Julienne Lusenge, one of the 2023 UN Human Rights Prize winners, speaking at the General Assembly high-level dialogue on “Building Sustainable Peace for All” earlier this year. UN Photo/Manuel Elías
On 20 July 2023 the President of the General Assembly Csaba Kőrösi announced the winners of the United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights for 2023.
This year’s winners were the Human Rights Center “Viasna”, based in Belarus, Julienne Lusenge from the Democratic Republic of the Congo [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/10/11/congolese-julienne-lusenge-wins-1-million-2021-aurora-prize/], Amman Center for Human Rights Studies from Jordan, Julio Pereyra from Uruguay and the Global Coalition of civil society organizations, Indigenous Peoples, social movements and local communities.
The Committee is chaired by the President of the General Assembly, and its members include the President of the Economic and Social Council, the President of the Human Rights Council, the Chair of the Commission on the Status of Women, and the Chair of the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council.
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) provided support to the special committee. The award ceremony for the 2023 Prize will take place at UN Headquarters in New York in December 2023, as part of activities to commemorate Human Rights Day.
The members of the Special Committee also acknowledged the important role played by human rights defenders and activists, praising them for their courage and dedication while strongly condemning any attempts to “silence and intimidate” them.
They expressed solidarity with those who are detained in retaliation for their work in defending human rights and pursuing the implementation of all the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, marking it’s 75th birthday this year.
On 18 July 2023 Front Line Defenders reported that on 4 July, a court of appeal in Algiers confirmed the three-year prison sentence of human rights defenders Slimane Bouhafs and Kamira Nait Sid, in addition to confirming the fine of DZD 100,000 (approx. EUR 660). The charges against both human rights defenders include “belonging to a terrorist organisation”; “receiving funds from abroad for the purpose of political propaganda”; “hate speech and discrimination”; “use of technology to spread false information”; and “conspiracy”, among others.
Slimane Bouhafs is a human rights defender advocating for freedom of expression and democracy in Algeria through social media. He is the Chairman of the St. Augustine Coordination of Christians in Algeria which defends minority rights and freedom of religion in the country. Kamira Nait Sid is a woman human rights defender and co-president of the World Amazigh Congress (WAC), an international NGO defending the rights of the Amazigh people. The mission of the WAC is to ensure the defence and promotion of political, economic, social, cultural, historical and civil rights of the Amazigh people.
The human rights defender Slimane Bouhafs, who was granted refugee status in Tunisia before being illegally transferred back to Algeria, received the same three-year prison sentence as the one previously handed down at the first instance. Meanwhile, the woman human rights defender Kamira Nait Sid received a three-year prison sentence, which was a two-year reduction of the original sentence handed down by the court of first instance.
Both Slimane Bouhafs and Kamira Nait Sid reject and deny all the charges against them and maintain that they have been targeted because of their peaceful human rights work and advocacy for freedom of expression and belief. The defence counsel, which represented both human rights defenders, reportedly emphasised the lack of due process and fair trial guarantees during the trial and the appeal processes, including a lack of evidence supporting the charges.
In December 2022, Slimane Bouhafs and Kamira Nait Sid were sentenced to three and five years respectively by the court of first instance mainly on the basis of an alleged association with the Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylie (MAK), classified as a terrorist group by the Algerian authorities. The human rights defenders continue to deny any involvement with the MAK group.
The two human rights defenders have been arbitrarily detained since the summer of 2021. On 25 August 2021, the human rights defender Slimane Bouhafs was abducted, subjected to ill-treatment and forcibly returned to Algeria from Tunisia, where he had been granted refugee status, in a gross violation of international law. On 24 August 2021, the woman human rights defender Kamira Nait Sid was also abducted by Algerian security forces from her home in Draa-Ben-Kheddaas in northern Algeria and detained at an unknown location. On 1 September 2021, the two human rights defenders appeared before an investigating judge in an Algerian court to be charged with several terrorism-related accusations based on an alleged connection with the MAK.
Front Line Defenders condemns the confirmation of the sentence of human rights defenders Slimane Bouhafs and Kamira Nait Sid and calls on the authorities of Algeria to immediately release them and quash their conviction as it believes that it is solely motivated by their legitimate and peaceful work in the defence of human rights. It urges the authorities to guarantee the physical and psychological security and integrity of the human rights defenders while in detention.
