Archive for the 'ICJ' Category

« Older posts

Results of the 61st Human Rights Council as seen by NGOs

April 19, 2026

At the 61st Human Rights Council session, civil society organisations shared reflections on key outcomes and highlighted gaps in addressing crucial issues and situations.

On the ‘Urgent debate to discuss the recent military aggression launched by the Islamic Republic of Iran against Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates on 28 February 2026′ and the ‘Urgent debate to discuss the Protection of Children and Educational Institutions in International Armed Conflicts: The Aerial Attacks on Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ School in Minab, Iran, as a Grave Breach of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law’, we urge the Council to consistently expose violations by all parties, demand accountability for all violations of international law.

This is essential for atrocity prevention, preserving the Council’s legitimacy and the universal application of human rights. The Council must avoid one-sided framing, adopt a comprehensive, non-selective approach to the conflict and apply objective criteria to all situations and address their root causes, regardless of the perpetrator. One dimension of violence cannot be addressed while silence is maintained on its causes and broader context. The military attacks by the US and Israel across the region are not isolated events, but interconnected acts rooted in a decades-long history of impunity, from the US invasion of Iraq twenty-three years ago, to Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people and air strikes in Lebanon.

As regional hostilities have escalated rapidly across the Middle East and threaten to escalate further, we urgently call for all parties to protect civilians and adhere to international law. This includes ending unlawful attacks, such as deliberate, indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks that harm civilians and civilian infrastructure.

In Iran, people face the dual risk of further atrocities at the hands of the authorities, who have shut off internet and communications channels and threatened further massacres of anyone who dares to voice dissent, and U.S. and Israeli strikes on civilians including on Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ School in Minab, constituting violations of international humanitarian law.

Iranian strikes have resulted in at least 11 civilian deaths and 268 injuries in  Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, with the majority of victims being migrant workers. Iran has struck civilian residential buildings, and civilian airports and unlawfully targeted civilian objects such as financial centres. These are violations of international humanitarian law.

In some GCC countries, current hostilities are being used as the opportunity to further crack down on any dissenting voices no matter how peaceful it is. We urge the GCC States not to use the conflict to further silence protected speech.

At a time where the UN Secretary-General has warned of an ‘imminent financial collapse’, as Member States continue to withhold or delay their contributions, the increase in military spending should instead be invested in improving people’s lives through securing their human rights, which – as the UN Charter recognises – are a precondition for peace. As of 30 March, only 97 Member States have paid their regular budget contributions for 2026, leaving the UN unable to function effectively. The US alone owes USD 2.19 billion to the UN’s regular budget, accounting for more than 95 percent of the current shortfall.

Special Procedures have been strongly affected by the UN funding crisis. We caution States that making short-sighted adjustments may lead to longer-term gaps in protection and normative developments. We advise against blanket reductions in Special Procedures’ reporting to the UN General Assembly, and emphasise that any changes should be mandate-specific, in meaningful consultation with all stakeholders, particularly affected communities and mandate holders, provide clear and transparent justification for proposals through a case-by-case analysis and an assessment of the foreseeable gains and losses, as well as the impact on the political visibility of the issues concerned…

We welcome the resolution to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. For over thirty years, the mandate has played an essential role in the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of expression and been a force in the development of progressive international human rights standards.

TWe regret, however, that the resolution decreases the annual reporting to the General Assembly. The General Assembly is an important space to continue supporting the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to adequate housing and we hope this is reconsidered in the next renewal. We also call on States to consider incorporating the Guiding Principles on Resettlement presented during this session.

We welcome the resolution to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders for three years. See https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2026/03/10/andrea-bolanos-vargas-next-special-rapporteur-on-human-rights-defenders/

We also welcome the inclusion of the paragraph noting civil society initiatives to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, in particular the Declaration +25, as well as the language on reprisals against mandate holders, situations of armed conflict and occupation and funding cuts having delivered a series of shocks to the human rights defender ecosystem and its ability to provide protection.

We regret that one report by the SR to the General Assembly was removed given the current context of increased risks and attacks on human rights defenders and shrinking civic space, there is a need to demonstrate support to defenders and maintain annual reporting to the General Assembly. The General Assembly is an important space to build political awareness, understanding and support for the work of defenders.

We welcome the joint statement delivered by Albania, on behalf of Albania, Chile, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan and the Netherlands, and endorsed by 91 States, renewing political commitment to defend human rights multilateralism.

We welcome the adoption of a new resolution on the human rights situation in Belarus, renewing the mandates of both the Special Rapporteur and the Group of Independent Experts. The resolution rightly reflects the continued deterioration of the human rights situation in the country, including the persistence of grave violations and the growing use of transnational repression against Belarusians forced into exile. It also continues to draw welcome attention to the complementary process underway at the ILO under Article 33.

