In honor of Human Rights Defenders Day on 9 December 2025, Mongabay looks back at The Clearing, a documentary about young Cambodian activists currently jailed for their environmental and social activism. Filmmakers Andy Ball and Marta Kasztelan produced the video for Mongabay with support from the Pulitzer Center.
The film centers around a group of young environmental activists with the Cambodian civil society group Mother Nature Cambodia. The activists have successfully stopped potentially destructive projects, including a major dam and the export of sand from coastal estuaries. They continue to speak out against development projects, which they say hurt both the environment and local communities.
One such project is in Botum Sakor National Park, once Cambodia’s largest national park. “Eighty percent of the park has been handed to private companies,” Ly Chandaravuth, a Mother Nature Cambodia activist, says in the documentary while flying a drone over a deforested area. “We’re filming a video to urge the government to stop giving land concessions inside the national park to corporations. Thousands of families have been evicted because they need to build an airport and casinos.”
Such outspoken activism has drawn the attention of Cambodia’s authoritarian government. Dozens of activists have been arrested over the years and 11 have been jailed. The documentary follows the plight of Chandaravuth, who was arrested in June 2021 then released on bail, as well as four other activists. All five were awaiting trial for their work.
During this time, the activists won the 2023 Right Livelihood award “[f]or their fearless and engaging activism to preserve Cambodia’s natural environment in the context of a highly restricted democratic space.”
Three of the activists traveled to Stockholm, Sweden, to accept the award with the specter of prison hanging over them upon their return. “We face to be in jail again for up to 15 years if the court finds us guilty. And we’re sure that the court will find us guilty,” Sun Ratha, a Mother Nature Cambodia activist, told Right Livelihood officials in Sweden. Ratha and Chandaravuth had already each served five months in jail for their activism, she said. [https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/d41428d8-4b96-4370-975e-f11b36778f51]
In July 2024, 10 Mother Nature Cambodia activists, including Ratha and Chandaravuth, were sentenced to six to eight years in prison for insulting the king and plotting against the government.
A government spokesperson justified the sentencing saying, “How can they describe our leaders as destroyers of the nation? We accept all kinds of constructive criticism but not malicious slander. We must accept the fact that development inevitably has some impacts.”
On Dec. 1, a Cambodian appeals court denied a bail request for five of the activists, UCA News reported. It’s the third time they’ve been denied such a request in the year since they’ve been imprisoned.
‘Urgent action needed to prevent surge in digital violence in Africa, experts say’ says article in Business and Human Right of 30 March 2026
Activists and lawyers in Africa are calling for urgent action to protect women, girls and boys as digital violence surges across the continent. A massive rise in internet users, coupled with huge numbers of people aged under 30, has fuelled an increase in gendered online violence across the continent, according to experts, by giving perpetrators new tools to control and silence women and girls, and influence boys. “Unfortunately the world offline is not safe, equal and inclusive. But the world online is proliferating that to such an extent that it’s creating a foundation for a very, very unequal future,” said Ayesha Mago, global advocacy director at the Sexual Violence Research Initiative, a global network looking at violence against women. “In Africa, internet access is growing exponentially and more than 70% of the population of sub-Saharan Africa is under 30. We know that young people generally face higher rates of online violence and very often are bigger users of any tech,” she said.
Digital violence against women and girls has devastating effects such as mental health problems, withdrawal from public and economic life, physical attacks on LGBTQI+ people in countries that criminalise homosexuality, and femicide. While there is very little pan-African research, one study across five countries in sub-Saharan Africa showed that 28% of women had experienced online violence. As internet access expands, this number is expected to rise. Only 38% of people on the continent are internet users, according to the International Telecommunication Union – and among women the figure falls to 31%. Studies, research and anecdotal evidence at a national level paint a horrifying picture of extreme levels of violence and a toxic online environment with dire real-life consequences.
