia’s role as both a sanctuary for freedom of expression and a service to society at large.
Indigenous environmental human rights defenders (IEHRDs) across Latin America face disproportionate levels of violence for protecting land, water, and territory. Of the 146 environmental defenders killed or disappeared in 2024, approximately one-third were Indigenous. This overrepresentation reveals the structural risks faced by Indigenous Peoples at the forefront of environmental defense.
A study by Nefeli Poulopati, Ezihe Chikwere and Paulina Macías Ortega for Kennedy Human Rights Centre published on 30 April 2026 explores who IEHRDs are, the legal protections available to them, the challenges they face, and cases that reflect their ongoing resistance and struggle across Latin America.
The study looks at Legal Frameworks, Violence against IEHRDs, Impacts of Extractivism, and looks Ahead: A Differentiated Approach…
States must adopt an intersectional approach in all measures taken to protect the rights of IEHRDs. A differentiated, preventive, and collective approach to protecting IEHRDs requires applying a gender, ethno-racial, and cultural perspective when determining the level of risk faced by an IEHRD. The ethnic reality of the territory and the traditional ways of Indigenous peoples need to be taken into account when designing protection schemes, to ensure they align with these communities’ practices. The special relationship of Indigenous Peoples to the land reinforces States’ obligation to protect IEDHRs.
One way to fulfill this obligation is to decide on protective measures for IEHRDs in consultation with Indigenous communities, a practice that is often not followed by States. It is particularly important for governments to consider the heightened risk that IEHRDs face when they oppose development megaprojects. States should adopt the necessary measures to establish or strengthen systems to monitor and control these practices in a manner consistent with their legal obligations.
However, as the cases above illustrate, formal recognition does not equal protection. Instead, it is the first step to rethink the colonial origins of the extractivist system that perpetuates power imbalances, thereby weakening safeguards at the regional and local levels.
To learn more about this work, visit the Civic Space Case Tracker, which maps leading ongoing judicial cases litigated by local organizations and lawyers in Asia, Africa, and the Americas.
Laurent Soucaille wrote on 2 March 2026 for the New African Magazine that “African press cartoonists are making greater use of social media. While this allows them to escape certain forms of censorship, they are still subject to threats.“
These are difficult times for cartoonists and press caricaturists concludes a report published on 2 March 2026 under the authority of UNESCO and compiled by various press freedom organisations, including Cartooning for Peace and Reporters Without Borders. The report highlights violations of the right to caricature, even in countries that were previously considered ‘free’, foremost among them the United States. Of course, the most serious violations are found in the Middle East, Russia and China, not to mention the specific cases of Gaza and Ukraine. The situation has deteriorated particularly badly in Turkey and India, the authors lament.
In Africa, the situation is more mixed: a multitude of online media outlets have emerged in recent years, opening up new space for cartoonists, while opportunities are becoming scarcer in the traditional press. ‘In addition, many cartoonists have been able to use social media as a means of dissemination, notably by creating memes,’ notes Kenyan journalist Patrick Gathara, himself a cartoonist.
However, he acknowledges that over the past two years, the situation for African cartoonists has become tense, particularly in East and Southern Africa. In Kenya, in December 2024, the mysterious disappearance of Kibet Bull, who was released a month later, ‘marked a dangerous escalation in the state’s response to online reaction’. The case of the cartoonist, who was admittedly not very complimentary towards President William Ruto, ‘fits into a broader context of abductions targeting online influencers during a period of heightened political tension’.
Other cases are symptomatic, such as that of Jimmy Spire, known as ‘Ssentongo’, in Uganda. The cartoonist echoed a campaign denouncing the deterioration of public services in Kampala, attracting both the hostility of the authorities and the support of human rights defenders in his country and in the West. The cartoonist became both an influential civil society actor and a journalist vulnerable to pressure and threats.
The report also mentions Congolese cartoonist Kayene, who died in Rwanda in 2024. ‘His case highlights the precarious situation of cartoonists working across borders in a region where protection frameworks for artists at risk remain weak, informal and unreliable,’ comments Patrick Gathara.
In South Africa, legal and institutional pressures are the main threat. In a country where freedom of expression is protected, cartoonists are less exposed to violence but remain vulnerable to defamation lawsuits, political intimidation, editorial caution or ‘fabricated public outrage’.
This phenomenon affects many countries around the world, where the intended effect of cartoons aimed at a select readership is exaggerated and distorted on social media. ‘It takes a lot of determination to be a satirical cartoonist today. It’s no longer enough to have talent and ideas, you also need the energy to defend them and endure being insulted and vilified by thousands of internet users,’ says Riss, editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical weekly magazine.
With regard to North Africa, it is not surprising that the report expresses concern about threats to press freedom, and therefore to cartoonists, in Egypt. ‘Pre-trial detention is becoming a new weapon for the regime to silence those who inform and debate, through the abuse of anti-terrorism laws,’ the report states indignantly.