Front Line Defenders also calls on the authorities to cease targeting all human rights defenders in Algeria and guarantee in all circumstances that they are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions including judicial harassment.
On 13 July 2023 the ITUC has protested to the Hong Kong authorities, the ILO and the UN over its deep concern about the escalation in the climate of fear, intimidation, arrests, arbitrary prosecutions, threats for the exercise of trade union rights and civil liberties in Hong Kong.
In particular, the disproportionate and unwarranted extra-territorial application of the National Security Law to target trade unionists, human rights defenders and pro-democracy advocates by the Authorities of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) undermines its commitment to fulfil their international obligations.
The ITUC has called on the HKSAR Chief Executive Officer to respect and fully implement the conclusions and recommendations of ILO supervisory bodies and UN Human Rights bodies, in law and practice, including those regarding the National Security Law.
And he has been urged to release all those arrested and imprisoned for allegations related to the exercise of civil liberties including freedom of assembly, expression, press and association and those participating in pro-democracy activities.
On 4 July 2023, the HKSAR authorities announced, under the National Security Law, the issuance of arrest warrants against eight human rights defenders and pro-democracy advocates and placed a bounty of HK$ one million on each of their heads.
ITUC Acting General Secretary Luc Triangle said: “We unequivocally deplore the HKSAR authorities’ criminalisation and securitisation of trade union and democracy-promoting activities. We consider it particularly egregious, especially given the risks to life and safety faced by trade unionists, human rights defenders and pro-democracy advocates around the world for their legitimate activities, that the HKSAR authorities approved and announced a bounty on the heads of these eight people for exercising their civil liberties or trade union rights.
“As a special administrative region of a member State of the ILO, China, the HKSAR is also obliged to respect and promote the fundamental principles and rights at work including freedom of association and treat with the utmost regard, the authoritative guidance of the ILO’s supervisory bodies.”
The ITUC letter of protest sets out the recent findings of the ILO and other UN bodies on the abuse of workers’ and trade union rights by the HKSAR. It says that seeking to apply the National Security Law in an extraterritorial manner and placing a bounty on the heads of pro-democracy advocates and human rights defenders for alleged crimes related to the exercise of civil liberties and trade union rights is an overreach and certainly not proportionate – its coercive and chilling effective is wide ranging. With the use of the National Security Law in this disproportionate and arbitrary manner, the HKSAR authorities are violating their obligations under the Constitution of the ILO and Convention 87.
We welcome the resolution put forward by the OIC to ensure the full implementation of the United Nations database of businesses facilitating Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as well as the recent publication of the partial update to the database issued by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on 30 June 2023. The effectiveness and credibility of the HRC and OHCHR has suffered considerably from the chronic under-implementation of the database by this Council. The resolution put forward at the 53rd session represents an important step forward, and it is crucial that future updates are conducted annually, regularly, including both the addition and removal of businesses from the database, as appropriate, to ensure accurate and comprehensive information for all stakeholders involved. We regret that some States failed to vote in favor of the resolution to ensure the full implementation of the database. We believe this failure constitutes a dangerous example of double standards and urge States who abstained or voted against the resolution to begin to approach this issue in line with international human rights standards and their duties as UN member States.
We welcome the fact that the resolution on civil society space addressed the limitations to civil society access and participation in decision-making processes, including at the UN, and called on States to “enable and institutionalize meaningful online participation in hybrid meetings” and to establish “a transparent, fair and gender-responsive accreditation processes”. We welcome that the resolution acknowledges the significant role played by civil society in the promotion and protection of human rights, including with regard to monitoring, documenting and raising awareness about human rights violations and abuses, but we regret that the role of civil society in the prevention of human rights violations, as well as the Council’s prevention mandate, was not highlighted. We also welcome that the resolution emphasizes undue restrictions of civic space, including on funding of civil society actors, nonetheless we express concern that it does not address the misuse of restrictive laws in a more comprehensive manner. We appreciate the call upon States to establish or enhance information-gathering and monitoring mechanisms, including by benefiting from data collected by civil society, for the collection, analysis and reporting of data on threats, attacks or violence against civil society, and the request to the High Commissioner to prepare a report identifying challenges and best practices in regularly assessing civic space trends drawing on the views of civil society, amongst others. This may lead, in the longer term, to the development of a collective methodology including indicators and benchmarks that will permit the effective and systematic monitoring of civic space developments on the international level. We also call on States to prevent the deterioration and closure of civic space and provide support to build civil society resilience.