…In Uganda, in 2021, the National Survey on Violence in Uganda revealed that half of the women (49%) reported having been subjected to online harassment. In South Africa, upcoming research by Equimundo and UN Women found that exposure to harmful content translated into men being 2.6 times more likely to perpetrate violence and 1.8 times more likely to believe misogynistic views. Primary targets on the continent include women in the political arena, along with human rights activists, journalists and women with a public profile. A 2021 report by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the African Parliamentary Union looking at the experiences of 137 female parliamentarians across 50 African countries found that 46% had been the target of sexist attacks online and 42% said they had received threats of death, rape, beating, or abduction, often through social media.
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.
A woman holds up a blank sheet of paper during a demonstration against China’s strict COVID-19 lockdown measures following the deadly apartment fire in Urumqi, Xinjiang. (Photo by Frederic J. BROWN / AFP via Getty Images)
Democracy activists often face arrest, exile, harassment, or retaliation against their families. This essay explains why NED protects sensitive information about grantees, how that duty of care supports the people advancing freedom, and how NED balances discretion with accountability.
Imagine living in a place where a knock at the door in the middle of the night could mean imprisonment, or worse. This is the daily reality for countless democracy and human rights activists around the world. Their bravery makes their work not only meaningful, but also deeply consequential.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) supports those working to strengthen fundamental freedoms in transitional and fragile democracies, as well as those bravely advancing freedom in closed societies. Our grantmaking focuses on the building blocks of democratic life—free elections, independent media, and the freedoms of association, speech, and belief. Just as important, however, is our responsibility to protect the individuals who make that work possible.
This primer offers an overview of why NED carefully manages information about its grantees, including what is shared publicly, what is provided to Congressional oversight bodies, and how discretion underpins the safety and viability of those we support. Activists face vastly different risks depending on their location, visibility, and the tactics of the regimes they confront. Supporting democracy means protecting those who fight for it, including respecting their choices about public visibility to ensure their safety.
Why Public Exposure Can Be Dangerous
Speaking out in many parts of the world can mean risking arrest, exile, or death. According to Freedom House, only about one in five countries around the world is rated “free,” while The Economist’s Intelligence Unit has found that only 25 countries today qualify as full democracies. For the vast majority living under authoritarian or hybrid regimes, even symbolic acts of dissent, like holding up a blank piece of paper, can lead to life-disrupting consequences.
Authoritarian regimes understand the power of dissent and the threat posed by those who dare to speak. That’s why they’ve developed increasingly sophisticated methods to target activists, journalists, human rights lawyers, and civil society leaders, both inside their borders and abroad. Their reach extends across continents, threatening those in exile through transnational repression and those at home through direct prosecution.
The following stories from grantees illustrate why NED’s approach to protection must adapt to the risks posed by both transnational repression and direct prosecution.
Rushan Abbas at the 2025 Democracy Awards. (Photo: M.K. Mindful Media)
Case Study: Rushan Abbas and the CCP’s Hostage Diplomacy
Rushan Abbas, founder of Campaign for Uyghurs and a NED grantee, gave her first public speech about China’s abuses in Xinjiang in 2018. Her husband’s entire family had already vanished in the 2017 crackdown. Just six days after her speech, her sister, Dr. Gulshan Abbas, a retired medical doctor with no political ties, also disappeared.
“She was being targeted because of my advocacy,” Abbas said. “Every day I wake up with her eyes in my mind. Of course, I feel guilty. Speaking out in the United States as an American citizen cost my sister her freedom.”
To this day, Dr. Gulshan Abbas remains missing in China’s vast detention system—her only ”crime” being related to someone who exposed the CCP’s abuses. This brutal form of hostage diplomacy forces exiled activists into an impossible choice: stay silent or risk their loved ones’ safety.
Case Study: Natalia Arno and the Kremlin’s Transnational Reach
Natalia Arno (Photo by THOMAS SAMSON/AFP via Getty Images)
Natalia Arno, president of the Free Russia Foundation and a longtime NED partner, was forced into exile from Russia in 2012. Since then, she’s been a leading voice in exile activism, advocating for political prisoners, supporting democratic leaders, and coordinating programs to hold the Putin regime accountable.
