Archive for the 'HRW' Category

NGOs alarmed by draft law “TRANSPARENCY OF PUBLIC LIFE” in Hungary

May 27, 2025

Human Rights Watch, Civil Rights Defenders and many, many other NGOs are deeply alarmed by a new legislative proposal in Hungary that, if passed, would institutionalise sweeping, opaque, and politically motivated repression of independent civil society, the press, and private organisations that receive foreign support or have any kind of income that the Hungarian government feels would threaten the country’s sovereignty. 

The draft law, which is deceptively titled ‘On the Transparency of Public Life’, would give the authorities unchecked powers, allowing it to recommend the registration of organisations deemed to be ‘influencing public life’ with foreign funding in ways that ‘threaten Hungary’s sovereignty’. Because this phrasing is vague and ideologically loaded, it risks including any kind of criticism of government policy, including the promotion of human rights, press freedom, gender equality, and the rule of law. 

Potential disastrous consequences

  • No legal remedy: If the government demands an organisation register itself, the organisation in question would not be able to appeal this decision. Once listed, organisations would have no access to effective legal redress; 
  • Broad definitions: ‘Foreign support’ is defined as any financial input, no matter how small, from practically any international source (including EU institutions and dual citizens) as well as commercial revenue; 
  • Sweeping prohibitions and sanctions: Listed organisations would have to seek permission from the tax authorities to receive foreign support. Financial institutions would be required to report and block transfers, meaning NGOs would effectively be permanently monitored; 
  • Loss of domestic support: Listed organisations would lose access to Hungary’s 1% income tax donation scheme, which would prevent them from receiving support from regular Hungarian citizens; 
  • Political targeting: Leaders of registered organisations would be labelled ‘politically exposed persons’, which would expose their private financial transactions to invasive scrutiny; 
  • Severe penalties: Any violations could lead to fines of up to 25 times the amount received, suspension of the organisation’s advocacy activities, and even forced closure.

EU must speak out against proposed law

Hungary’s draft law is not about transparency: it is a calculated attempt to criminalise dissent, silence watchdogs, and entrench one-party control over the democratic public sphere and civic space. If passed, the law would violate multiple provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, including freedom of expression and association and the right to an effective remedy. 

In an open letter to President Ursula von der Leyen and Commissioner Michael McGrath of 22 May 2025, the NGOs urge to take the following immediate steps:

  • Immediately request the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to grant interim measures in the ongoing infringement procedure on the Law on the Defence of National Sovereignty (Case C-829/24). The Sovereignty Protection Office is crucial to the new bill and therefore this is an imminent and effective way to halt the progress and impact of the bill. Cognizant of the impending danger, the European Parliament and civil society have been calling for this step since 2024. Interim measures are designed to prevent irreparable harm — in this case, the effective paralysis of civil society organisations, independent media and dissenting voices – and with this new development comprehensive interim measures should be requested immediately.
  • At the same time, call on the Hungarian government to withdraw the bill and if unsuccessful, open a new infringement procedure on new violations that are not linked to the ongoing case on the Defence of National Sovereignty.
  • With the forthcoming Article 7 hearing on Hungary on 27 May 2025 and recognising the escalation of a systematic breakdown of the rule of law, support the Council of the EU to move to a vote on Article 7(1).

This new bill represents a severe and existential threat to democratic principles, human rights and the rule of law in Hungary and in the EU as a whole. If the existing tools are not effectively deployed, we risk an unravelling of the rules on which the EU was founded and a clear step towards authoritarian practices. We call on you to stand in solidarity with Hungarian civil society and their counterparts across the region and remain available to provide additional information and support.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/23/open-letter-hungarian-bill-entitled-transparency-public-life

https://www.coe.int/nb/web/commissioner/-/commissioner-asks-hungary-s-parliament-not-to-adopt-law-that-stifles-civil-society

Hong Kong: Targeting of Exiled Activists’ Families Escalates

May 16, 2025

Father of Anna Kwok Charged with National Security Crime

The Hong Kong police arrested the father of a prominent US-based activist, Anna Kwok, on April 30, 2025, and charged him with a national security crime, Human Rights Watch said today. The arrest of Kwok Yin-sang was the first such prosecution of a family member of an exiled activist. Hong Kong authorities should immediately drop all charges and release him.

The Hong Kong authorities have recently intensified their harassment of the families of 19 wanted Hong Kong activists living in exile. Punishments and harassment against individuals for the alleged actions of another person is a form of collective punishment, prohibited by international human rights law.

The Chinese government has increased its appalling use of collective punishment against family members of peaceful activists from Hong Kong,” said Yalkun Uluyol, China researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The Hong Kong authorities should immediately and unconditionally release Anna Kwok’s father and cease harassing families of Hong Kong activists.”

On May 2, national security police formally charged Kwok Yin-sang, 68, with “directly or indirectly” dealing with the finances of an “absconder” under section 90 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, which carries a punishment of up to seven years in prison. Kwok Yin-sang remains in custody with a bail hearing scheduled for May 8. Anna Kwok’s brother was also arrested on April 30 but has been released on bail pending further investigation.

