The 2026 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought is collectively awarded to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its officials.
Announcing the 2026 laureate in the hemicycle on Thursday, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola declared: “The European Union is built on respect for multilateralism and international institutions. With the award of the Sakharov prize to the International Criminal Court and its officials, the European Parliament recognises the Court’s important work in upholding international law and justice.”
The International Criminal Court (ICC) investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.
The Court is a crucial actor in the global fight to end impunity, and through international criminal justice, it aims to hold those responsible accountable for their crimes and to help prevent these crimes from happening again. As a court of last resort, it seeks to complement national courts. Governed by an international treaty called the Rome Statute, the ICC is the world’s first permanent international criminal court.
In Parliament’s 2025 annual reports on the implementation of the common Foreign and Security Policy and on the human rights and democracy in the world, MEPs expressed their deep concern at the growing threats and the various waves of sanctions imposed since 2025 on the ICC, notably by the USA, as well as on its prosecutors, judges, staff and partners, considering these to be serious attacks on the international justice system.
MEPs have repeatedly called on the European Commission to activate the EU’s so-called ‘blocking statute’ to protect officials working at the ICC from extraterritorial attacks, and to enable it to continue its activities in complete independence. The blocking statute protects European operators, regardless of their size or sector of activity, by nullifying within the EU the effect of any foreign judicial decision based on foreign laws, also enabling them to seek compensation in court for damages caused by the extraterritorial application of foreign laws.
From left to right: Pham Chi Dung, Anar Mammadli, Joshua Wong, Mohammad Seifzadeh, Gasser Abdel Razek (Photo Credits: Pham Chi Dung Facebook, Wikimedia Commons, Center for Human Rights in Iran, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights)
Brian Tronic, Director, Fred Hiatt Program to Free Political Prisoners, wrote “Dictatorial regimes are retaliating against democratic activists who talk to foreign governments and international bodies“
On September 2, prominent Hong Kong democracy activist Joshua Wong pleaded guilty to charges under the territory’s notorious National Security Act—the second time he has faced prison time under the Beijing-imposed law. Having already been imprisoned since November 2020, he now faces the possibility of another lengthy sentence simply for demanding that Hong Kongers have a voice in their own government. Joshua’s detention has been widely recognized as emblematic of the Chinese Communist Party’s increasing restrictions on freedom in and the autonomy of Hong Kong.
However, his case is also an example of an important but less visible phenomenon: to hide truth about their abuses, dictatorial regimes are criminalizing the act of talking to the outside world. The allegations against Joshua included meetings in the United States with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and then Senator Marco Rubio. Unfortunately, activists around the globe are facing similar charges. The following cases highlight the efforts of repressive regimes to shut down engagement with foreign democracies and international bodies that have made protecting democracy part of their mission.
Vietnamese journalist Pham Chi Dung was detained after petitioning members of the European Parliament (EP) to pressure Vietnam over its human rights record. In 2019, he wrote to EP members asking them to postpone ratification of the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement until Vietnamese authorities made human rights improvements, and made a similar appeal in a video featured at an event hosted by a British EP member. Two days later, he was arrested. UN experts noted that the arrest “appears to be an act of reprisal for his human rights advocacy.” Dung was later sentenced to 15 years in prison for “conducting antistate propaganda,” and he remains imprisoned today.
Mohammad Seifzadeh, a human rights lawyer in Iran, wrote a letter with other human rights activists to UN Secretary General António Guterres in December 2022, asking him to respond to the Iranian regime’s execution of peaceful protesters. Just a few months later, as a result of the letter, he was convicted of “propaganda against the system” and “spreading false information” and sentenced to a year in prison (though his sentence was eventually suspended for medical reasons).
Azerbaijani activist Anar Mammadli, chair of the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre (EMDS), was arrested in 2024 a few weeks after calling on Azerbaijani authorities to release political prisoners and respect fundamental rights at events hosted by the UN Human Rights Council and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). A group of UN officials expressed “serious concerns that Mammadli’s detention and prosecution may be in retaliation for his human rights work and his engagement with UN mechanisms.” In 2026, Anar was sentenced to 13 years in prison on a variety of baseless charges.