We welcome the resolution on Myanmar which unequivocally condemns the Myanmar military’s attempts to legitimise its coup attempt in February 2021 through the unilateral convening of elections that were neither free nor fair nor inclusive. The resolution crucially recognised that, as the military orchestrated the elections in limited geographical territories under its control, it continued airstrikes and violence, resulting in the deaths and injuries of hundreds of civilians and stepped up political imprisonment, including of individuals who criticised these so-called elections.

Human Rights Council resolutions on the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) should adopt a rights-based approach and be implemented to ensure justice and reparations for the Palestinian people. The Council should address the situation in the context of the root causes, including colonial-apartheid and Israel’s ongoing forced displacement and transfer of the Palestinian people.

We reiterate our solidarity with with Palestinian organisations and human rights defenders worldwide working to uphold international law in the face of Israel’s genocide and colonial apartheid against the Palestinian people. States that continue to provide military, economic, and political support to Israel, while  suppressing fundamental freedoms, as well as attacking independent courts and experts, and defunding humanitarian aid (UNRWA), may be complicit in the commission of international crimes.

The extension of the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan (CHRSS) is an important step, but continued and stronger action remains needed as rising violence, inflammatory rhetoric, and ethnic mobilisation increase the risk of a return to large-scale conflict and mass atrocities. The Council, alongside regional actors, should maintain close scrutiny, press South Sudanese parties to resume dialogue, and advance accountability, including through establishing the long-delayed Hybrid Court for South Sudan, as essential steps to protect civilians, break cycles of impunity, and promote sustainable peace. As concerns continue to mount over South Sudan’s relapse into civil war, the Council must keep all options on the table, including convening a special session on the country.

We welcome the full renewal of Syria Commission of Inquiry’s mandate as originally established in 2011, thereby reaffirming that the fact finding and reporting mandate has remained unchanged in scope and fully independent in its implementation, notwithstanding its consideration under Item 2.

We welcome the inclusion of functions to provide advice, insofar as it contributes to ensuring Syria’s compliance with its obligations under international human rights law, in a way that does not constrain the Commission’s core investigative and reporting functions. We stress concern at the potential review in 2027, reiterating the need for any review to be based on objective criteria on the human rights situation and sustained dialogue with Syrian human rights organisations.

We welcome the adoption of a new resolution on Ukraine, renewing the mandate of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry at a time when the need for accountability remains immense. The resolution also gives welcome attention to the grave situation of children in occupied territories, as Russia continues its campaign of forced ‘russification’, indoctrination and militarisation, alongside broader efforts to erase Ukrainian identity.

In his global update, the High Commissioner once more ‘regret the lack of follow-up by the authorities on previous recommendations and on accountability, to protect the rights of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang, and of Tibetans in their regions.’ More than two years since the OHCHR’s August 2022 Xinjiang report found China to be responsible for possible international crimes, including crimes against humanity, the report’s recommendations remain unaddressed and violations unabated.

Since, UN human rights bodies have further documented widespread and systematic human rights violations across China, including through the CERD’s adoption of an Early Warning and Urgent Decision, and Special Procedures findings that Uyghur forced labour may amount to forcible transfer and/or enslavement as a crime against humanity. This Council should urgently address its selective impunity on China and adopt a resolution establishing a monitoring and reporting mechanism in line with long-standing calls by Special Procedures.

In light of the human rights crisis in Ethiopia, the stalled transitional justice process, violence in several regions, especially in Amhara and Oromia, and mounting risks of a regional conflict with Eritrea, the Council should urgently strengthen its response by reinstating the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia (ICHREE) or establishing a new independent mechanism. At a time of growing instability across the Horn of Africa, and as grievances stemming from the 2020-2022 war are unresolved, stronger Council action is essential to ensure scrutiny, deter further abuses, and help prevent a regional escalation with devastating consequences for civilians.

The situation in Libya was not sufficiently addressed during this session, despite clear evidence that two years of technical assistance under resolution 56/16 have failed to deliver tangible progress on accountability. While Libya’s UPR outcome was adopted, the authorities rejected a significant number of key recommendations, including those on abolishing the death penalty and establishing a moratorium on executions, ending abuses against migrants and refugees, and closing detention centres associated with torture and killings.

Recent developments, including the arbitrary arrest and continued prosecution of civil society activist Al‑Mahdi Abdel Ati and persistent reports of torture and abuse in detention facilities housing migrants and refugees, demonstrate that arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, torture, repression of civil society, and serious violations against migrants and refugees persist. These ongoing failures underscore the urgent need for stronger scrutiny and engagement from the Council.

We regret that both the High Commissioner for Human Rights and States refused to heed the civil society call that followed widespread violations in relation to the post-October 2025 election protests in Tanzania. NGOs had urged the Council to act on Tanzania’s crackdown, calling for a public briefing by the High Commissioner, followed by a debate. Despite reports of hundreds killed, a continuing crackdown on dissent, and serious concerns about the credibility of the national commission of inquiry, no multilateral action followed. The Council should find ways to increase pressure on national authorities, including to ensure genuine accountability for violations.