We welcome the focus of the resolution on human rights of migrants on human rights violations in transit. However, the resolution fails to answer the call from over 220 CSOs for the Council to establish an investigative mechanism on deaths, torture and other grave human rights violations at and around international borders. The focus on monitoring in the intersessional panel requested must be used as a stepping stone towards a response from the Council that matches the severity of the situation. The 53rd session opened as yet another horrific incident unfolded with hundreds presumed dead at sea. The normalisation of deaths caused by border management policies and practices, as well as criminal networks, must end. It is unclear what scale of atrocity will prompt this body to act.
We welcome the adoption of resolutions on child and early forcedmarriage and on violence against women and girls, despite hostile amendments contravening international human rights law, UN technical guidance and WHO Guidelines. The resolution on child and early forcedmarriage on the theme of forced marriage, identifies root causes of forced marriage and calls for practical guidelines to be developed by the OHCHR which can help States work to prevent and eliminate forced marriage, centering the autonomy of women and girls. The resolution on violence against women and girls looks at systemic violence against women and girls in criminal detention systems. The resolution centers the respect, protection and fulfillment of human rights for women and girls in criminal detention, in addition to the Bangkok and Mandela Rules.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on ‘the impact of arms transfer on human rights‘. Ensuring arms related risks to human rights continues to be part of the Council’s work is critical – both those acquired by civilians and those transferred. We look forward to the stocktaking intersessional workshop on the role of States and the private sector in preventing, addressing and mitigating negative human rights impacts of arms transfers.
We welcome the resolution on new and emerging digital technologies, which reinforces the need to respect, protect and promote human rights throughout the lifecycle of artificial intelligence systems. The resolution mandates an enhanced role of the OHCHR in providing its expertise on the human rights implications of these technologies, including artificial intelligence, to other UN bodies, mechanisms, and processes. We believe that bolstering this existing expertise is vital in ensuring a consistent human rights-first approach to the growing number of UN initiatives relevant to this topic. We also particularly welcome that the resolution stresses that certain applications of artificial intelligence “present an unacceptable risk to human rights”. We now call on States to put this language into practice and ban those technologies that cannot be operated in compliance with international human rights law.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution extending the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers for three years.
We regret the adoption of a new resolution on countering religious hatred constituting incitement to discrimination hostility or violence. While we are dismayed over the rise of hate against persons on the basis of their religion or belief worldwide, this resolution ultimately aims to protect not individuals but rather religious books and symbols that do not enjoy protection under international human rights law. We note that prohibitions on the defamation of religions fuel division and religious intolerance by shutting down interfaith dialogue, and can facilitate human rights violations against religious minorities. While the burning of holy books is considered disrespectful and offensive by many, this is not an act of incitement in and of itself, and such acts should only be challenged through open space for dialogue, debate, and dissent. By evoking language on the defamation of religions, this resolution puts over a decade of progress in jeopardy and risks undermining the consensual, positive action plan to combat religious intolerance achieved in landmark Resolution 16/18 in 2011.