Across the continent, the document – which does not claim to be exhaustive – summarises three major trends that characterise a ‘rapidly changing’ landscape. First, cartoonists are increasingly seen as political actors. From Kenya to Nigeria to Zimbabwe, ‘the majority of political elites view visual satire as a form of mobilisation rather than commentary’.
As online youth movements organise, cartoons often become ‘symbols of rallying, making cartoonists early and visible targets of repression,’ the report summarises.
Secondly, it notes that ‘soft censorship’ is developing more rapidly than open violence; while kidnappings and threats persist, governments and institutions are increasingly turning to bureaucratic or reputation-damaging tools. These threats relate to accreditations, take the form of investigations by professional bodies, bans and suspensions of newspapers, defamation lawsuits and online smear campaigns. Not to mention very broad interpretations of laws relating to ‘insults’ or ‘cybercrime’. As a result, “these more discreet control mechanisms create a climate of fear and self-censorship while avoiding the scrutiny of the rest of the world, which is more sensitive to physical repression. ”
Thirdly, the report points out, digital platforms have both increased the reach and the risks. Most African cartoonists now publish mainly on social media. While this allows them to bypass traditional editorial filters, it also exposes them to direct state surveillance, harassment by bots and political control. In this context, ‘virality promotes influence, but also vulnerability’ for press cartoonists.
By publishing mainly on social media, African cartoonists bypass traditional editorial filters, but are nonetheless exposed to direct state surveillance, harassment by bots and political control.
For over 40 years ISHR has worked with human rights defenders to promote freedom, dignity, equality and justice. We have partnered with them to strengthen human rights laws, systems, networks and narratives. Over the next decade the work of defenders, supported by ISHR, will be critical to reverse rising authoritarianism, combat the accelerating climate crisis, prevent regress in the areas of women’s rights and the rights of LGBTIQ+ people, address systemic racism and discrimination, adequately regulate new and emerging technologies, and promote accountability for widespread atrocity crimes, among other challenges.
This Strategic Framework is designed to ensure that human rights defenders and the international human rights movement and system are equipped to respond to these challenges. It will ensure that ISHR’s work is relevant, responsive, effective, efficient, impactful and sustainable, and that our partnerships are equitable, powerful and influential.
In developing this Framework, we consulted more than 800 human rights defenders working in diverse contexts and on diverse issues. The strategy is also informed by key intelligence and insights gathered over the period 2021-25 from 5 staff strategy retreats, 9 Board and expert panel discussions, over 10 programme and campaign evaluations, a 40th anniversary survey with key stakeholders, and an intensive 3-month process of internal and external reflection on 12 key strategic questions.
Philippe Bolopion, Executive Director of HRW, starts the annual report of 2026 with the following words: “The global human rights system is in peril. Under relentless pressure from US President Donald Trump, and persistently undermined by China and Russia, the rules-based international order is being crushed, threatening to take with it the architecture human rights defenders have come to rely on to advance norms and protect freedoms. To defy this trend, governments that still value human rights, alongside social movements, civil society, and international institutions, need to form a strategic alliance to push back.“
…In this context, 2025 may be seen as a tipping point. In just 12 months, the Trump administration has carried out a broad assault on key pillars of US democracy and the global rules-based order, which the US, despite inconsistencies, was, with other states, instrumental in helping to establish.
In short order, Trump’s second-term administration has undermined trust in the sanctity of elections, reduced government accountability, gutted food assistance and healthcare subsidies, attacked judicial independence, defied court orders, rolled back women’s rights, obstructed access to abortion care, undermined remedies for racial harm, terminated programs mandating accessibility for people with disabilities, punished free speech, stripped protections from trans and intersex people, eroded privacy, and used government power to intimidate political opponents, the media, law firms, universities, civil society, and even comedians.
Claiming a risk of “civilizational erasure” in Europe and leaning on racist tropes to cast entire populations as unwelcome in the US, the Trump administration has embraced policies and rhetoric that align with white nationalist ideology. Immigrants and asylum seekers have been subjected to inhumane conditions and degrading treatment; 32 died in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in 2025, and as of mid-January 2026, an additional 4 have died.
The US president of course has the authority to tighten US borders and enforce stricter immigration policies. The administration is not, however, entitled to deny legal process to asylum seekers, mistreat undocumented migrants, or unlawfully discriminate. In a well-functioning democracy, no electoral mandate should supersede domestic legislation, constitutional protections, or international human rights law. Trump’s team has repeatedly bypassed these guardrails.
The violations have not stopped at the border. The Trump administration used a 1798 law to send hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to an infamous prison in El Salvador, where they were tortured and sexually abused. Its blatantly unlawful strikes on boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific extrajudicially killed more than 120 people whom Trump claims were drug traffickers…
A summary can be found in Al-Jazeera of 4 February 2026
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 