We are concerned about the deteriorating human rights situation and erosion of the rule of law in the United States, as well as its commission of, or complicity in, grave violations abroad, including in Venezuela, Palestine, Iran, the Caribbean and Pacific. The Trump Administration’s refusal to participate in the UPR undermines a core accountability mechanism and should be condemned by the Council. To prevent a wider erosion of engagement, and in light of extensive evidence of violations at home and abroad, we urge increased monitoring, reporting and scrutiny of the U.S. by Special Procedures and the High Commissioner.

In occupied Western Sahara, civic space remains severely restricted where defenders and journalists, in particular youth, face arbitrary detention, violations of fair trial, ill-treatment, intimidation and reprisals due to their peaceful advocacy for self-determination. The Council should ensure unhindered access for OHCHR and Special Procedures to Western Sahara, urge Morocco to guarantee rights of freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association including by releasing all individuals arbitrarily detained and upholding fair trial standards, and ending reprisals, against Saharawi defenders advocating for self-determination.

Signatories:

  1. Accion Antirracista (RacismoMX)
  2. Addameer for Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association
  3. Al-Haq
  4. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
  5. Casa Marielle Franco Brasil 
  6. Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS)
  7. CIVICUS 
  8. Coalizão Negra por Direitos (Brazil)
  9. Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) 
  10. Europe Brazil Office
  11. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  12. Geledes – Instituto da Mulher Negra 
  13. Gulf Centre for Human Rights
  14. Hivos
  15. Humanists International
  16. ILGA World
  17. Instituto Brasileiro de Direitos Humanos
  18. Instituto Decodifica
  19. Instituto Liberdade e Emancipação – ILÊ
  20. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
  21. Rede de Mulheres Negras de Pernambuco
  22. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) 

https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/hrc61-civil-society-presents-key-takeaways-from-the-session

https://www.icj.org/the-un-human-rights-council-makes-significant-but-limited-progress-in-addressing-human-rights-around-the-world-as-atrocities-multiply-in-the-middle-east-and-elsewhere/

Posted in Human Rights Council, Human Rights Defenders, ICJ, ISHR | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Turkey should drop charges against Istanbul Bar Association and …did so on 9 January

January 8, 2026

On 5 January 2026 the International Commission of Jurists and many other NGOs issued a joint statement calling on the authorities to immediately terminate the abusive criminal proceedings and drop charges ahead of the 26 Istanbul Heavy Penal Court’s expected final hearing scheduled for 5 to 9 January 2026.

photo_2025-09-10_13-41-27-700×467

The continued prosecution of the president and 10 executive board members of the Istanbul Bar Association, and the prosecutor’s request for their conviction on terrorism charges are a damning reflection of the troubled state of the rule of law and democratic norms in Turkey.

The prosecutor seeks the criminal conviction of all eleven members of the Bar’s elected leadership – President Prof. İbrahim Özden Kaboğlu, Ahmet Ergin, Bengisu Kadı Çavdar, Ekim Bilen Selimoğlu, Ezgi Şahin Yalvarici, Fırat Epözdemir, Hürrem Sönmez, Mehmedali Barış Beşli, Metin İriz, Rukiye Leyla Süren, and Yelde Koçak Urfa – on the charge of “spreading terrorist propaganda” under Article 7/2 of the Anti-Terrorism Law,  solely for issuing a public statement on 21 December 2024 concerning the killing of two journalists in northern Syria and the arrest of journalists and lawyers at a related peaceful protest in Istanbul the day before.

The trial prosecutor’s final opinion confirms and deepens the concerns raised by 56 international organisations in the joint statement of January 2025, condemning the initiation of criminal and civil proceedings against the Bar’s leadership, and in the April 2025 joint statement, which deplored the removal of the elected board and the escalating attacks on lawyers across Turkey. A group of the organisations also submitted a joint amicus curiae brief in which they concluded that the proceedings violate Turkey’s obligations under international human rights law and constitute an unjustified interference with the independence of the legal profession.

A clear misuse of criminal law

In his final opinion, the prosecutor alleges that by referring to the two individuals killed in Syria as journalists and by citing international humanitarian law applicable to the protection of civilians and media workers in conflict zones, the Bar leadership “treated as a war crime” an operation carried out by security forces, thereby intentionally legitimising and disseminating the ultimate separatist aims of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The prosecutor further asserts that describing those killed as journalists “encouraged” membership of the PKK and “made its methods appear legitimate”, amounting to “press and media–based terrorist propaganda” under Article 7/2 of the Anti-Terrorism Law.  These allegations, which claim that a lawful, rights-based statement consciously advanced the objectives of an armed organisation, are wholly unfounded and legally unsustainable.