Anna Kwok, 28, is the executive director of Hong Kong Democracy Council, a nongovernmental organization based in Washington, DC. In July 2023, she was among a first group of eight people against whom the Hong Kong police issued arrests warrants and HK$1 million (US$129,000) bounties for violating Hong Kong’s National Security Law.

Since then, Hong Kong police have issued similar baseless arrest warrants and bounties against 11 other exiled Hong Kong activists.

Hong Kong authorities have sought to intimidate dozens of family members of the 19 “wanted” individuals, primarily by interrogating them. In the case of Ted Hui, a resident of Australia, they also confiscated HK$800,000 (US$103,000) from him and his family for having allegedly violated the National Security Law.

There has been a new wave of harassment against these families in recent months, Human Rights Watch said. After the Hong Kong police issued the third group of arrests and bounties against six exiled activists in December 2024, they began to harass their families. In January, police interrogated eight family members and former colleagues of the UK-based scholar Chung Kim-wah, and raided the office of the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute, with which Chung was formerly associated.

In February the police questioned the aunts and an uncle of Carmen Lau, a UK-based activist and former district councilor. On March 18, police interrogated the stepfather of the activist Tony Chung, who is in the UK.

On April 10, national security police took the parents of the US-based activist Frances Hui into custody for questioning.

The 19 wanted activists have also faced various other forms of harassment. In June and December 2024, the Hong Kong government cancelled the passports of 13 wanted activists, including Anna Kwok. In March, Lau and Chung reported that anonymous individuals sent letters to residents in various London neighborhoods urging them to hand in the activists to the Chinese Embassy in London, citing the warrants and bounties against them. Similar letters were sent to Melbourne-based Kevin Yam, a democracy activist and an Australian citizen.

Many of the 19 activists, including Kwok and Frances Hui, have reported online harassment campaigns, including rape and death threats, since the government issued the warrants and bounties against them. The media reported that an online campaign, which exhibited signs of a previous Chinese government influence operation, sought to mobilize far-right people in the UK to attack activists on the bounty list.

The 19 wanted activists live in the UK, US, Canada, and Australia. The US government in March sanctioned six officials in Hong Kong for using the National Security Law “extraterritorially to intimidate, silence, and harass” the activists. The other three governments have issued statements condemning the arrest warrants, but have not taken action to hold Hong Kong officials accountable. The US government is also the only one that has arrested someone for allegedly harassing a Hong Kong activist on its soil, though the person was later acquitted.

The Chinese government has used two draconian national security laws, the National Security Law of 2020 and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance of 2024, to dismantle the city’s pro-democracy movement and take away its fundamental freedoms, which are enshrined in Hong Kong’s de facto constitution, the Basic Law. Over 200,000 Hong Kongers have left Hong Kong, among them protesters and activists who have continued their activism abroad.

The AustralianUK, and US governments, the European Union, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have all publicly expressed concerns about the two security laws.

“Beijing isn’t likely to stop abuses against the families of exiled activists unless affected governments send a strong message that such repression carries a cost,” Uluyol said. “They should fully investigate and sanction Chinese and Hong Kong officials involved, and pass strong laws to protect their residents and citizens from transnational abuses.”

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/04/hong-kong-targeting-exiled-activists-families-escalates

UAE: Dissidents, Relatives Designated ‘Terrorists’

April 30, 2025

Emirati authorities have designated as “terrorist” 11 political dissidents and their relatives as well as 8 companies they own, reflecting the country’s indiscriminate use of overbroad counterterrorism laws and contempt for due process, Human Rights Watch said on 22 April 2025.

On January 8, 2025, Emirati authorities announced a cabinet decision unilaterally adding the 11 individuals and 8 companies to its terrorism list for their alleged links to the Muslim Brotherhood, without due process. The authorities did not inform these individuals or entities prior to the designation, nor was there any opportunity to respond to or contest the allegations. The move represents an escalation of the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) transnational repression, targeting not only dissidents but also their family members.

“Throwing nineteen people and companies onto a list of alleged terrorists without any semblance of due process, and with serious ramifications for their livelihoods, makes a mockery of the rule of law,” said Joey Shea, United Arab Emirates researcher at Human Rights Watch…

Human Rights Watch found that all eight companies are solely registered in the United Kingdom and are owned or previously owned by exiled Emirati dissidents or their relatives. At least nine of the eleven designated individuals are political dissidents or their relatives. Only two of the eleven have been convicted or accused of a terrorist offense, though both under questionable circumstances, according to informed sources and the Emirates Detainees Advocacy Center (EDAC), a human rights organization supporting imprisoned human rights defenders in the UAE. One was convicted in absentia as part of the grossly unfair “UAE94” mass trial of political dissidents in 2013. The other was accused in a separate case related to supporting the “UAE94” detainees.

Individuals on the list found out about the designation only after the Emirates News Agency (WAM), the UAE’s official state news agency, published it on its website. It came as “a real shock, it was very difficult,” one of the people named told Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch searched for the individuals and companies on global terror and financial sanctions lists, including the United Nations Global Sanctions list, the European Union Sanctions list, and the Consolidated List of Financial Sanctions Targets in the UK. None of them are included in these internationally recognized lists.

The UAE’s 2014 counterterrorism law uses an overly broad definition of terrorism and allows the executive branch to designate individuals and entities as terrorists without any corresponding legal requirement to demonstrate the objective basis of the claim. It does not set out a clear procedure for how this authority should be exercised, nor does it provide for any oversight.