We regret that the resolution on the contribution of development to the enjoyment of human rights weakens the interdependence of human rights and sustainable development. We reiterate deep concerns at the long-term goal of this initiative, in light of the penholder’s remarks during negotiations that the ‘contribution of development to human rights’ is a methodology ‘conflicting with’ human rights-based approaches to development (HRBA) widely-endorsed by the Secretary-General, UN agencies and States. We regret the inclusion of undefined domestic concepts such as ‘better life’, ‘high-quality development’ and ‘people-centred approach to development’, and the failure to consider middle-ground proposals to reallocate resources to meet the OHCHR’s needs for additional capacity on HRBA to development. We lament that the penholder disregarded strong concerns shared across all regions, including from developing countries as reflected in the abstentions of Costa Rica, Chile, Georgia, India and Paraguay, despite commitments to seek consensus and engage constructively.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on Belarus, which re-mandates the Special Rapporteur for a further year. The Special Rapporteur on Belarus remains critical to civil society, whose options for seeking redress for human rights violations at an international level were further reduced recently when Belarus withdrew from the First Optional Protocol of the ICCPR.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution presented by Colombia seeking to enhance technical cooperation to implement the recommendations made by the Commission for the Clarification of Truth, Coexistence and Non-Repetition in the country – a resolution looking towards a future of peace.. The text highlights the OHCHR report’s findings that violence disproportionately affects, inter alia, human rights defenders, Indigenous Peoples, people of African descent, peasant leaders, women and girls, as well as persons on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. We regret however that Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC except Albania, tabled an amendment to remove the reference to ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’, and in doing so did not respect Colombia’s decision to acknowledge the vulnerability of populations inside its own territory, and meant that a vote was called on the resolution.
This year’s strengthened resolution on Eritrea is in line with civil society’s ask to substantively address violations Eritrean authorities commit at home and abroad and to move beyond merely procedural resolutions that extend the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. We encourage States to go even further next year and to reinstate fully substantive resolutions on Eritrea’s human rights situation, as was the rule before 2019.
We welcome the adoption of the Item 10 resolution on Ukraine, maintaining the Council’s regular dialogues with the High Commissioner on the human rights situation in Ukraine. The work of the OHCHR in Ukraine is critical, complementary to the work of the International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, and it is important that HRC is kept abreast of this work.
While we believe the resolution on Rohingya and other minorities in Myanmar is an important step to maintain the situation of Rohingya and other minorities in Myanmar high on the agenda of the Council, we regret that the resolution failed to reflect the reality of the situation on the ground in Myanmar especially following the 1 February 2021 military coup. It calls for immediate commencement of repatriation of Rohingya refugees in direct contrast to conclusions and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur, the High Commissioner as well as Rohingya themselves that conditions for safe, voluntary, dignified and sustainable return for Rohingya do not exist in Myanmar, and that their return under the current circumstances could lead to the recurrence of violence that led to their displacement.
The holding of a Special Session on Sudan on 11 May 2023, does not preclude, but rather should be seen as the start of a process toward, stronger resolutions. Civil society will continue to push for the establishment of an investigative mechanism, which is the least the Council can do for the victims and survivors of the conflict and violations and abuses committed in the country in the last three decades. We highlight the need for a holistic, comprehensive response by the international community. In this regard, the Final Communiqué of the First Meeting of the IGAD Quartet Group of Countries for the Resolution of the Situation in the Republic of Sudan resolved to request that “the East Africa Standby Force (EASF) summit … convene in order to consider the possible deployment of the EASF for the protection of civilians and guarantee humanitarian access” and committed “to work closely with the international community to put in place a robust monitoring and accountability mechanism that will be instrumental in bringing perpetrators to justice.”
We deplore the sustained failure of this Council to respond meaningfully to the human rights situation in China, gradually undermining its credibility and ability to scrutinise countries on the basis of objective, impartial UN documentation, including the OHCHR Xinjiang report. We further regret the failure of the joint UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect to act in line with its mandate on the CERD’s historic referral of the situation in Xinjiang, weakening the UN’s genocide-prevention architecture. The CESCR, the CEDAW, the CERD, the OHCHR, the ILO, as well as Special Procedures through three joint statements, nearly 30 press releases and 100 letters to the government since 2018, have provided more than sufficient evidence pointing to systematic and widespread human rights violations. So long as the Council is not able to take principled action on the basis of objective criteria, other powerful perpetrators will feel empowered to continue committing atrocity crimes, relying on the Council’s silence. We reiterate our pressing call for all Council Members to support the adoption of a resolution establishing a UN mandate to monitor and report on the human rights situation in China.