As emphasised in both joint statements in January and April 2025 and the amicus curiae brief in September 2025, the Istanbul Bar Association has a statutory and ethical duty to speak out on violations of human rights and the rule of law. The prosecutor’s position effectively criminalises the Bar Association’s discharge of this duty protected under both domestic law and international human rights law and standards. The prosecutor’s construal of a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression as a terrorism offence amounts to a misuse of criminal law and judicial harassment.

Violations of international standards and the Bar’s statutory mandate

International and regional human rights standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, and consistent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, affirm that lawyers and their associations must be able to engage in public debate on matters of justice and human rights without fear of reprisals.

Criminalising their exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and association contravenes the provisions of these instruments safeguarding the rights and role  of lawyers and their professional organisations, as well as Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 19 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Articles 26, 27 and 33 of the Constitution of Türkiye.

The criminal proceedings strike at the heart of the independence of the legal profession and amount to a misuse of counter-terrorism laws to silence criticism, suppress human rights monitoring, and undermine self-governance of bar associations.

Signatories (in alphabetical order):

Amnesty International

Center of Elaboration and Research on Democracy (CRED)

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (Le Conseil des barreaux européens, CCBE)

Defense Commission of the Barcelona Bar Association (Spain)

Deutscher Anwaltverein (German Bar Association, Germany)

Eşit Haklar İçin İzleme Derneği (Association for Monitoring Equal Rights, Türkiye)

European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH)

The European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA)

Fédération des Barreaux d’Europe (European Bars Federation, FBE)

Foundation Day of the Endangered Lawyer

Hak İnsiyatifi Derneği (Rights Initiative Association, Türkiye)

Hakikat Adalet Hafıza Merkezi (Truth Justice Memory Center, Türkiye)

Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers (UK)

Human Rights Institute of the Brussels Bar (Belgium)

Human Rights Watch

İnsan Hakları Derneği (Human Rights Association, Türkiye)

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)

International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

Kaos GL Derneği (Kaos GL Association, Türkiye)

The Law Society of England and Wales (LSEW, UK)

Lawyers for Lawyers (Netherlands)

Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC, Canada)

Lyon Bar Association (France)

National Union of Peoples Lawyers (NUPL, Philippines)

PEN Norway (Norway)

Turkey Litigation Support Project (TLSP, UK)

Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı (Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, Türkiye)

Vereinigung Demokratischer Jurist:innen VDJ (Association of Democratic Jurists, Germany)

World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

Yurttaşlık Derneği (Citizens Assembly, Türkiye)

https://www.icj.org/turkey-drop-bogus-charges-against-istanbul-bar-association-leadership/

then on 9 January 2026 Amnesty stated “The decision to acquit the Istanbul Bar Association leadership of these unfounded charges is welcome news. This case was a clear misuse of criminal law and should never have been brought in the first place.” https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/

Posted in Amnesty international, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, ICJ | 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

ICJ and human rights defenders from Southeast Asia urge a Rights-Based Approach to Countering Harmful Online Content

September 24, 2025
International Commission of Jurists

photo_2568-08-27 13.14.39

On 24–26 August 2025, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), together with the Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia (CIJ), and the Numun Fund, gathered human rights defenders and experts to discuss the need for Southeast Asian States to adopt and implement a human rights-based approach in efforts to tackle the growing spread of harmful content in digital spaces.

The workshop in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, focusing on leveraging ASEAN platforms, brought together 24 representatives from organizations across the ASEAN region, including Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam, all States that are members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Participants underlined that the surge in hate speech, disinformation, and other harmful online content had elicited responses from ASEAN States which often relied on heavy-handed and repressive measures. These include application of criminal laws that are vague and prone to abuse, restrictive content takedown and licensing regimes; and even State-sponsored disinformation campaigns.

Participants heard that ASEAN regional mechanisms currently lack robust mandates and coordination capable of effectively addressing disinformation, harmful content, and other digital challenges. Participants considered means of ensuring platform accountability, in the context of advertisement-driven business models of technology companies with ineffective content moderation practices. The online platforms typically employ algorithms that amplify sensationalist or extreme content, fueling the viral spread of disinformation and other human rights abuses.

Workshop participants worked to develop joint next steps and produced a set of recommendations for ASEAN Member States, technology companies, and ASEAN human rights bodies, particularly the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR). The recommendations included strengthening ASEAN human rights institutions and mechanisms in responding to and addressing human rights complaints submitted to them, enhancing their independence, and embedding human rights–centered advocacy into ASEAN work plans and instruments….

On 25 August, additional discussions were held with a representative from the Big Tech company Meta, focusing on the need to improve accountability and remedies through effective, accessible, and confidential grievance mechanisms. Participants also proposed multi-stakeholder co-regulation frameworks to ensure CSO participation through ongoing dialogue and collaboration on digital platform services, human oversight—not AI alone—in guiding content moderation standards, and the strengthening of independent third-party fact-checking across the region.