Designated individuals face immediate asset freezes and property confiscation under the counterterrorism law and Cabinet Decision No. 74/2020. Those in the UAE, including relatives or friends, face a possible sentence of life in prison for communicating with anyone on the list. Human Rights Watch found that the designation has negatively affected individuals’ careers and personal finances, including through lost career opportunities and clients.

Exiled Emirati dissidents said the designations are part of the UAE’s ongoing crackdown on dissent and political opposition. “They want to hurt us as much as possible,” one individual whose name appeared on the list said.

Over the last decade, Emirati authorities have repeatedly targeted the Muslim Brotherhood and its Emirati branch, the Reform and Social Guidance Association (Al-Islah), in a widespread crackdown. Al-Islah is a nonviolent group that engaged in peaceful political debate in the UAE for many years prior to the crackdown and advocated greater adherence to Islamic precepts. Many of the detainees from the grossly unfair “UAE94” mass trial in 2013 are members of Al-Islah. The UAE designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in 2014.

The 2014 counterterrorism law enables the courts to convict peaceful government critics as terrorists and sentence them to death. The law has been repeatedly used against political dissidents. In July 2024, 53 human rights defenders and political dissidents were sentenced to abusively long terms in the country’s second-largest unfair mass trial.

The UN’s first special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights has said that terrorism should be defined as narrowly as possible, warning that “the adoption of overly broad definitions … carries the potential for deliberate misuse of the term … as well as unintended human rights abuses.”

…The UAE appears to be escalating its persecution beyond openly outspoken dissidents to include family members who have not participated in politics nor spoken publicly about the country’s human rights record. “Many people whose names are on the list, they didn’t speak loudly against the government,” one person said.

In 2021, the UAE added 38 individuals and 15 entities to its terrorism list, including 4 prominent exiled Emirati dissidents. Human Rights Watch found that 14 of the 38 individuals and two of the entities are on other international global terror and financial sanctions lists. None of the individuals nor entities added on January 2025 were found on other internationally recognized lists…

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/04/22/uae-dissidents-relatives-designated-terrorists

First assessment of Human Rights under the Trump Administration by HRW

March 5, 2025

Amy Braunschweiger speaks with Human Rights Watch’s US Program Director Tanya Greene, who leads research within the United States, as well as Washington Director Sarah Yager, who advocates with the US government on global issues, about the slew of executive orders President Trump has issued, the damage to human rights his administration’s policies have already done, and where we go from here.The text – reproduced in full below, was published on 3 March 2025.

See also: https://youtu.be/N_hCOCVuJsA?si=t2lUEb3Fw8XWH7Vo where UN human rights chief Volker Türk has voiced deep concerns for hostilities happening across the globe, including a “fundamental shift in direction” of the US. He expressed concern over a peace deal in the Russia-Ukraine war that did not involve Kyiv.

President Trump has been governing by executive orders. Could you give us some quick background on executive orders and what they do?

TG: An executive order is a presidential directive regarding federal government operations and policies. Their reach and power can be extraordinary, including because they often impact federally funded non-governmental entities, like universities and housing providers. Executive orders should be based on existing law, and are often operationalized through agency action, such as the departments of labor, homeland security, or education.

Many of Trump’s executive orders are facing court challenges arguing that they are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. For example, his executive order denying citizenship to children of undocumented people born in the United States has been stayed by the courts pending a legal challenge. It is widely seen as a clear violation of the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

Although the implementation of executive orders is not always automatic, widespread responses have been preemptive, anticipatory, and fearful, which is likely what Trump intended in this blitz of actions.

SY: These executive orders show how split the United States is. In 2016, Trump’s executive orders reversed former President Barack Obama’s. Then Joe Biden reversed Trump’s orders. And today, Trump reverses Biden’s. But this isn’t typical. It shows the divisive nature of US politics.

It’s also not typical that so many of these current orders are harmful to human rights.

Many of Trump’s executive orders harm human rights, both in the United States and around the world. Meanwhile, billionaire Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency,” or DOGE, is laying off masses of federal employees at various agencies. What are we most concerned about inside the US?

TG:  Whatever its supposed intentions, DOGE is slashing and burning to the point that a growing number of federal agencies are crippled by lack of resources, staff, and competent leadership. DOGE is also taking down websites and data that we rely on, both as human rights defenders and as the general public seeks information. For instance, hospitals across the country can no longer obtain important public health data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Human Rights Watch is investigating the treatment of immigrant children, racial justice impacts, environmental concerns, healthcare access, rights of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender people, and reproductive freedoms. You have a president that says diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) is “dangerous, demeaning and immoral” but offers no ways to fight racial injustice, and yet one of his executive orders allows for resettling certain supposedly-persecuted white South Africans in the US, just after an earlier order closed the refugee admissions door on all other refugees worldwide.

Immigration enforcement raids and other enforcement activities in the last month have targeted all immigrant communities, disproportionately those of color. Enforcement has targeted immigrants regardless of how long they have been in the United States and without considering their contributions to their communities, as well as people in the process of an immigration proceeding, where a judge decides if they can stay in the US.  As a result, there are communities in which many people are terrified and some avoid going to church or the hospital, and many children don’t go to school.