But in May 2023, after a private event in Prague, she returned to her hotel to find the door ajar and a strange scent inside the room. Hours later, she experienced numbness, pain, and blurred vision. Doctors in Washington, D.C. confirmed exposure to nerve toxins.
“I never could have believed the scale and brazenness and how long the Kremlin tentacles are into the West,” she said. Despite years of surveillance and intimidation, Arno continues her work. “You could lose your life,” she said, listing examples of poisoned, tortured, and murdered activists. “I have been in this game for 20 years, and I can write a book about all the kinds of attacks against me in Russia.”
Activism in Exile and Under Authoritarian Rule
Authoritarian regimes target democracy advocates in two primary ways. Activists working inside authoritarian states face direct repression: denial of employment, education or housing to surveillance, interrogation, imprisonment, or death. Activists living in exile, such as members of the diaspora, confront transnational repression: intimidation, harassment, cyberattacks, and retaliation against relatives still living under dictatorship.
While both forms of courage are vital to the cause of freedom, they require different kinds of protection. For activists in exile like Abbas and Arno, visibility can be both a tool and a vulnerability—they use their public platforms to build international support while enduring harassment and threats from afar. For those working quietly inside repressive states, even the faintest association with democracy support can result in severe consequences. NED’s Duty of Care and Do-Not-Disclose policies reflect this spectrum of risk, providing flexible protections appropriate to different contexts, roles, and levels of exposure.
Visibility and Risk in Democracy Activism
Activists face difficult decisions about how visible they can afford to be. For some who live in exile, like Abbas and Arno, activism is essential to raising awareness and building international support. As public figures in free societies, they can testify before lawmakers, engage journalists, and speak on behalf of silenced communities. But even in freedom, visibility comes with the danger of transnational repression.
Abbas has faced smear campaigns, online harassment, and death threats requiring FBI involvement. Her family in China has been targeted. “Those kinds of things actually became so normal because we face this almost weekly or monthly,” she said. “And we just laugh at it and take it as the impact of our work.”
Arno’s risks didn’t end after fleeing Russia. “Being in NATO or EU countries doesn’t save us from this huge Kremlin machine,” she said. “Surveillance is still huge, cyberattacks are huge, but also physical attacks.”
These cases illustrate the first front of transnational repression: authoritarian regimes projecting power beyond their borders to intimidate, threaten, or attack critics abroad.
Iran has become one of the clearest examples of how far authoritarian regimes are willing to go to silence dissent beyond their borders. Iranian democracy activists, journalists, and human rights defenders living in exile have faced kidnapping plots, assassination attempts, surveillance, and harassment across Europe and North America. Multiple Western governments have linked Iranian intelligence services to plots targeting exiled dissidents, leading to disrupted operations, criminal prosecutions, and sanctions. Iran’s efforts to pursue critics abroad underscore the growing reality of transnational repression and the need for democracy organizations to extend duty-of-care protections even to partners living in open societies.
At the same time, this external pressure is inseparable from the repression activists face at home. For those still inside authoritarian states, the threat is direct and unrelenting. These activists continue their work at great personal risk, operating under surveillance, harassment, and the constant threat of arrest or imprisonment while pushing for democratic change.
In response to these dangers, many activists adopt a lower profile. How public they are in their work is an intentional choice to protect themselves, their families, and their networks from retaliation. While the steps they take to remain safe in authoritarian environments may mean their activism lacks the visibility of public campaigns, it is no less vital. Activists in authoritarian environments take great risks to build the infrastructure of democracy movements—documenting abuses, organizing communities, and informing international action.
In China, the Chinese government has systematically stigmatized international democracy funding. Even tenuous connections to external support and collaboration can carry severe consequences. As one activist working with international human rights and democracy organizations explained, “Me, myself, my family members, were interrogated by police officers in China.” Others have been detained and prosecuted for similar work. The Chinese government has also targeted the family members of human rights defenders in an effort to deter continued activism.