The series concluded with a panel discussion on 26 August 2025, co-hosted by the ICJ during the Digital Rights Asia-Pacific Assembly 2025. The panel, titled “The Role of ASEAN Human Rights Mechanisms in Institutionalizing Human Rights in the Digital Space: Towards Accountability and Collective Advocacy,” was also attended by AICHR representatives from Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. It focused on how AICHR can better safeguard human rights online and identified concrete pathways for institutionalizing monitoring and accountability mechanisms related to human rights in the digital space.

https://www.icj.org/asean-icj-and-human-rights-defenders-from-southeast-asia-urge-a-rights-based-approach-to-countering-harmful-online-content/

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, ICJ | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Seven International NGOs demand unconditional release of Indian HRD Umar Khalid

September 17, 2025

On 12 September, 2025 the seven rights groups described Khalid’s prolonged imprisonment as a “violation of his rights” and an instance of “selective persecution”, asserting that he was arrested on “politically motivated and spurious charges” on 13 September 2020.

Alongside Amnesty International, the signatories include: CIVICUS, FORUM-ASIA, Front Line Defenders. International Commission of Jurists, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT).

The statement expressed deep concern over the invocation of the anti-terror law UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) and the repeated denial of bail to Khalid.

“These repeated bail denials combined with persistent delays, and the continued absence of trial proceedings, amount to a violation of his right to a fair trial, including speedy trial, guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a state party, as well as under the Constitution of India,” the statement read.

The groups further highlighted the unequal application of bail standards, particularly in cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots and anti-CAA protests, saying:

“We are further concerned about the discriminatory application of bail standards in cases arising from the violence surrounding the CAA protests and more broadly in cases involving the UAPA. While similarly situated accused have been granted bail, Khalid continues to be denied relief. Such unequal treatment violates the principle of equality before the law and sets a deeply troubling precedent.”

The rights organizations also drew attention to the role of the Delhi Police and political leaders during the 2020 Delhi riots, where Khalid and other Muslim activists were implicated.

“Independent investigations, including by Amnesty International India, Human Rights Watch and Delhi Minorities Commission, have documented the role of the Delhi Police in human rights violations during the CAA protests and the ensuing violence,” the statement said.
“Police officers were recorded engaging in beatings, torture and other ill-treatment, and arbitrary arrests, and in some cases standing by as mobs attacked protesters.”

The statement noted that Indian courts have repeatedly criticized the police investigations, describing them as: “Very poor,” “callous,” and “fraught with multiple flaws,” with documented instances of fabricated cases and manipulated records.

It further condemned the role of senior political leaders, who were seen delivering inflammatory hate speeches, branding protesters as “traitors” or “anti-nationals”, and openly inciting violence.

“Despite the existence of video and documentary evidence, no meaningful accountability measures have been taken against implicated political figures or police officials,” the statement added.

The rights groups emphasized that Khalid’s prolonged detention is not an isolated incident, but part of a larger pattern of repression against those exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of expression and association.

“Other students and human rights activists, including Gulfisha Fatima, Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi, Shifa-ur-Rehman and Meeran Haider, also remain in detention for their peaceful opposition to the CAA, while police officials and political leaders responsible for incitement or complicity in violence continue to enjoy impunity,” the groups noted.
“This selective prosecution erodes public trust in the justice system, entrenches impunity for state actors, and criminalises free expression.”

The seven international organizations demand:

The immediate and unconditional release of Umar Khalid

The equal application of bail standards

An end to the discriminatory treatment of human rights defenders

Accountability for police officers and political leaders implicated in incitement and violence

The repeal of the UAPA.

https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/india-umar-khalids-five-year-imprisonment-without-trial-exemplifies-derailment-of-justice/

https://thehindustangazette.com/latest-news/selective-persecution-seven-international-rights-groups-demand-unconditional-release-of-umar-khalid-39661

Posted in Amnesty international, FIDH, Front Line, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, ICJ, OMCT | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,

ICJ demands that Russia immediately release lawyer Maria Bontsler

June 23, 2025
International Commission of Jurists

photo_2025-06-10_07-29-51

On 10 June 2025 The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) condemned the arrest and detention of prominent Kaliningrad lawyer and human rights defender Maria Bontsler and called on the Russian authorities to release her immediately.

The ICJ is concerned that the charges against Maria are spurious and likely to be related to Bontsler’s legitimate activities. Proceedings against her have been undertaken in a shroud of secrecy and the ICJ calls on the authorities to immediately clarify their legal and factual basis for the charges against her.

Maria Bontsler was arrested on 28 May 2025 under Article 275.1 of the Russian Criminal Code, which provides for criminal liability for “confidential cooperation with a foreign State” aimed at “undermining the security of the Russian Federation”.