There is also an order now in place defunding reproductive justice and abortion access both in the US and around the world.

The stock value of GEO Group, a company the US government has long contracted with to run private immigration detention facilities, went up immediately after Trump’s election, presumably in anticipation of ramped-up immigration detention in private facilities. Human Rights Watch has long called for investment in community-based public safety solutions rather than more prisons.

What are we worried about in terms of US foreign policy?

SY: The foreign aid freeze and termination of thousands of State Department grants is a key focus for us right now, though of course there are new concerns that rise up every day. The aid being stopped has had awful consequences around the world. People will die needlessly because of this one policy decision.

There is also an impact on civil and political rights abroad. Russian independent media outlets, which have been doing an amazing job exposing the Kremlin’s repression and debunking the official propaganda, received significant US-funding. Terminating aid will severely undercut that work. The same thing with Belarusian independent media.

Many human rights defenders targeted by their governments lived in US-funded safe houses, which are now closed.

Small human rights groups, some the only ones in their country, are on the verge of closing. We’re going to see the ripple effects and deaths in populations unable to stand up for their freedoms without this funding and the political support the United States gave.

Aside from the aid freeze, Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired the military’s top lawyers. Military lawyers are supposed to ensure US military operations abide by international law, the laws of war.  This could mean far more harm to civilians, who are supposed to be protected, when the US military is in an armed conflict. In fact, Trump also just lifted limits on US commanders authorizing airstrikes and special operations raids outside of war zones, which rolls back 20 years of work to ensure only combatants are targeted and only in recognized armed conflicts.

These kinds of actions will have long-term ramifications on how people around the world view the United States.

When there’s so much happening in a short period of time, how does Human Rights Watch approach its work?

TG: We remember our priorities and how we can make a difference. There’s a lot of noise and distraction so we have to be thoughtful about putting limited resources into efforts that have impact. Our research on immigration raids or deportation flights might be used in partner litigation; our interviews with witnesses to abuses help support policymakers advocating in support of human rights.

As an organization with colleagues who deal with repressive states and authoritarian regimes globally, those of us working in the US are informed of effective strategies and lessons learned as we encounter them here. And we can share this information with partners on the ground and policymakers, too.

SY: We were not caught off guard by this. We were able to plan. I do think the speed, the apparent vindictiveness, and the level of chaos of Trump’s first month in office shocked many people. But we planned for this. We had a strategy that we are now implementing. We are going to engage with every policymaker that we can. We know for a fact many on both sides of the aisle don’t agree with what is happening. We are going to document the Trump administration’s impact on human rights around the world, and we’re going to try and block or end those policies. We are working together with our partners, some of whom focus on strategic litigation – litigation designed to advance respect for and protection of rights.

How is Human Rights Watch responding to this? What is our work inside the US focusing on?

TG: All the areas of work I mentioned are under attack by the new administration.

The immigration space is fraught with misinformation that stokes fears and prejudices, but we counter that with fact-finding and with the stories of the real people who are harmed by dehumanizing rhetoric and policies.  We will build on our track record of careful research on problematic immigration policies from previous administrations, including the first Trump administration, exposing harmful policies such as inhuman and degrading immigration detention and the separation of migrant children from their parents. We are continuing this work, documenting what’s happening to people and using it to advocate for change.

We’ve seen US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deporting Iranian families with children to Panama with an agreement that the US will pay for Panama to deport them to Iran. A country cannot lawfully send Iranian asylum seekers to Panama without hearing their claims and just be done with it – sending them back to a country to face persecution violates international refugee law. The administration is also preparing to deport unaccompanied immigrant children – not just cruel and terrifyingly dangerous, but a human rights violation.

In the democracy space, some US voters seem ready to trade freedoms away for supposed gains that are ultimately long-term losses, like increased surveillance, that will embolden and enable bad actors in government.

In the racial equality space, we’ve been working on education, and that is a battle zone. We are doing research to expose state-level policies that censor and distort school curricula in ways that are inconsistent with human rights norms—measures that target the histories and experiences of Black, Indigenous and LGBT people in particular. If those efforts succeed they will be exported to other states.

How is our work responding to changes in the foreign policy space?

SY: The Trump executive order putting in place a sanctions program targeting the International Criminal Court has already done damage. We are working to convince the Senate not to legislate more sanctions, and to make sure other governments step up to defend the court from US pressure.

We continue to focus on some of the conflicts where we think the Trump administration could play a valuable role. When it comes to Sudan, where the US government itself said a genocide took place, the US could pressure allies like the United Arab Emirates to stop supplying weapons to the Rapid Support Forces, one of the abusive warring parties there.

President Trump says he wants to be a peacemaker. There are ways he could do that, but so far we are seeing very worrying foreign policy proposals. For example, Ukraine’s future is being discussed by the United States and Russia without Ukraine, and in Gaza, Trump has proposed permanently and forcibly displacing the Palestinian population, which would amount to crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

Some people would say there is no way to engage with this administration on human rights.