We regret that the Council failed to adequately respond to the situation in Egypt. Since the joint statement delivered by States in March 2021 at the Council , there has been no significant improvement in the human rights situation in Egypt despite the launching of the national human rights strategy and the national dialogue. The Egyptian government has failed to address, adequately or at all, the repeated serious concerns expressed by several UN Special Procedures over the broad and expansive definition of “terrorism”, which enables the conflation of civil disobedience and peaceful criticism with “terrorism”. The Human Rights Committee raised its concerns “that these laws are used, in combination with restrictive legislation on fundamental freedoms, to silence actual or perceived critics of the Government, including peaceful protesters, lawyers, journalists, political opponents and human rights defenders”. Egyptian and international civil society organisations have been calling on the Council to establish a monitoring and reporting mechanism on the human rights situation in Egypt, applying objective criteria and in light of the Egyptian government’s absolute lack of genuine will to acknowledge, let alone address, the country’s deep-rooted human rights crisis.
We regret the Council’s repeated failure to address the situation in India including to exercise its prevention mandate in relation to the potential escalation of violence against religious minorities and Dalits and Adivasis into mass atrocity crimes with unchecked hate speech and incitement to violence by Hindu nationalist leaders, the most recent illustration of which is the ongoing communal violence in the Northeastern state of Manipur. We remind the Council that this is happening in the context of systematic rollback of fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and independent institutions as well as the ongoing criminalisation, harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders, activists, journalists, and dissidents, and targeting of civil society organisations using national security and counter-terrorism infrastructure. Silence of the Council further enables impunity and makes the international community complicit.
We regret that the Council failed to adequately respond to the situation in Saudi Arabia. In light of the ongoing diplomatic rehabilitation of crown prince and de facto ruler Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi authorities’ brazen repression continues to intensify, as ALQST has documented. Some notable recent trends include, but are not limited to: the further harsh sentencing of activists for peaceful social media use, such as women activists Salma al-Shehab (27 years), Fatima al-Shawarbi (30 years and six months) and Sukaynah al-Aithan (40 years); the ongoing detention of prisoners of conscience beyond the expiry of their sentences, some of whom continue to be held incommunicado such as human rights defenders Mohammed al-Qahtani and Essa al-Nukheifi, and; regressive developments in relation to the death penalty, including a wave of new death sentences passed and a surge in executions (47 individuals were executed from March-May 2023), raising concerns for those currently on death row, including several young men at risk for crimes they allegedly committed as minors. We call on the Council to respond to the calls of NGOs from around the world to create a monitoring and reporting mechanism on the ever-deteriorating human rights situation in Saudi Arabia.
We regret that the Council failed to exercise its prevention mandate and address the deteriorating human rights situation in Tunisia. Civil society organizations, the High Commissioner and UN Special Procedures all have raised alarm at the escalating pattern of human rights violations and the rapidly worsening situation in Tunisia following President Kais Saied’s power grab on 25 July 2021 leading to the erosion of the rule of law, attacks on the independence of the judiciary, reprisals against independent judges and lawyers and judges associations, a crackdown on peaceful political opposition and abusive use of “counter-terrorism” law in politicized prosecutions, as well as attacks on freedom of expression and threats to freedom of association. A wave of arrests that started in February 2022 continued to include at least 40 members of peaceful political opposition. On 21 February 2023, President Saied made inflammatory comments that triggered a wave of anti-Black violence and persecution – including assaults and summary evictions – against Black African foreign nationals, including migrants, asylum seekers and refugees. Between February and early March 2023, police indiscriminately arrested at least 850 Black African foreign nationals, apparently based on racial profiling. Since July 2, 2023 Tunisian security forces collectively expelled several hundreds of Black African migrants and asylum-seekers to the Tunisian-Libyan borders without any due process, along with reports of beatings and sexual assaults. The High Commissioner has addressed the deteriorating situation in the three latest global updates to the HRC. Special Procedures issued at least 8 communications in less than one year addressing attacks against the independence of the judiciary, as well as attacks against freedom of expression and assembly. Despite the fact that in 2011 Tunisia extended a standing invitation to all UN Special Procedures, and received 16 visits by UN Special Procedures since, Tunisia’s recent postponement of the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, is another sign of Tunisia disengaging from international human rights mechanisms and declining levels of cooperation.
Signatories: International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Center for Reproductive Rights, DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project), Gulf Centre for Human Rights.
A large group of civil society organizations, condemn the three-year prison sentence handed down to human rights researcher at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) and academic Patrick George Zaki for his writings highlighting the hardship and discrimination faced by Coptic Christians in Egypt, such as himself.