As a result, discretion is essential. “We prefer NED to not mention our names publicly,” the activist said, “in order to protect staff members and board members and even former colleagues, former members, and our families.”
Public activism draws global attention and builds coalitions, but it also brings heightened risk. Regimes often target public figures to intimidate or silence them—and to send a warning to others.
Activism that seeks to engage in quieter and less confrontational forms of engagement, by contrast, can provide greater security and sustainability, particularly in repressive settings. “While of course it’s much more dangerous for those activists who are inside Russia to speak out,” one Russian activist explained, “it’s much safer for those working in exile and most continue their work quietly.”
Human rights work in authoritarian environments demands different operational and political strategies. While the work often seeks to expose gross human rights abuses and expose corrupt networks, the ability to gather and verify the information requires close cooperation between groups that are in exile and networks that are in country.
In Tibet, NED-supported partners have documented China’s campaign to erase Tibetan identity through colonial-style boarding schools. In Venezuela and Cuba, investigative journalists have exposed corruption and human rights violations while keeping low profiles to stay safe. While international and exile organizations are often the face of the work, the networks on the ground are equally essential to what they achieve.
As Arno put it, “People are our biggest value, our biggest treasure. When activists are facing such dangerous things like imprisonment, torture, murder, we have to protect them with all possible measures.”
Supporting Activists Safely and Effectively
Since its founding in 1983, NED has supported democracy activists and citizen leaders—whether operating in exile or inside closed societies—to advance human rights and democratic values in some of the world’s most repressive contexts. NED’s Founding Statement of Principles and Objectives notes that in “societies where even [these] independent institutions are prohibited or severely restricted, the immediate objective is to enlarge whatever possibilities exist for independent thought, expression, and cultural activity. … [The Endowment] will not neglect those who keep alive the flame of freedom in closed societies.”
As a congressionally mandated independent nonprofit, NED was designed to provide support to its partners in a way that is impactful, secure, and accountable. Few donors are structured to do this work with the same level of care and discretion, which is why frontline democracy advocates consistently place their trust in NED.
Key to NED’s approach is the principle of protection through discretion. As NED’s Board of Directors approve grantmaking strategy and individual projects, the identifying details of grantees are made available to them. However, we avoid public disclosures that could expose partners to government reprisal. This is not only an ethical commitment—it is a key operating principle rooted in NED’s Duty of Care and Public Disclosure Policies, which obligates the organization to do no harm.
Without this policy of protection, many activists could not safely engage with international support. “It’s very difficult to build reputation and trust” one democracy activist said. “How you treat your grantees, with special care and understanding of the particularities of each region, should be the gold standard that all donors take as an example.”
NED’s Approach to Public Disclosure of Grantees
NED publishes listings of its current grantees twice a year on its website and includes a comprehensive listing of grantees in its annual report, complete with grant descriptions, grant amounts, and grant durations, organized by country and region. However, we do not publicly disclose personally identifiable information in these listings to avoid placing individuals at risk, now or in the future.
Some have asked why NED does not publish the personally identifying details of its grantees on its website. The reason is simple: in many cases, doing so would put a target on the backs of those we support and compromise their ability to do their work.
NED’s Duty of Care and Public Disclosure policies seek to balance the ability of our partners to operate as freely and securely as possible with our transparency requirements. At the same time, our relationship with our grantees is fully transparent. Organizations must take the initiative themselves to seek support from the Endowment. They know who we are, where our funds come from, and the values that guide our support. Activists seek out NED’s assistance precisely because it is open, accountable, and trusted.
NED respects the agency of its grantees to decide whether it is safe to publicly disclose their relationship with NED. Organizations regularly and proudly share their partnership with NED as a mark of credibility and support. Others, particularly those operating in hostile environments, often request confidentiality to safeguard their security and effectiveness. In all cases, NED ensures our partners are aware of our policies and procedures so that they can make informed decisions about their own public posture.