SY: Engaging is certainly more challenging. But we don’t want to just walk away from our advocacy with US officials. Then you give up the power of the human rights movement, and any opportunity to change the minds of policymakers. There are still people in this administration who care about human rights. They may talk about it differently, they may be focused on particular places or issues. We’ll start there and make our case for the US role in lessening suffering and protecting rights around the world, not only because it’s good but because it’s smart and it’s in the US interest.

And there’s Congress, which needs to step up as a check on the power of the White House. We will continue to work with House representatives and Senators on both sides of the aisle.

TG:  The fear that the administration is cultivating among the public is dangerous, and information is so critical in response. That’s why we respond with research, arming people with facts. We know there are members of congress and state leadership like governors that support human rights. They are also empowered by our work.

What can people in the US do in this situation?

SY: If we want to see rights on the agenda, we need to see people in the United States reaching out to their representatives in Congress. They were elected to bring to Washington the needs and desires of their people.

Also, if you see a person acting with courage in these difficult times, thank them. We’re going so fast, and we push and yell and scream, and then when a policymaker, a celebrity, or the head of a local food bank steps out and does the right thing, we move on. Stop for a minute and recognize the people doing the right thing. Make the space for them to keep doing that important work of holding the line.

TG: Also, you too can be that person. Share the information. Have the conversations with your friends and family, provide what you know, encourage exchange of real information. It’s about building community. One of the strongest weapons we have is our unity, and we can each do something to build that.

Religious communities and school groups and community centers, there are many places we can plug in to make a difference. Support your local homeless shelter or food pantry. Sponsor or reach out to refugees and immigrants living in your localities. I think the big risk is feeling powerless and unplugging. I know the temptation is great. We each don’t have to do everything. But if we all do something, that’s more than nothing. And don’t be afraid to hear “no” or lose on your first try. No is the first step to yes.

And remember that there have been people in this country who have been targeted for abuse and destruction by the government their entire time in this country. Us as Black people, Indigenous people. And we’ve not only survived but thrived, and there are lessons to be learned from those struggles. And for the rest of the US population, we are a nation of mostly immigrants who came here to escape ills like human rights abuses or poverty. So gain strength from that.

We’re doing this work for the next generation as well as the present. Not only are we trying to protect rights for them, we are also modeling what to do when you have problems and face difficulties.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/03/03/interview-snapshot-rights-under-trump-administration

UN experts call for justice for Tunisian human rights defender Sihem Bensedrine

August 12, 2024

UN experts called on the Tunisian authorities to respect the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection of Sihem Bensedrine, who was arrested on 1 August 2024.

“In a context marked by the suppression of numerous dissenting voices, the arrest of Ms Bensedrine raises serious concerns about the respect of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in Tunisia and has a chilling effect on journalists, human rights defenders and civil society in general,” the experts said.

https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/5A2E5622-80B0-425E-A2AE-2703983126B4

Bensedrine is the former President of the Truth and Dignity Commission (TVD) which documented the crimes committed under previous regimes, and a journalist who has long denounced human rights violations in the country.

Since 2021, she has been involved in a judicial investigation into the alleged falsification of a chapter in the TVD´s final report regarding corruption in the banking system. The independent human rights experts have already held discussions with the Tunisian government concerning this investigation.

“This arrest could amount to judicial harassment of Ms Bensedrine for work she has undertaken as President of the Truth and Dignity Commission,” the experts said. “It appears to be aimed at discrediting information contained in the Commission’s report, which could give rise to legal proceedings against alleged perpetrators of corruption under the previous regimes.”

The Special Rapporteurs urged Tunisia to uphold its obligation to protect members of commissions of enquiry into gross human rights violations from defamation and civil or criminal proceedings brought against them because of their work, or the content of their reports.

“We call for strict respect for Ms Bensedrine’s right to judicial guarantees, including the right to a fair trial by due process, impartiality and independence, and for an end to abusive proceedings and reprisals against her.”

The experts: Bernard Duhaime, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence; Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression; Mary Lawlor, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.

https://www.miragenews.com/un-experts-demand-justice-for-tunisian-rights-1292532/

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/08/un-experts-call-justice-tunisian-human-rights-defender

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/08/12/tunisia-hollows-out-its-media-landscape-ahead-elections

but then in February2025 comes the good news over releases:https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250219-tunisia-court-orders-release-of-top-rights-activist

United Arab Emirates convicts scores of defendants in a mass trial, sentencing 40 to life in prison

July 22, 2024

The Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeal in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) sentenced 43 individuals to life in prison in a mass trial on Wednesday 3 July 2024, according to the UAE’s state-run news agency, WAM. The trial, which has been criticized by human rights organizations for allegedly targeting dissidents, involved charges linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group designated as a terrorist organization by the UAE government. WAM reported the verdicts shortly after human rights advocates released statements announcing the sentences. Alongside the life sentences, five defendants received 15-year prison terms and another five were sentenced to 10 years. The court dismissed the cases of 24 defendants.

According to WAM, the court ruled that those convicted “have worked to create and replicate violent events in the country, similar to what has occurred in other Arab states—including protests and clashes between the security forces and protesting crowds—that led to deaths and injuries and to the destruction of facilities, as well as the consequent spread of panic and terror among people.”

While WAM did not identify those sentenced by name, and specific details regarding the trial are not clear, Joey Shea, a researcher focusing on the UAE for Human Rights Watch, noted a few prominent figures involved in the case to the Associated Press (AP).