On July 18, 2023, following a trial rife with due process violations, an Egyptian emergency state security court handed down a three-year prison sentence to Patrick on trumped up charges of spreading false news. Patrick, who was a graduate student at the University of Bologna at the time, was arrested by Egyptian authorities on February 7, 2020, while at the Cairo Airport during a visit home to see his family. In custody, he was held incommunicado for a 24-hour period; he was beaten, stripped, electrocuted, verbally abused, and threatened. He was initially accused of joining a terrorist organization and spreading false news. In September 2021, lawyers learned that he had been referred to emergency state security court on false news charges for a 2019 article that he authored for independent digital media outlet Daraj on his experience as a Coptic Christian religious minority, titled, “Displacement, Killing & Harassment: A Week in the Diaries of Egypt’s Copts.” On December 7, 2021, following 22 months behind bars, he was ordered released from detention pending trial, and placed on travel ban. His trial continued until the July 2023 verdict, following which he was taken back into custody today.
Verdicts handed down by an emergency court are not subject to legal appeal, only to ratification by the President. The President also has the authority to commute the sentence or to quash the verdict. Furthermore, under Circular No. 10 of 2017 governing emergency state security courts, “If the accused is brought to trial while not in custody and sentenced to a prison penalty, he must be released immediately without executing the penalty pending the decision of the ratifying authority.” Per this provision, Patrick must legally be free while the President considers ratification; for Egyptian authorities to have taken him into custody constitutes a clear violation of this circular.
The targeting, arrest, prosecution, and sentencing of Patrick Zaki for writing about his experiences as a Coptic Christian is an egregious measure by Egyptian authorities that is indicative of a larger failure by the state to protect religious minorities. Instead, the authorities target Copts for merely expressing themselves and bringing attention to the discrimination they regularly endure. This sentence occurs in violation of Egypt’s domestic laws and international legal commitments, and sends a clear message that the Egyptian government is not serious about implementing its national human rights strategy or carrying out a meaningful national dialogue. At a time during which Egyptian authorities should be addressing the dire economic crisis, this step raises severe questions on the trajectory of the country.
The undersigned civil society organizations, call on Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi not to ratify the verdict handed down to Patrick Zaki and instead to quash it in its entirety. We call on Egyptian authorities to immediately release Patrick Zaki from custody, to drop all charges and close all cases brought against him in their entirety, and to lift the travel ban brought against him. We urge all of Egypt’s international, multilateral, and government partners to press the Egyptian government to immediately release Patrick and cease persecuting him for his legally protected speech and vital human rights work.
80% of citizens in the world have less freedom of expression today than a decade ago. That’s more than 6 billion people in more than 80 countries. Far more people are experiencing increases in repression than decreases regardless of whether you measure it over 1, 5 or 10 years, freedom of expression organisation Article 19’s annual Global Expression Report shows. The report comprises 161 countries.
“There are more countries in which freedoms are in decline than countries seeing rises in expression”, the report says.
“What’s more, the countries in decline contain many more people than countries in advance, which tend to have much smaller populations. 95% of countries that advanced in the last decade had populations of under 50 million people, while only 74% of countries that declined over the same period had populations of that size.”
Key findings:
In the last year, 363 million people across 12 countries experienced declines in their freedom of expression, while 165 million people across 7 countries saw advances.
In the last 5 years, 4.7 billion across 51 countries experienced declines in their freedom of expression, while only 673 million people in 25 countries saw advances.
In the last 10 years, 6.3 billion people across 81 countries experienced declines in their freedom of expression, while 452 million people in 21 countries saw advances.
The report shows that threats are posed not just by autocratic governments, but also by legislation and law enforcement within democratic structures that erode human rights, as well as by corporate interests and organised crime.
“Where those groups and their interests overlap, freedoms are in acute danger”, Article 18 says.
“Conflict is the greatest and most immediate threat to free speech, particularly for those on the frontlines of expression: In 2022, journalists and human rights defenders were predominantly killed in countries suffering from conflicts, either internal or international.”
“However, political violence targeting civilians also became more common – and more deadly – during 2022, with more than 125,700 events globally leading to over 145,500 reported fatalities.”