This approach is an ethical obligation as much as it is a matter of organizational policy. We know about the persecution of Uyghurs and underground Christians in China, the protests in Cuba and Iran, the continued repression in Belarus and Nicaragua, and human rights abuses in Burma and North Korea because courageous individuals risk their lives to report them. Supporting democracy means more than funding programs or issuing statements—it means protecting the people behind the work.
With that responsibility comes a duty: to minimize risk, not add to it through careless exposure. In a world where authoritarian regimes are increasingly sophisticated, coordinated, and ruthless in targeting dissent, discretion becomes an essential safeguard.
Transparency and Accountability
Even as NED protects grantee confidentiality in public settings, it maintains rigorous transparency and accountability to the NED Board, Congress, and U.S. oversight bodies. The NED Board reviews and approves both grantmaking strategy and individual grants. As outlined in our Duty of Care, we submit comprehensive annual plans and updates to congressional committees that outline our strategy and grantmaking priorities. We maintain active communication with Members and their staff, respond promptly to official requests for information, and create opportunities for elected officials to engage directly with our grantees—both in Washington and abroad—to better understand the real-world impact of NED-supported efforts. We likewise provide an annual report to the executive branch as a formal accounting of our work, priorities, and impact. NED consults regularly with representatives of the legislative and executive branches on our work, both in Washington and in the field, and responds to Freedom of Information Act information requests.
NED upholds strict due diligence and financial oversight procedures to ensure that resources are used responsibly and for their intended purpose. Our grantmaking is governed by the standards of all federal spending, with clear agreements, financial reporting requirements, and independent audits to ensure funds are used for their intended purpose.
In addition, the Endowment is subject to comprehensive oversight, including Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigations, State Department Inspector General reviews, and annual independent audits.
By combining discretion abroad with transparency at home, NED fulfills its dual responsibility: protecting those who advance freedom in repressive environments while remaining transparent and accountable. As authoritarian threats grow more complex and far-reaching, we will continue strengthening our Duty of Care so those who defend democracy can pursue their work safely, effectively, and with confidence in the support behind them.
The 24thedition of the Geneva International Film Festival and Forum on Human Rights (FIFDH) took place in Geneva from 6-15 March 2026. The Right Livelihood team attended several screenings and debates and shared the experience in this text.
Ellynn Del Perugia, Administrative Officer, wrote on 26 March 2026 about this:
Each year, the FIFDH offers the opportunity to watch documentaries and movies from all corners of the world. Some echoed the work and values of Right Livelihood Laureates or the proposals currently under research, others expanded our understanding of the broader human rights landscape.
More than providing an opportunity to learn, these films act as living memories and testimonies. They make public what power would prefer to keep hidden. In some cases, placing a camera in someone’s hands becomes an act of resistance in itself. As 2024 Laureate Issa Amro did when he initiated a camera distribution project in Hebron, Palestine, to document and collect video evidence of abuses and injustices committed by Israeli settlers and the military against Palestinians.
The festival opened with “A Fox Under a Pink Moon”, which won the Grand Award of the festival. This self-portrait follows a 16-year-old Afghan artist as she attempts to escape multiple forms of violence in Iran and join her mother in Austria, using her mobile phone as both a tool of survival and a means of artistic expression.
Over the following days, the programme moved across different geographies and contexts: Argentina grappling with fifty years of memory since the dictatorship in the documentary “Identidad”; China’s expanding surveillance state and its repression of the Uyghur population, in “Eyes of the Machine”; Pakistan’s environmental and human crisis in “Black Water”; and the fragile future of multilateralism explored in “Solidarity” alongside a debate on the future of International Geneva. The latter raised important questions for Right Livelihood, which uses international platforms to support the Laureates. Are we witnessing the end of a rules-based international order? And if so, what replaces it? An order based purely on the interests of the most powerful? What would a future without International Geneva look like?