On 10 July 2024, Human Rights First condemned the secret trial and sentencing of dozens of activists in the United Arab Emirates:

Washington’s ally has again today demonstrated its violent repression,” said Senior Advisor Brian Dooley. “The Biden administration has struck millions of dollars of arms deals with the UAE dictatorship, and failed to sanction its officials responsible for cracking down on peaceful dissent. The message from Washington to the UAE has been clear for many years: Do what you want, there will be no consequences.”

Among those reportedly sentenced to life in prison after a mass trial is prominent legal scholar Nasser bin Ghaith. He graduated with honors from Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Ohio with an LLM in U.S. and Global Legal Studies in 2001. Another of those in the mass sham trial — which included 84 defendants — was Ahmed Mansoor, who received his Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical, Computer, & Energy Engineering and his Master’s in Telecommunications for the University of Colorado, Boulder. Human Rights First is still waiting for confirmation on the outcome of his case in the trial. [see https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/074ACCD4-A327-4A21-B056-440C4C378A1A]

Bin Ghaith, Mansoor, and other prominent activists in the trial were already in prison serving long sentences for their peaceful activism.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uae-scores-convicted-sham-trial-uae84

https://www.newsweek.com/uae-court-sentences-40-people-life-prision-mass-trail-report-1923443

https://apnews.com/article/uae-mass-trial-dissidents-2108263bffe49915a866eecc64d1b605

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uae-un-experts-shocked-after-dozens-sentenced-life-mass-trial

Green human rights defenders of Mother Nature jailed in Cambodia

July 3, 2024

Five Cambodian activists record a podcast.
Five Mother Nature activists, from left to right Ly Chandaravuth, Thun Ratha, Yim Leanghy, Phuon Keoraksmey, and Long Kunthea on June 11, 2024. © 2024 Private

Cambodia has jailed 10 environmental activists who had sounded the alarm on river pollution for plotting against the government – a case critics have decried as politically motivated. Members of the group Mother Nature were charged in 2021 after they documented waste run-off into Phnom Penh’s Tonle Sap river, near the royal palace. [see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/d41428d8-4b96-4370-975e-f11b36778f51]

Three of them, including Spanish co-founder Alejandro Gonzalez-Davidson, who were also convicted of insulting the king, were sentenced to eight years’ jail and fined $2,500 (£1,980). The seven others were handed six-year terms. Prosecutors have never explained how the activists had violated the law against insulting the king or conspiring against the government.

Since its founding in 2013, Mother Nature has campaigned against environmentally destructive projects and raised questions on how natural resources are managed in the South East Asian country. They document their findings in playful and informative videos that they post on Facebook, where they have 457,000 followers.

Environmental groups have long accused Cambodia’s leaders of profiting from the country’s natural resources. The government denies this and says Mother Nature is encouraging social unrest. Gonzalez-Davidson, who was earlier banned from entering Cambodia, called the verdict a “disastrous decision by the Hun family regime”.

Opposition political parties were dismantled, independent media outlets were shut and dozens of activists were jailed under the decades-long rule of former prime minister Hun Sen, who stepped down last year to pave the way for his son, Hun Manet, to assume leadership.

Under Hun Manet, Mother Nature activists have continued to criticise what they describe as an unequal enforcement of laws in favour of companies and the wealthy elite.

Four of the convicted activists attended the hearings and were immediately arrested following the verdict. Representatives of local NGO the Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights (Licadho) who were present outside the Phnom Penh court said the arrests were violent, with “at least two of [them] dragged by their necks”. Arrest warrants have been issued for the six others, including Gonzalez-Davidson.

Earlier in the day, dozens of Mother Nature supporters marched towards the court where the activists were due to receive the verdict. Dressed in white – the traditional colour of mourning in the country – some of the supporters held up hand-written posters that read “We need freedom” and “We need rights”. Others held white flowers.

The verdict “sends an appalling message to Cambodia’s youth that the government will side with special interests over the environment every chance it gets,” said Human Rights Watch’s deputy Asia director Bryony Lau.

“It is astounding to criminalise activities of youths who are advocating for clean water in Phnom Penh, protecting mangrove forests in Koh Kong and warning against the privatisation of land in protected areas and characterising it as an attack against the state,” said Licadho’s outreach director Naly Pilorge.

Several of those convicted today had already served jail terms in the past. One of them, Long Kunthea, told BBC in an interview last year that she is willing to take on the risks of her activism to “for positive change”.

Kunthea was previously jailed for more than a year for organising protests to protect the Mekong river from further pollution. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/06/22/continued-harassment-of-mother-nature-defenders-in-cambodia/

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1340lze6ppo

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/02/cambodia-environmental-activists-sentenced-6-8-years

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/cambodian-court-jails-environmental-activists-plotting-against-government-2024-07-02/

Member states back International Criminal Court

June 19, 2024

On 17 June 2024, Maria Elena Vignoli, Senior Counsel, International Justice Program of HRW, reported on several statements by States to rejects recent intimidation efforts.

Ninety-three member countries of the International Criminal Court (ICC) have declared their “unwavering support” for the court in the face of recent threats. The June 14 statement by an unprecedented number of ICC members across the globe follows a slew of threats, particularly after ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan announced on May 20 that he was seeking arrest warrants against two senior Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, along with three Hamas leaders.