From the report:
= 401 human rights defenders were murdered in 2022, including 186 in Colombia, 50 in Ukraine, and 45 in Mexico. 48% of those murdered were defending land, environmental, and Indigenous peoples’ rights.
– 87 journalists were murdered in 2022 – 33 more than in 2021 – including 19 in Mexico and 10 in Ukraine. 64 more were missing in 2022.
– At the end of 2022, 363 journalists were behind bars. The top jailers were Iran, China, Myanmar, Turkey, and Belarus.
“While the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine dominated the global conflict landscape as well as the headlines in 2022, violence also intensified in places like Myanmar and the Sahel, as did criminal violence and conflict in Latin America and the Caribbean, while domestic unrest and state violence against protest escalated in places like Iran.”
The human rights situation in Belarus is catastrophic, and only getting worse, the United Nations special rapporteur on the country said on 4 July 2023, according to AFP.
Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko’s regime in Minsk is deliberately purging civil society of its last dissenting voices, Anais Marin told the U.N. Human Rights Council.
“The situation remains catastrophic. Unfortunately, it keeps on worsening,” said the special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Belarus. “The Belarusian government amended an already restrictive legislation aimed at dismantling civic freedoms, leading to a surge in politically motivated prosecutions and sentencing.
“The lack of accountability for human rights violations fosters a climate of fear among victims and their families,” Marin said. Marin has been in post for five years and reminded the council that she alerted them two years ago to the “totalitarian turn” taken by Minsk, evidenced by the “disregard for human life and dignity” during the crackdown on peaceful protesters in 2020. In her annual report, the French political scientist said more than 1,500 individuals were still being detained on politically motivated charges, with a daily average of 17 arbitrary arrests since 2020.
“I have good reasons to believe that prison conditions are deliberately made harsher for those sentenced on politically motivated grounds, by placing them in punishment cells for petty infraction to prison rules,” said Marin.
“No one has been held accountable in Belarus for arbitrarily detaining tens of thousands of peaceful protesters in 2020, nor for the violence or torture many of them have been subjected to.
“This general impunity, and the climate of fear resulting from ongoing repression, have compelled hundreds of thousands of Belarusians into exile.
Human rights defenders face ongoing persecution, she said, with more than 1,600 “undesirable organizations forcibly dissolved, including all remaining independent trade unions.
“This illustrates a deliberate state policy of purging civic space of its last dissenting elements,” she said.
Marin said independent media outlets had been labelled as “extremist organizations,” while academic freedom is “systematically attacked.”
“Ideological control and disciplinary measures restrict freedom of opinion and their expression,” she said.
Primary and secondary education is also subject to “ideological control,” with children “discouraged from expressing their own opinions” and facing “threats and consequences” for holding dissenting views.
Consequences for speaking out
As for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, individuals face challenges when trying to speak out against it or question Belarus’s role in facilitating the 2022 invasion.
“Anti-war actions led to numerous detentions and arrests, some on charges of planning terrorist attacks — a crime which can now be punished by death,” she said.
Belarus was immediately offered the Human Rights Council floor to respond to Marin’s comments but was not present.
On 11 July HRW underlined this with the case of Belarusian lawyer Yulia Yurhilevich and journalist Pavel Mazheika who ace up to seven years in prison
In a joint statement published today, over 60 human rights organisations {such as the ISHR}, bar associations, scholars and Chinese human rights activists in exile urge global attention to the Chinese government’s new wave of repression against human rights lawyers unfolding over the past three months.
Human rights lawyers are a cornerstone of China’s human rights movement. From Uyghurs, Tibetans and Hong Kongers, to religious minorities, LGBTQI and feminist advocates, journalists, and political dissidents: human rights lawyers defend the full spectrum of civil society. They accompany and empower the most vulnerable against land evictions, discrimination, health scandals, or extra-legal detention. They embody the promise of rule of law and hold the government accountable to its commitments under China’s constitution, laws, and the international human rights treaties it has ratified. They ensure that no one is left behind.
As a result of this work, for many years and particularly since the round-up of over 300 human rights lawyers and legal assistants in the days following July 9, 2015 – an episode known as the 709 crackdown -, this profession has been ‘effectively criminalised in China,’ according to UN experts.