In November 2020, three staff of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, including Executive Director Gasser Abdel Razek, were arrested a few days after discussing human rights issues with 13 foreign ambassadors and diplomats. While they were released a few weeks later, they were placed under a travel ban that remains in place to this day.
According to Novaya Gazeta Europe of 1 October 2026, prosecutors general of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have signed an agreement on cooperating to fight terrorism and extremism, Russian state-affiliated business daily RBC reported on Wednesday.
The agreement provides for the timely exchange of information on organisations, groups and individuals that the signatories consider “terrorist” or “extremist” and classify as national security threats. The countries will also reportedly share information on such groups’ international ties, possible attacks and threats to their sovereignty.
Additionally, the deal covers information on illegal armed groups; human, arms and drug traffickers; organisers of illegal migration; and foreign terrorist fighters.
Russia routinely uses terrorism and extremism charges to prosecute political opponents. The laws have become a tool for pressuring human rights defenders, antiwar activists and other groups the authorities see as disloyal.
According to a count by the independent outlet Mediazona, Russian authorities had opened at least 225 criminal cases for “financing extremism” over donations to the late opposition leader Alexey Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation as of April 2026. In the first half of 2026 alone, more than 1,200 people in Russia were convicted on terrorism-related charges, a 38% increase from the same period last year. Nearly a third were tried solely over things they had said.
Nominations for the 2027 Right Livelihood Award are now open.
If you know any courageous change-makers striving to create a more just, peaceful, and sustainable world for all? RLF welcomesnominations from all over the world, people of all ages and backgrounds. Deadline To be considered for the 2027 Award, nominations must be submitted by January 24, 2027. You can submit through our online form in English, French, and Spanish.
The Call for Nominations remains open year-round, but any submissions received after this date will be assessed in the following year.
On 8 October 2026, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), requests urgent intervention in the following situation in Thailand.
The Observatory has been informed that a criminal defamation complaint has been filed by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul against Mr. Yingcheep Atchanont, director of the Thai non-governmental organisation Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw), an FIDH member organisation, in connection with his legitimate work of monitoring public affairs and promoting democratic accountability.
On 15 September 2026, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul filed a criminal defamation complaint against Yingcheep under Article 326 (“defamation”) and 328 (“libel”) of Thailand’s Criminal Code with the Bangkok Criminal Court.
This development follows the announcement made by the Prime Minister on 22 July 2026 that he would take legal action against Yingcheep. The Prime Minister’s criminal defamation complaint stems from Yingcheep Atchanont’s submission of a petition to the opposition coalition in the House of Representatives on 21 July 2026, seeking a parliamentary examination of allegations that nine politicians from the ruling Bhumjaithai Party, including Prime Minister Anutin, five cabinet ministers, and three senior figures, were involved in vote manipulation during the June 2024 Senate election. According to iLaw’s investigation, evidence and witness statements suggested irregularities including candidate arrangements, the distribution of voting instructions, and the provision of financial incentives to candidates by networks linked to the Bhumjaithai Party, across different stages of the election process, which raised serious concerns over the integrity and transparency of the polls.
The Observatory recalls that since its founding in 2009, iLaw has played a prominent role in advancing democratic participation, freedom of expression, and a fair justice system in Thailand. The organisation has documented the impact of repressive laws and decrees adopted following the 2006 and 2014 military coups d’état and campaigned for their reform through public engagement and online advocacy. It has also worked to support citizen participation in legislative and constitutional reform processes, particularly through campaigns to collect signatures for proposed legislation and initiatives to amend Thailand’s military-backed 2017 Constitution. In addition, iLaw has contributed to strengthening electoral transparency by systematically documenting voting irregularities and mobilising citizens to participate in election observation.