The joint statement reconfirmed ICC members’ support for the court “as an independent and impartial judicial institution” and their committment to defending the ICC, its officials, and those cooperating with it from any political interference and pressure. It follows similar expressions of support by the Presidency of the ICC Assembly of States Partiesseveral ICC member countries—including UN Security Council members—the high representative of the European UnionUN special procedures, and nongovernmental organizations.

In April, amid speculation ICC warrants for crimes committed in Gaza were imminent, 12 US senators threatened to sanction Khan should he pursue cases against top Israeli officials. Netanyahu also called on governments to prevent the court from issuing warrants. Khan’s office denounced the threats, noting that the ICC can also prosecute individuals for obstructing justice. [see also earlier: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/02/19/large-group-of-ngos-call-on-biden-administration-to-repeal-icc-sanctions/]

On June 4, after the warrant applications were announced, the US House of Representatives passed a bill aimed at imposing sanctions against the ICC, its officials, and those supporting investigations at the court involving US citizens or allies. The bill is now under consideration in the US Senate. The proposed law is reminiscent of the sanctions imposed by President Donald Trump on the previous ICC prosecutor to intimidate the court from pursuing cases against US and Israeli personnel for crimes committed in Afghanistan and Palestine. President Joe Biden revoked those sanctions in 2021 and has so far opposed the current bill.

The ICC is also in Russia’s crosshairs. In 2023, Russian authorities issued arrest warrants against Khan and six ICC judges after the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin and another Russian official for war crimes committed in Ukraine. Russian lawmakers also enacted a law criminalizing cooperation with the ICC.

In both the Palestine and Ukraine investigations, ICC officials are simply doing their job. The joint statement sends a strong message that ICC members have the court’s back and will not bow to efforts to undermine its independence.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/06/17/international-criminal-court-members-speak-out

JOINT NGO LETTER asks to suspend EU-CHINA HUMAN RIGHTS DIALOGUE 2024

June 17, 2024

On 12 June 2024, a group of important NGOs addressed the following letter to Josep Borrell, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs:

We, the undersigned civil society organisations, are writing to reiterate our request for the European Union to suspend its human rights dialogue with China, and to consider other, more impactful measures at the EU’s disposal to address the Chinese government’s assault on human rights at home and abroad.

While appreciative of the open and frank discussion and engagement with the EEAS in preparation of each round of human rights dialogue with China, we regret that the EU continues this exercise despite its amply proven ineffectiveness over 38 rounds. While the EU raises concerns during these dialogues, it knows that the Chinese government will not acknowledge abuses, will not undertake any effort to secure accountability, and will not be persuaded to undertake any policy or legislative action to comply with China’s international human rights obligations. The EU’s reluctance to establish any measurable benchmark of progress, or even to establish clearly defined objectives beyond having a dialogue, exacerbates the ineffectiveness of this exercise.

This year’s human rights dialogue would also entail EU officials sitting down with authorities in Beijing to “engage… through dialogue and cooperation” on human rights, days after the 35th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre.

Since Xi Jinping came to power in 2013, the Chinese government has intensified its crackdown on dissent, harassing and imprisoning human rights defenders and activists including the Swedish bookseller Gui Minhai, the Uyghur economist and Sakharov Prize laureate Ilham Tohti [7 human rights awards, see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/37AE7DC4-16DB-51E9-4CF8-AB0828AEF491], the Hong-Kong barrister and human rights activist Chow Hang-tung and human rights lawyers Yu Wensheng and his wife Xu Yan, who were arrested a little over a year ago on their way to meet with the EU delegation [see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/69fc7057-b583-40c3-b6fa-b8603531248e and https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/07/12/new-wave-of-repression-against-human-rights-lawyers-unleashed-in-china/]. The Chinese government has committed egregious violations against Uyghur and other Turkic communities in Xinjiang/The Uyghur Region, which a report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in August 2022 stated “may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.” Beijing has also intensified its repression in Tibet, while in Hong Kong the creation of a new national security architecture at Beijing’s behest has severely restricted the rights and freedoms long enjoyed by Hong Kong’s people.

Beijing’s foreign policy has also been increasingly detrimental to human rights, both in the region and beyond. The Chinese government continues to support highly abusive governments, to challenge international efforts to secure accountability for grave abuses, and to intensify efforts to undermine the international human rights system and rewrite its norms. The Chinese government has also engaged in increasingly brazen transnational repression – abuses committed outside its borders – including in EU countries.

The EU has already suspended human rights dialogues with highly repressive countries such as Russia, Syria, Belarus, and Myanmar, among others, in light of the nature, scale and pervasiveness of their authorities’ human rights abuses and violations of international law. The Chinese government has committed serious crimes amounting to crimes against humanity. It has long been evident that the human rights dialogue is not an appropriate nor an effective tool to address them. There is no reason to expect the 39th round will prove more beneficial to the rights of people in China than the previous 38. The EU and its member states should pursue different, more effective actions to press the Chinese government to end its crimes against humanity and other serious violations – and to hold accountable those responsible for failing to do so.

We have long been suggesting alternative action, latest in this February 2023 letter. We stand ready to discuss these and other options with you any time.