China’s abuse of national security to target lawyers has been growingly mimicked in Hong Kong, where Chow Hang-tung and Albert Ho are awaiting trial under the territory’s overbroad National Security Law.
Beyond arrests, authorities are also increasingly using travel bans and enforced disappearances – including through a criminal procedure known as ‘Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location’ (RSDL) – to intimidate and silence human rights lawyers. Lawyer Li Heping and his family were intercepted at Chengdu airport in June this year, while lawyer Tang Jitian was detained for 398 days for attempting to attend a Human Rights Day celebration in December 2021. For RSDL, see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/residential-surveillance-at-a-designated-location-rsdl/
Released lawyers increasingly face disbarment, while their relatives, including underage children, are subjected to unrelenting harassment from the authorities. In recent months, Beijing-based lawyer Wang Quanzhang and his family have been forced to move 13 times, reporting constant threats and repeated cuts to their gas and electricity supply.
‘Human rights lawyers are one of the last avenues left to Chinese citizens seeking justice for the trampling of their most basic rights. Without sustained global pressure, the government will ramp up its campaign to imprison, disbar or silence these critical advocates for a more equal, just and rights-respecting China.‘
Raphael Viana David, ISHR’s China Programme Manager
Detained human rights lawyers are constantly subject to physical and psychological torture and ill-treatment in pre-trial detention and prison. They are routinely denied contact with their relatives and access to medical care, despite critical health issues. The government impedes family-appointed lawyers from accessing court documents and representing victims, instead imposing government-appointed lawyers whose identities are not disclosed or refuse to communicate with relatives. Detained lawyers are often convicted during sham closed-door trials, without notification to families nor disclosure of court verdicts for prolonged periods.
My husband Ding Jiaxi and his colleagues always fought for what’s right, despite knowing they risked being disappeared, tortured, disbarred. Their bravery is only equalled by their moral commitment to defending the rights of the most vulnerable, enshrined in China’s constitution and international treaties. Their sacrifice cannot be in vain: governments should stand with China’s human rights lawyers.
Sophie Luo Shengchun, human rights activist and wife of Ding Jiaxi
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has determined that China has a ‘systemic problem with arbitrary detention which amounts to a serious violation of international law.’
Against this new wave of repression, which has been known as the ‘709 crackdown 2.0’, the 63 signatories call on the international community to urge the Chinese government to:
Put an end to its crackdown on human rights lawyers and defenders;
Immediately and unconditionally release all those arbitrarily detained;
Amend laws and regulations, including national security legislation, its Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law, to bring them into full compliance with international human rights standards; and meaningfully cooperate with the United Nations human rights bodies to that end.
On 11 July 2023 EFE reported that Vietnam had released Vietnamese-Australian activist Chau Van Kham, sentenced in 2019 to 12 years in prison for extremism over his ties to the Viet Tan pro-democratic party.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he “very much welcomes the release of Chau,” in remarks Monday from Berlin, through Australian public broadcaster ABC.
Chau’s lawyer Dan Nguyen said in a statement through Amnesty International Australia that the activist, who returned Monday night to Australia, is with his wife and two sons. He also thanked the government’s, organizations and individuals’ efforts that fought for his release.
This was due to Chau, 73, being linked to pro-democratic group Viet Tan, considered an extremist entity in the country but a human rights organization in Australia.
Deputy Australian Prime Minister Richard Marles said Chau was released on “humanitarian” reasons and “in the spirit of friendship which exists between Australia and Vietnam,” according to ABC.
Chau is one of “more than 150 political activists in Vietnam who have been detained for peaceful acts in favor of freedom of expression,” Human Rights Watch Asia Human Rights Director Elaine Pearson said in a statement.
Pearson spoke of journalist Dang Dihn Bach and activists Mai Phan Loi, Dang Dinh Bach, and Hoang Thi Minh Hong among them and urged Australia to continue advocating for their release.
The exact number of political prisoners in Vietnam is unknown, as numbers provided by different human rights organizations have discrepancies.
While Human Rights Watch says the total exceeds 150, Amnesty International said there were 128 political prisoners in the country last year. Dissident organization Defend the Defenders raised the number to more than 250.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 