Available information indicates that a court hearing concerning Maria Bontsler’s detention or the filing of charges was held behind closed doors, at the Prosecutor’s request, on grounds of State secrecy. However, no official justification has been provided to demonstrate that the secrecy of the proceedings was necessary and proportionate as required under international human rights law. The ICJ is concerned that this lack of transparency undermines Bontsler’s right to a fair hearing.

“This prosecution reflects a broader campaign of retaliation against lawyers in Russia who engage in what the authorities see as politically sensitive cases. Such actions serve to intimidate and discourage other lawyers from vigorously defending their clients,” Temur Shakirov, Director (ad interim) of ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme said.

Maria Bontsler has a long record of defending politically persecuted individuals, including critics of Russia’s unlawful military intervention in Ukraine.

Irrespective of any charges, the ICJ stresses that it is inappropriate to keep Maria Bontsler in pre-trial detention.

In a broader context of interference with the legal profession, searches were also carried out at the homes of her colleagues, Roman Morozov and Ekaterina Selizarova, with electronic devices and legal documents seized. According to available reports, Morozov was questioned in relation to his alleged connections to the human rights organisation Memorial.

The ICJ stresses that under international law and standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, lawyers must be able to perform their professional activities without hindrance, including the collection and dissemination of information essential to protecting effectively their clients’ rights.

Maria Bontsler is a well-known human rights lawyer who represents individuals in politically charged cases and has been recognized by the Moscow Helsinki Group for her human rights defence work. Her clients include critics of the Russian Federation’s unlawful military intervention in Ukraine.

….Previously, Maria Bontsler was fined under administrative proceedings for courtroom statements made in defence of her clients, part of a systematic harassment faced by lawyers handling “political” cases in Russia

https://www.icj.org/russian-federation-authorities-must-immediately-release-lawyer-maria-bontsler/

see also: https://www.civicus.org/index.php/fr/medias-ressources/112-news/7777-key-highlights-civicus-at-59th-session-of-the-un-human-rights-council

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, ICJ | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

58th Session of the Human Rights Council: Assessment and Key Outcomes by CIVICUS and ICJ

April 26, 2025

The 58th regular session of the UN Human Rights Council ran from February 24 to April 4, 2025, resulting in 32 Resolutions and 14 Universal Period Review adoptions.

The session included a high-level segment attended by over 100 dignitaries, thematic panels addressing the rights of specific vulnerable groups, interactive dialogues, and debates on country-specific reports. This session also marked key anniversaries of the Beijing Declaration and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Human Rights Council plays a crucial role in addressing global violations and continues to serve as a platform for activists and victims of violations. In the face of multiple intersecting crises and conflicts, democracy erosion, and authoritarianism on the rise, Council decisions continue to wield considerable power to improve civil society conditions, particularly in fragile contexts where civic actors are particularly affected by widespread human rights violations and abuses, while offering unique opportunities for the negotiation of higher human rights standards.

I have on the past used other such reports by the ISHR and the UHRG (see below) but thought that this time I should highlight other NGOs:

https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/hrc58-civil-society-presents-key-takeaways-from-the-session/

Report on the 58th session of the Human Rights Council

CIVICUS contributed to the outcomes of the Council session through engagement on key Resolutions, delivery of statements, and organisation of events. We sounded the alarm on the global erosion of civic space and the growing repression of civil society across multiple regions. 

Regional Developments: Africa

A strong Resolution on South Sudan was adopted, extending the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan (CHRSS).

Regional Developments: Asia Pacific

A Resolution on Myanmar’s human rights situation was adopted by consensus amid escalating violence and widespread impunity.

Regional Developments: Americas

The Resolution on Nicaragua renewed the mandate of the Group of Human Rights Experts (GHREN) on Nicaragua.

Regional Developments: Europe

Key resolutions were adopted on Ukraine and Belarus, continuing international monitoring mechanisms.

Regional Developments: Middle East

Resolutions on Iran and Syria were adopted, with mixed results on addressing severe human rights concerns.

Several important thematic resolutions were adopted during the session.

Civil Society Challenges

Ahead of the 58th session, CIVICUS raised attention on the increasing restrictions imposed on civil society. CIVICUS engaged in key side events during HRC58, spotlighting democracy, child human rights defenders, and intersectional approaches to civic space.

 A detailed post-session report is available via this link.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ):

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), together with partner organizations, participated actively in the 58th session. Civil society’s critical engagement is essential in calling on the Council and its member States to respond to the plight of victims of human rights violations. In this regard, the ICJ was pleased to ensure that our partner from the African Albinism Network delivered our joint statement on the tenth anniversary of the mandate of the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of human rights by persons with Albinism. Maintaining effective access to the UN in Geneva for civil society is key to ensure that people can themselves participate or be represented in the discussions at the Council that concern them directly. With regard to this, the ICJ denounces all attempts to undermine civil society participation, including the intimidation of human rights defenders during side events, observed again at this HRC session.