Across these very different stories and regions, one theme kept returning: the suppression of memory as a tool of power. “Identidad” follows one man’s quest to rediscover his origins and identity. The documentary explores the importance of remembrance in countering the erasure of memory, a tactic often employed by repressive governments to conceal their own crimes.
“Eyes of the Machine” raises a similar question, documenting the silencing of the Uyghur population’s culture, language and collective memory. Here too, some individuals have chosen to keep these memories alive and share their stories, often at great personal risk.
This is something we recognise deeply at Right Livelihood. The Laureates we support are often people who choose to speak, act and organise in contexts where doing so comes at great personal cost.
Held alongside the 61st session of the Human Rights Council, several Laureates and partners present in Geneva also participated in this festival. It is difficult to leave these films feeling indifferent. They unsettle, as they should. They raise questions about the direction of the world and the future that lies ahead. But they also remind us that memory, when kept alive, can be a form of hope.
Front line Defenders on 27 March 2026 shared an update on human rights defender Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy:
On 23 March 2026, the Leninskii District Court of the City of Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, ordered the release of a woman human rights defender Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy from prison. At the preliminary session of the retrial in her case, the Court changed the measure of restraint and granted her release from the penal colony where she had been detained. Her release is conditional upon an order not to leave the country. The retrial is scheduled to begin on 7 April 2026.
Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzyis a woman human rights defender and journalist. She is the director of Temirov Live and Ayt Ayt Dece. Temirov Live is a YouTube-based media outlet that investigates and reports on corruption by state and non-state actors in Kyrgyzstan, founded in 2020 by Bolot Temirov, a prominent Kyrgyzstani human rights defender and journalist. Ayt Ayt Dese is a YouTube-based project aimed at popularising human rights issues through the performance and publication of folk songs on human rights topics. Among other topics, Ayt Ayt Dese has covered investigations by Temirov Live.
On 23 March 2026, Leninskii District Court of the city of Bishkek commenced the retrial of the case of Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy with a preliminary session. The retrial was set following a decision of the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan on 10 March 2026. Based on Opinion No. 52/2025 by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial and overturned the previous rulings that sentenced the woman human rights defender to six years in prison.
At the preliminary session, Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy’s lawyers filed three motions. First, the defence attorneys requested the Court to declare the expert witness evidence from previous trials as inadmissible, arguing that authorities had pressured the expert witnesses into giving false testimonies. The issue of evidence tampering by the authorities was previously highlighted in the case of human rights defender and whistleblower Zhoomart Karabaiev, who was on trial for reporting that authorities pressured expert witnesses to provide statements supporting the prosecution. The second motion requested that the Court immediately and unconditionally ceases all judicial proceedings against Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy. The third motion sought a change in her measure of restraint, from detention in the penal colony to release under the condition that she remains in the country. While the Court denied the first two motions, it agreed to change the measure of restraint for Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy, leading to her release later that day.
Upon her release, Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy expressed gratitude for the support she has received since the beginning of the prosecution against her in 2024. However, she also shared that she was subjected to psychological pressure and violence from the authorities in the penal colony, which aimed at exacerbating her isolation from the community supporting and defending her rights.
Front Line Defenders welcomes the Court’s decision to release Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy, who has been targeted solely for her peaceful and legitimate human rights work. The organisation continues to call upon the authorities in Kyrgyzstan to immediately and unconditionally cease all types of persecution targeting the woman human rights defender and drop all charges against her.
The March 2026 Watchlist from the CIVICUS Monitor highlights five countries where civic freedoms are deteriorating at an alarming pace: Ecuador, Georgia, Iran, the Philippines and Benin. Each faces escalating restrictions on fundamental rights, including freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly. The Watchlist draws on research findings, partner input and testimony from activists on the ground, and signals where urgent international attention is needed.