The June 2024 Senate election gave rise to allegations of systemic fraud and vote-buying. Under a new selection system, more than 40,000 candidates voted among themselves through multiple rounds of selection at the district, provincial, and national levels to determine the 200-member Senate. The results led to public scrutiny particularly due to the disproportionately high number of successful candidates from provinces where the Bhumjaithai Party enjoyed strong electoral support…
The Observatory denounces the criminal lawsuits against Yingcheep, which appear to be in retaliation against the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression, as enshrined in international human rights law, in particular in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a state party.
The Observatory calls upon the Thai authorities to ensure that all complaints are dropped and urges them to take concrete steps towards the decriminalisation of defamation under Articles 326 and 328 of the Criminal Code, which are used to intimidate, silence, and harass human rights defenders in Thailand.
Over a hundred human rights defenders come to Sweden to meet at Defenders’ Days.
Today, 12 October 2026, Defenders’ Days opens, bringing together more than 100 human rights defenders from around the world to share experiences, build networks, and strengthen their work. Among the participants are a Palestinian editor-in-chief who has lost friends and colleagues during the war, a Venezuelan journalist who was detained because of her reporting, and a Ukrainian lawyer working to document war crimes. What they have in common is their commitment to defending human rights, one of the world’s most important and most dangerous callings.
Defenders’ Days is an international conference for human rights defenders, providing a safe space where participants from across the globe can meet, exchange experiences, and learn from one another. For many, it is also a rare opportunity to pause, regain strength, and find support in work that is often marked by threats, harassment, and significant personal risk.
“We are witnessing democracy and respect for human rights come under pressure in many parts of the world. At the same time, human rights defenders continue to stand up for others, often at great personal cost. For a few days, they have the opportunity to come together, build networks, and strengthen one another for the work ahead,” says Sofia Walan, Executive Director of Civil Rights Defenders.
The conference brings together journalists, lawyers, democracy activists, environmental defenders, and human rights defenders from more than 50 countries. The programme includes training sessions and workshops on topics such as digital security, psychosocial well-being, advocacy, and leadership.
Equally important, however, is the opportunity to meet others who share similar experiences.
“Defending human rights can be both challenging and isolating. At Defenders’ Days, participants can connect with people who understand their reality. It creates new partnerships, provides renewed energy, and serves as a reminder that they are part of a global movement working together to defend freedom, democracy, and human rights,” says Sofia Walan.
Defenders’ Days was launched in 2013 and is organised by Civil Rights Defenders. This year’s conference takes place on 12–14 October and brings together participants from more than 50 countries.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 to “Navi” Pillay “for her efforts to promote peace and international law”
In the Committee’s words: At a time of existential challenges – including more wars and conflicts than the world has seen in a long time – international law is no longer just a supplement to peace and security. It is an absolute necessity. In historic international court cases, Navi Pillay has shown that legal measures can help prevent acts of war and violence. She has also contributed to strengthen the institutions of international law. Her independence, expertise and steadfastness have made her one of the most respected international jurists of our time.
Navi (Navanethem) Pillay’s commitment to universal legal principles and her firm moral compass are constants in a long career. A common thread runs from her early work defending Nelson Mandela and others who stood up against apartheid to her service as a judge in some of the key international court cases of our time. Navi Pillay has held states and national leaders accountable and brought hope to victims of violence and conflict. In all the positions she has held, she has stressed the responsibility of individuals and states to comply with the rule of law.
On 30 September 2026 the MENA Rigths Group and partner organisations called for the immediate release of six journalists working at the independent investigative journalism platform Matsadaash.
Photo collage of the six Egyptian Matsadaash journalists, arrested between September 28 and 29, 2026, courtesy of The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP).
We, the undersigned civil society organisations and independent media outlets, come together to condemn the escalating crackdown on independent Egyptian investigative journalism platform Matsadaash, which now includes the arrest of six journalists, constituting the entirety of the newsroom.