At the outset, the ICJ welcomes the adoption of a number of important resolutions renewing, extending or creating mandates under the HRC purview, among which the following were adopted without a vote:

  • a resolution extending the mandate of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic for a period of one year;
  • a resolution establishing an open-ended intergovernmental working group for the elaboration of a legally-binding instrument on the promotion and protection of the human rights of older persons;
  • a resolution renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism for a period of three years;
  • a resolution renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for a period of three years;
  • a resolution extending the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar for a period of one year;
  • a resolution renewing the presence of the Office of the High Commissioner in Seoul, for a period of two years with the same resources and extending the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea(DPRK) for a period of one year.

While regretting the failure to adopt them by consensus, the ICJ also welcomes the adoption of other important resolutions by a majority of the votes:

  • a resolution extending the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine for a period of one year;
  • a resolution renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus for a period of one year and extending the mandate of the Group of Independent Experts on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus for a period of one year;
  • a resolution renewing the mandate of the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua for a period of two years;
  • a resolution extending the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran for a period of one year and deciding that the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran should continue for one year with an updated mandate to address the recent and ongoing violations of human rights; and
  • a resolution extending the mandate of the independent human rights expert tasked with undertaking the monitoring of the human rights situation in Haiti, for a renewable period of one year.

This session discussed armed conflicts whose intensity had continued to increase, including in Gaza, Ukraine, the DRC and Myanmar.

……Unsurprisingly, the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was one of the most-discussed throughout the 58th session. Many countries voiced strong support for the Palestinian people and their human rights, with many calling for a two-State solution based on Israel’s withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital. The ICJ commends the many States who intervened during the negotiations and adoption of the resolutions on the situation in the OPT to emphasize the need for accountability, and who voiced their support for the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice and their respective recent decisions on Israel/Palestine. The resolution adopted at this session titled “the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the obligation to ensure accountability and justice” invited the General Assembly to consider establishing an ongoing international, impartial and independent mechanism to assist in the investigation and prosecution of persons responsible for the most serious crimes under international law committed by all parties in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel since 2014.

Earlier in the year, on 7 February 2025, the Council had already held a special session to discuss the human rights situation in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where armed clashes between Congolese forces and the Rwanda-backed M23 movement had been ongoing, and had escalated since January 2025. The special session had resulted in the adoption of a resolution requesting the High Commissioner to urgently establish a fact-finding mission to report on events since January 2022. The resolution had also established an independent COI composed of three experts appointed by the HRC President to continue the work of the fact-finding mission. At the 58th session, the ICJ and many countries expressed grave concern about the human rights situation in the DRC, and during the Enhanced Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner and the Team of Experts at the end of the session many of the same themes and concerns heard during the special session were raised again.

Threats to Multilateralism

This 58th session took place in the context of increasing threats against multilateralism. In particular, this session started in the aftermath of the United States and Israel announcing that they would boycott the Council by not engaging with it. In addition, on 27 February – the day before the interactive dialogue with the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, when the HRC was scheduled to discuss the serious human rights violations committed by the State apparatus, including executions, torture and arbitrary detentions – Nicaragua announced its decision to withdraw from the Council.

Accountability

The ICJ regrets the attempts by some countries at this session to undermine accountability mechanisms by presenting them as political tools purportedly interfering in the internal affairs of the States concerned and encroaching upon their sovereignty. The human rights organization recalls that such spurious arguments contradict the international human rights law obligations freely agreed upon and undertaken by States and disregard the fact that, as the 1993 Vienna Declaration states, “the promotion and protection of all human rights is a legitimate concern of the international community”.

With regards to the situation in Syria following the fall of the Assad regime, the need for accountability was high on the HRC’s agenda throughout the 58th session. ….In this regard, the ICJ particularly welcomes the adoption of the resolution on the situation in Syria, which encouraged the interim authorities to grant the COI necessary access throughout the country and to cooperate closely with the Commission. The ICJ also notes the authorities’ declared commitment to investigating the recent spate of violations and abuses, including through the newly established fact-finding committee to investigate the events in the west of the Syrian Arab Republic in March 2025. In this connection, the human rights organization called for investigations to be demonstrably independent, prompt, transparent and impartial…

As usual, a number of country situations were not on the agenda of the Council but would actually require much greater scrutiny. At the 58th session, the ICJ expressed particular concern on the situation in Tunisia and Eswatini among others, where attacks on independent judges and lawyers are a key manifestation of deepening authoritarianism in these countries…

The impact of the liquidity crisis and the withdrawal of critical support was also discussed during informal negotiations on the resolution renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. While in the end the resolution is short, there was much debate about specific phrasing concerning the resources provided to the mandate. The ICJ participated in the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur, stressing the need for coordination and cooperation between civil society and regional systems to address counterterrorism laws that violate human rights and fundamental freedoms of civil society actors, highlighting in particular the situations in Venezuela and Eswatini. The ICJ reiterated the importance of the Special Rapporteur being adequately resourced in order to fully address these challenges.