CIVICUS MONITOR CIVIC SPACE RATINGS:
OPEN
NARROWED
OBSTRUCTED
REPRESSED
CLOSED
Ecuador Civic space rating:Obstructed Ecuador’s government has increasingly relied on militarised security measures, invoking an “internal armed conflict” to justify exceptional powers. Indigenous-led protests in 2025 were met with lethal force, arbitrary detentions and internet disruptions. Environmental and Indigenous leaders face criminalisation, with more than 200 social leaders investigated or prosecuted. A 2025 law has expanded state control over civil society organisations, enabling account freezes and burdensome reporting. Journalists face killings, attacks and suspensions of media outlets, all unfolding amid a broader erosion of judicial independence.
Georgia Civic space rating:Repressed Georgia has seen a dramatic decline in civic space, marked by mass protests since late 2024 and heavy-handed police responses. Hundreds have been detained, tortured or investigated. New laws restrict protests, impose “foreign agent” requirements on civil society and media, and threaten criminal penalties for receiving foreign funding. Opposition parties and leaders face politically motivated charges, and new rules bar many civil society actors from political participation for years.
Iran Civic space rating: Closed Iran’s civic space, already severely restricted, has worsened following mass protests over economic and political grievances. Security forces killed thousands of protesters in January 2026 during a nationwide internet blackout, and tens of thousands were arrested. After regional airstrikes in February 2026, authorities imposed another shutdown and intensified censorship. Journalists and activists face extreme risk, and some detainees now face the death penalty. Despite repression, demonstrations continue following the death of the Supreme Leader.
The Philippines Civic space rating:Repressed Civic space in the Philippines remains under pressure, with police violence and mass arrests during anti-corruption protests in 2025. Dozens of protesters face sedition charges under cybercrime laws. Human rights defenders are frequently targeted, including through fabricated terrorism-financing cases. Red-tagging—accusing critics of communist links—remains widespread. Journalists also face prosecution, including the conviction of reporter Frenchie Mae Cumpio after years of pre-trial detention.
Benin Civic space rating:Obstructed Benin approaches its April 2026 presidential election with shrinking democratic space. Strict electoral rules have limited the field to two approved candidates, and the January 2026 legislative elections produced a parliament without opposition representation. Authorities increasingly use the Digital Code to prosecute journalists and critics, while media outlets face suspensions and mandatory government messaging. Protests are routinely banned or dispersed, and fear of reprisals has led to widespread self-censorship.
Brito Fernando in front of a monument displaying hundreds of portraits of disappeared people in Seeduwa, outside Colombo. Photo: The Living History Forum/Splendid
On 24 March 2026 it was announced that Brito Fernando from Sri Lanka has been awarded the Per Anger Prize 2026 for his work seeking truth and justice for the tens of thousands of people who have disappeared involuntarily in Sri Lanka. The Per Anger Prize is the Swedish Government’s international prize for human rights and democracy.
Brito Fernando is the founder and chair of Families of the Disappeared (FoD), which represents more than 20,000 families across Sri Lanka. Since the late 1980s, he has campaigned to establish what happened to those who vanished during periods of political violence and civil war in the country, and to secure accountability and justice.
According to the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID), Sri Lanka has among the highest numbers of unresolved cases of enforced disappearance in the world. During various armed conflicts and the civil war in Sri Lanka, which ended in 2009, tens of thousands of people were taken by state actors, armed groups or paramilitary organisations. Most of these cases remain unresolved.
In 2004, Brito Fernando founded FoD, which today is the only organisation in Sri Lanka working across all communities on the issue of disappearances. Various ethnic and religious groups in Sri Lanka have historically been pitted against each other. Even today, violence and discrimination against minority groups remain widespread.
Through his work, Brito Fernando has brought together families from Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim communities across much of the country in a common fight for truth, justice and accountability.
Brito Fernando’s work has entailed significant personal risk. He has been detained and arrested on several occasions, questioned over alleged links to terrorism and had his home attacked. Despite this, he and the families in FoD continue their pursuit of truth and justice.