Late into the evening of Monday, September 28 and early Tuesday, September 29, 2026, Egyptian security forces conducted raids on the homes of journalists Mohamed Ashraf Abu Emeira and Abdallah Qadry and took them into custody. Raids on the homes of other journalists working for the platform continued across several governorates over the hours to come. By the end of the day on Tuesday, Islam Barakat and Omar Helal were arrested at their homes in Gharbiya and Port Said, and Mohamed Mahmoud and Mohamed Adel were arrested in Cairo.
During the home raids, officers confiscated phones and laptops, including devices belonging to family members; refused to display a warrant; and refused to disclose where the journalists were being taken. As of the writing of this statement, the reasons for their arrest has not been shared and their location remains unknown.
In 2018, Matsadaash was founded by a group of Egyptian journalists committed to producing in-depth reporting and open-source investigations. Matsadaash has operated openly for years and has built a reputation for credible and accurate reporting on a range of public interest issues across Egypt. The detained Matsadaash journalists are known across the region.
This is not the first time that Matsadaash has come under attack by the Egyptian authorities. In 2023, a Matsadaash editor was arrested. Although he was ultimately released 48 hours later, the platform has also previously been the target of smear campaigns intended to silence its critical work. Egypt is one of the world’s leading jailers of journalists, with 19 currently behind bars.
We, the undersigned, call on Egyptian authorities to immediately release Mohamed Ashraf Abu Emeira, Abdallah Qadry, Islam Barakat, Omar Helal, Mohamed Mahmoud, and Mohamed Adel from custody.
Signatories
Access Now
Aegis Safety Alliance
Agência Lupa
AITAS
AlJumhuriya Collective – Syria
Al Manassa
American Committee for Middle East Rights (ACMER)
ARIJ (Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism)
ARTICLE 19
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE)
Beam Reports
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
Center for International Policy (CIP)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Daraj Media
Delfi Estonia Fact-Check
Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN)
Egyptian Front for Human Rights
Egyptian Human Rights Forum (EHRF)
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights
EgyptWide for Human Rights
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Ellinika Hoaxes – Greece
El Nadim Center against Violence and Torture
EuroMed Rights
FactCheck Georgia
FactReview
FairSquare
Fareq Platform
Full Fact
Global Voices
Gohoud to Support Human Rights Defenders
Greece Fact Check
Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
Hibrid.info
Hounna Feminist Platform
Human Rights Watch
HuMENA for Human Rights and Civic Engagement
INSM
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists
International Fact-Checking Network
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Intersection Association for Rights and Freedoms
Kawaakibi Foundation
Law and Democracy Support Foundation (LDSF)
Mada Masr
Medical Dialofuss
MENA Rights Group
Muwatin Media Network
Najda Human Rights
Newtral
OCCRP
Pagella Politica / Facta news
PEN Lebanon
Press Trust of India
Project Kontinuum
PolitiFact
Politiken
Raseef22
Refugees Platform in Egypt (RPE)
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center
REDWORD for Human Rights & Freedom of Expression
Samir Kassir Foundation
Share3 Media
Sinai Foundation for Human Rights
SMEX
Start Point Organization
Syria Justice and Accountability Center
Syrian Journalists Association (SJA)
Taafi initiative
Tafnied for Fact-Checking
Tech4Peace
The Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and Legal Profession (ACIJLP)
The Checker – Iraq
The Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms
The Public Source
The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP)
“The upcoming trial of Panayote Dimitras and Tommy Olsen is a blatant attempt to criminalize and silence their legitimate human rights work,” said Eva Cossé, senior Europe researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Prosecutors should drop this politically motivated case against Dimitras and Olsen once and for all.”
Dimitras, founder and president of the Greek nongovernmental group Greek Helsinki Monitor, and Olsen, a Norwegian national and founder of the nongovernmental group Aegean Boat Report, are being prosecuted alongside two Cameroonian asylum seekers on charges of “forming or joining for profit and by profession a criminal organization with the purpose of facilitating the entry and stay of third country nationals into Greek territory.” If convicted, they face up to 20 years in prison.