Signatories:
Amnesty International
Front Line Defenders
Human Rights Watch
International Service for Human Rights
World Uyghur Congress

https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/statement-report/joint-public-civil-society-letter-eu-china-human-rights-dialogue-2024

and see https://www.ucanews.com/news/jailing-of-chinese-metoo-journalist-upsets-rights-groups/105431

https://www.aol.com/news/eu-urges-china-stop-human-145953152.html

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/eu-urges-china-stop-human-rights-crackdown-2024-06-17/

Q&A: Transnational Repression

June 14, 2024

On 12 June 2024, Human Rights Watch published a useful, short “questions-and-answers” document which outlines key questions on the global trend of transnational repression. 

Illustration of a map being used to bind someone's mouth
© 2024 Brian Stauffer for Human Rights Watch
  1. What is transnational repression?
  2. What tactics are used?
  3. Is transnational repression a new phenomenon?  
  4. Where is transnational repression happening? 
  5. Do only “repressive” states commit transnational repression?
  6. Are steps being taken to recognize and address transnational repression? 
  7. What should be done? 

What is transnational repression?

The term “transnational repression” is increasingly used to refer to state actors reaching beyond their borders to suppress or stifle dissent by targeting human rights defenders, journalists, government critics and opposition activists, academics and others, in violation of their human rights. Particularly vulnerable are nationals or former nationals, members of diaspora communities and those living in exile. Many are asylum seekers or refugees in their place of exile, while others may be at risk of extradition or forced return. Back home, a person’s family members and friends may also be targeted, by way of retribution and with the aim of silencing a relative in exile or forcing their return.

Transnational repression can have far-reaching consequences, including a chilling effect on the rights to freedom of expression and association. While there is no formal legal definition, the framing of transnational repression, which encompasses a wide range of rights abuses, allows us to better understand it and propose victim-centered responses.

What tactics are used?

Documented tactics of transnational repression include killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, unlawful removals, online harassment, the use of digital surveillance including spyware, targeting of relatives, and the abuse of consular services.  Interpol’s Red Notice system has also been used as a tool of transnational repression, to facilitate unlawful extraditions. Interpol has made advances in improving its vetting systems, yet governments continue to abuse the Red Notice system by publishing unlawful notices seeking citizens who have fled abroad on spurious charges. This leaves targets vulnerable to arrest and return to their country of origin to be mistreated, even after they have fled to seek safety abroad.

Is transnational repression a new phenomenon?

No, the practice of governments violating human rights beyond their borders is not new. Civil society organizations have been documenting such abuses for decades. What is new, however, is the growing recognition of transnational repression as more than a collection of grave incidents, but also as an increasing phenomenon of global concern, requiring global responses. What is also new is the increasing access to and use of sophisticated technology to harass, threaten, surveil and track people no matter where they are. This makes the reach of transnational repression even more pervasive. 

Where is transnational repression happening? 

Transnational repression is a global phenomenon. Cases have been documented in countries and regions around the world. The use of technology such as spyware increases the reach of transnational repression, essentially turning an infected device, such as a mobile phone, into a portable surveillance tool, allowing targeted individuals to be spied on and tracked around the world. 

Do only “repressive” states commit transnational repression?

While many authoritarian states resort to repressive tactics beyond their own borders, any government that seeks to silence dissent by targeting critics abroad is committing transnational repression. Democratic governments have also contributed to cases of transnational repression, for example through the provision of spyware, collaborating with repressive governments to deny visas or facilitate returns, or relying upon flawed Interpol Red Notices that expose targeted individuals to risk.

Are steps being taken to recognize and address transnational repression? 

Increasingly, human rights organizations, UN experts and states are documenting and taking steps to address transnational repression.

For example, Freedom House has published several reports on transnational repression and maintains an online resource documenting incidents globally. Human Rights Watch has published reports, including one outlining cases of transnational repression globally and another focusing on Southeast Asia. Amnesty International has published a report on transnational repression in Europe. Many other nongovernmental organizations are increasingly producing research and reports on the issue. In her report on journalists in exile, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression dedicated a chapter to transnational repression. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights used the term in a June 2024 statement.

Certain governments are increasingly aware of the harms posed by transnational repression. Some are passing legislation to address the problem, while others are signing joint statements or raising transnational repression in international forums. However, government responses are often piecemeal, and a more cohesive and coordinated approach is needed. 

What should be done? 

Governments should speak out and condemn all cases of transnational repression, including by their friends and allies. They should take tangible steps to address transnational repression, including by adopting rights-respecting legal frameworks and policies to address it. Governments should put victims at the forefront of their response to these forms of repression. They should be particularly mindful of the risks and fears experienced by refugee and asylum communities. They should investigate and appropriately prosecute those responsible. Interpol should continue to improve vetting process by subjecting governments with a poor human rights record to more scrutiny when they submit Red Notices. Interpol should be transparent on which governments are continually abusing the Red Notice system, and limit their access to the database.  

At the international level, more can be done to integrate transnational repression within existing human rights reporting, and to mandate dedicated reporting on cases of transnational repression, trends, and steps needed to address it.

see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/03/19/transnational-repression-human-rights-watch-and-other-reports/

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/06/12/qa-transnational-repression