A court in China sentenced the prominent human rights lawyer Xie Yang to five years in prison on March 23, 2026, on politically motivated charges of “inciting subversion of state power,” Human Rights Watch said on 24 March 2026. The Chinese government should immediately quash the conviction, which followed serious procedural violations and years of persecution, and free Xie unconditionally
The Changsha Intermediate People’s Court cited several of Xie’s WeChat posts as the basis for the verdict, Xie’s former wife, Chen Guiqiu, posted on social media. The court also ordered the confiscation of 100,000 yuan (US$14,500).
“The Chinese authorities’ prosecution of Xie Yang and the court’s harsh sentence reflects Beijing’s utter contempt for the rule of law,” said Maya Wang, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “This case not only aimed to persecute a brave human rights lawyer like Xie, but to intimidate all lawyers seeking to protect Chinese people’s rights.”
Xie’s trial violated the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial court as provided under international human rights law, Human Rights Watch said. In addition, the proceedings violated China’s Criminal Procedural Law, which guarantees a right to a defense (articles 33-35), public trial hearings (article 188), and time limits for a criminal investigation. With time served, Xie’s sentence is expected to go to January 2027.
The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has recognized Xie’s detention as arbitrary and called for his immediate release.
Xie, 54, from Changsha, Hunan province, began practicing law in 2011. He has defended activists and victims of rights abuses in politically sensitive cases, including cases of religious persecution and land rights disputes.
Xie has faced repeated retaliation for his work. In July 2015, during the nationwide arrests of human rights lawyers known as the “709 crackdown,” Xie was tortured and subjected to enforced disappearance, convicted of “inciting subversion,” and imprisoned until 2017.
The authorities detained him again in January 2022 after he pressed for the release of a young teacher who had been forcibly committed to a psychiatric facility for criticizing censorship in education. Police raided Xie’s home, tortured him in custody, and held him on charges of “inciting subversion” and “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” said the US-based Chinese Human Rights Defenders.
“Foreign governments should continue to speak out for human rights lawyers like Xie Yang because this kind of support is most important when the circumstances are so dire,” Wang said. “Vocal international support could improve Xie’s treatment, and crucially, help give him and others in China the strength to persevere.”
On 23 March 2026 the Human Rights Foundation welcomed the opinion issued by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) finding that Cambodia’s detention of activist Koet Saray violates international human rights law, following an HRF submission.
Mr. Koet Saray is a human rights defender and former president of the Khmer Student Intellectual League Association (KSILA), a group dedicated to promoting human rights, democracy, development, and environmental protection that has now ceased operations after the regime targeted more of its members. He was arrested on April 5, 2024, after posting photos on social media from a meeting with Preah Vihear Province villagers who had been forcibly evicted from their homes to make way for a rubber plantation. Mr. Koet Saray advocated for the villagers on social media and through interviews given to media outlets about the evictions.
Cambodia charged Mr. Koet Saray with “incitement” under Articles 494 and 495 of the Criminal Code, controversial provisions that the WGAD described as so vague and overbroad as to invite abuse and misuse and as incompatible with international legal principles. He was also charged under Article 88, Cambodia’s recidivism provision, due to prior fabricated incitement charges for participating in a peaceful protest in 2020. He was held in pretrial detention for six months before being tried in a one‑day, closed‑court proceeding, and he was convicted and sentenced to four years in prison on Nov. 6, 2024.
“The Working Group’s opinion confirms that Cambodia weaponized vague criminal statutes to silence a peaceful human rights defender,” said HRF International Legal Associate Kaitie Holland. “Cambodia clearly violated Mr. Koet Saray’s rights to the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, and association. We commend the Working Group for its thorough legal analysis recognizing the pattern of abuse against Mr. Koet Saray and calling out his illegal pre‑trial detention, the use of overbroad incitement provisions against him, and the denial of a fair trial.”
HRF joins the WGAD’s call for the immediate release of Mr. Koet Saray and for a full, independent investigation into the circumstances of his arrest, trial, and imprisonment. HRF urges the international community to hold Cambodia accountable for the detention of Mr. Koet Saray and other activists who are arbitrarily imprisoned under the country’s abusive incitement laws.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 