The charges brought against the activists in early 2023 stem from their peaceful human rights and humanitarian work, Human Rights Watch said. The indictment seeks to criminalize the defendants’ practice of notifying Greek authorities and international bodies of the whereabouts of newly arrived asylum seekers and migrants on the Greek islands, to help ensure that they have access to the country’s asylum procedure and not be pushed back to Türkiye.
Dimitras and Olsen have for years documented and exposed human rights violations against asylum seekers and migrants, including violent pushbacks by Greek authorities, that have been characterized as “systematic” by the European Court of Human Rights.
On May 15, a Norwegian appeals court rejected Greek authorities’ request to extradite Olsen, who lives in Norway, to Greece through a European Arrest Warrant. The Norwegian court concluded that the acts described by Greek authorities do not constitute criminal offenses under Norwegian law, noting that assisting someone in initiating an asylum procedure is a lawful act protected by international treaties. The court also found that extraditing Olsen to Greece would present a real risk of violating his right to freedom of expression.
Because Greek prosecutors have maintained arrest warrants, including the European Arrest Warrant, against Olsen, Olsen faces arrest and detention if he travels to Greece to defend himself. Dimitras who lives in Greece, is not in detention but is subject to a travel ban preventing him from leaving the country. The court summons specifies that, under Greek law, defendants will be tried in their absence if they do not appear or are not represented by a lawyer.
Proceeding on that basis would amount to an in absentia prosecution under international law. Under international law, including the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Greece is a party, anyone convicted in absentia, who later returns to the country where the conviction was issued, should have the opportunity to a fresh determination of the merits of their case by a court there.
The prosecution of Dimitras and Olsen is part of a wider, well-documented pattern of Greek authorities misusing criminal and administrative law to harass and intimidate human rights activists and civil society organizations defending the rights of asylum seekers and migrants. In January, a Greek court on the island of Lesbos acquitted 24 humanitarian workers of similar charges, after prosecutors subjected them to a devastating seven-year legal ordeal.
Despite this high-profile acquittal, Greek authorities have failed to change course, Human Rights Watch said. In February, the Greek government passed a migration law that makes membership in a nongovernmental organization an aggravating circumstance in migration-related criminal offenses, in some cases elevating them to felonies, with draconian penalties.
In 2023, the then-United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor, stated in a report to the UN Human Rights Council that “human rights lawyers, humanitarian workers, volunteers and journalists [working on migration in Greece] have been subjected to smear campaigns, a changing regulatory environment, threats and attacks, and the misuse of criminal law against them, to a shocking degree.” Lawlor has also said that the criminal investigation against Dimitras and Olsen “strongly appears” to be arbitrary.
“The Norwegian court firmly recognized that helping people present themselves to seek asylum is not a crime,” Cossé said. “Greek authorities should take a cue from the court and end this farce by dropping the case and halting the weaponization of criminal law against human rights defenders.”
The Essex Human Rights Centre was glad to have the chance to speak with Vineet Kapoor (MA in the Theory and Practice of Human Rights, 2005-6) and UK Chevening scholarship recipient. He is a senior police officer in the Indian Police Service, currently serving as Deputy Inspector General of Police for Community Policing for the state of Madhya Pradesh. He was recently awarded the Human Rights Hero Award during the World Human Rights Summit on Youth Education, which took place at UN Headquarters in New York.
HRC: Congratulations Vineet on your recent award! We would love to know how you became interested in policing
VK: Thank you! I get immense satisfaction when I can directly impact on the protection of rights and the creation of an environment of safety. Law enforcement and policing have a direct interface with public life. Fear and insecurity are the greatest breeding grounds of violence, exploitation and human rights violations. The police are entrusted with the responsibility to create an environment of safety and security which enables ordinary people to access justice. It also is a first responder to individuals and communities in crisis.
HRC: How has your study of human rights impacted upon your approach to policing?
VK: I was already a police officer when I came to Essex to study on the MA in in the Theory and Practice of Human Rights. I realised after joining the police that there is a deep connection between human rights protection and policing practice and this needs to be studied in detail. I was on a study leave from my job in the Indian police service, and I went back to the Indian police when I completed my studies to contribute to the mainstreaming of human rights in policing practice.
The human rights MA taught me how to see my police work and policing in general from a human rights perspective. I was able to appreciate what state accountability boils down to, how it affects both the encroachment on individual and community rights and the restoration of those rights. It helped me to better understand how the police service can deliver outcomes that make a direct contribution to state accountability.
Accountability is the most important thing I could understand through my police work after completing this degree. I could see the context of the law enforcement agency as the primary duty holder representing and working through the authority it derives from the state. It also helped me to understand the practical implications of civil and political rights and how police actions or inactions affect how human rights are enforced. It also helped me to understand economic, social and cultural rights from the perspective of police service delivery and how the interface between development and human rights can be affected by the quality of police service delivery. In particular, police services will be ineffective if insecurity, inequality and incompetence are allowed to prevail over strong governance practices. This is why development must be seen from a human security angle. There is a crucial connection between development and freedom, between human security and human development and poverty, inequality, corruption, intersectionality, gender-based and caste and class-based discrimination. The minority and vulnerability-related implications to police service delivery became clear to me as a police officer working in a democratic, developing country.
Over the two decades since my MA degree, I directed my services to improve police accountability by transforming police syllabi and police training mandates. I was instrumental in first changing the state syllabi of my native state of Madhya Pradesh to mainstream human rights and improve training and human rights pedagogy to make the training more relevant and impactful. Impressed with this achievement, I was invited by the national government to make a standardised syllabi for the civilian police for the entire country, which embedded human rights into the syllabi for all police ranks. I have also been responsible for bringing gender justice and child rights-based improvements in police practice and accountability standards through training, mentoring and monitoring approaches.
During the past five years, I have been involved in mainstreaming human rights norms into community policing. This has resulted in the incorporation of human rights, child rights, women’s rights, elderly people’s rights, cultural rights into community police-based public safety work. I have also implemented police reforms with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) enabled work, especially SDG 5 for women’s security, SDG 11 for urban safety and most importantly SDG 16 which covers peace and safe institutions where police have a crucial role to play.
HRC: What were your impressions of the work on police reforms and human rights-based policing when working with the UN?
VK: In the conflict zones where I served, I found that when the police services are no longer neutral and when political actors become partisan, life, liberty, community safety, peace and development are negatively impacted, and humanity can become dangerous to its own self. This context of lawlessness taught me the value of good governance and human rights-embedded police work and why and how I should devote my energies to mainstream human rights in police training and police public interface and in police accountability through monitoring mechanisms.
HRC: You also received a PhD in Police Training Culture and Organizational Development. Can you provide some details of the focus of your research?
VK: I realised that there is an endemic problem of human rights compliance in police practice. Through my exposure to UN peacekeeping as well as my Essex MA degree where I studied the sociological and criminological aspects of human rights, my understanding of what I had to do in my research became clearer. As a police officer myself, I could understand how police personnel think and act and how the police organizational culture promotes a particular version of police and how this culture undermines human rights as a norm. This enabled me to understand the theoretical and practical aspects of organizational cultures and subcultures in the police and draw inferences to improve police education and capacities to serve with an ethical and human rights orientation.
I studied five police training academies in five states in India, examined police training cultures and subcultures. I drew patterns of the organizational socialisation of the police in the training institutions and examined the capacities of the trainers to impart human rights education. This was done by finding gaps and then drawing inferences to improve training design, training content and training pedagogy – all of which make a crucial difference to human rights capacity building and promoting human rights as a professional value. This later helped me to improve my police training syllabi designed and the government asked me to work on drafting syllabi based on this research. The research had a field-based relevance, practice-based value as well as clear impact.