Oral Statements

General Debate, Item 2: HRC58: ICJ Statement on the situation of human rights in Tunisia, Sri Lanka, and Guatemala

General Debate, Item 4: HRC58: ICJ statement on the human rights situation in Eswatini, Myanmar and Afghanistan

Belarus: HRC58: ICJ statement on human rights situation in Belarus 

Albinism: HRC58: ICJ statement on persons with albinism during Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert 

Venezuela: HRC58: ICJ statement on civil society repression and ongoing human rights violations in Venezuela

Counterterrorism: HRC58: ICJ statement on the use of counterterrorism laws to suppress dissent in Venezuela and Eswatini

Transitional Justice: HRC58: ICJ statement on OHCHR report, urging progress in transitional justice for Libya and Nepal

General Debate, Item 10: HRC58: The ICJ calls for urgent action on escalating human rights violations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the impact of the U.S. foreign aid pause

Side events

ICJ International Advocacy Director, Sandra Epal-Ratjen, spoke at a high-level event on the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment

The ICJ organized a joint side-event on the situation in Tunisia

—

https://www.civicus.org/index.php/media-resources/news/united-nations/geneva/7609-58th-regular-session-of-the-human-rights-council-post-session-assessment-and-key-outcomes

https://www.icj.org/hrc58-the-un-human-rights-council-ends-a-six-week-intense-session-in-perilous-times-for-multilateralism/

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Council, Human Rights Defenders, ICJ, UN | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

ICJ seeks Legal Adviser (Human rights and the digital space)

February 3, 2025

Although the preferred job location is Bangkok, Thailand (Hybrid), remote work is possible for candidates with the legal right to work in their country, provided the location aligns with the organization’s operational and budgetary considerations.

Start date: March 2025 – Closing date 16 Feb 2025

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is a worldwide organization of judges and lawyers united in affirming international law and rule of law principles that advance human rights. Its strategic goals for 2021-2025 are: (1) to develop, defend, and strengthen international institutions, instruments, and standards on rule of law and human rights; (2) to improve domestic implementation of, and compliance with, international law and standards; (3) to bolster the effectiveness and independence of judges and lawyers; and (4) to improve access to justice for all and accountability. Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, ICJ has a presence in Africa, Latin America, Asia & the Pacific, Europe & Central Asia, and the Middle East.

To lead the implementation of the ICJ’s work on human rights in the digital space at the global and regional levels, we are seeking a full-time Legal Adviser. Key requirements for this role include expertise and working experience related to human rights in the digital space, excellent legal skills and sound political judgment, and proven ability to develop and carry out legal advocacy strategies.

KEY RESPONSIBILITIES

Reporting directly to the Senior Director, Legal and Policy Office, the Legal Adviser is expected to:

• Provide leadership and contribute to the design and implementation of ICJ work related to human rights in the digital space, including the work at the country, regional and global levels;

• Lead and implement work on a global project aimed at developing policy and legal action on protecting human rights in the digital civic space;

• Implement the programme work on human rights in digital space in a way that advances the strategic directions of the ICJ.

REQUIREMENTS

  • University degree in law with advanced studies in international human rights law.
  • Proven experience working in the area of international human rights law.
  • Expertise and working experience related to human rights in the digital space, including in the areas of freedom of expression, right to privacy, non-discrimination and equality, sexual and gender-based violence, and human rights and businesses enterprises.
  • Excellent legal skills and sound political judgment and proven ability to develop and carry out legal advocacy strategies.
  • Advanced expertise in general international human rights law
  • Practical legal and advocacy experience on the implementation of international human rights standards; litigation experience desirable.
  • English native speaker level; knowledge of Spanish, French, and/or Arabic an asset.
  • Demonstrated analytic and writing ability, including substantial report-writing experience;
  • Excellent written and oral communication skills;
  • Excellent interpersonal skills and ability to work as part of a multi-cultural team;
  • Demonstrated commitment to human rights and the rule of law;
  • Availability to start in March 2025 is required.

How to apply

Interested applicants should provide the materials outlined below to recruitment@icj.org by 16 February 2025, midnight Central European Time (CET). Early applications are encouraged as they will be reviewed on a rolling basis, the ICJ reserves the right to close this vacancy earlier if a sufficient number of quality applications has been received.

  1. A CV (maximum 2 pages);
  2. A cover letter;
  3. Application form filled out.

Please include “Legal Adviser HRDS” in the subject line of the application e-mail.

https://reliefweb.int/job/4129125/legal-adviser-human-rights-and-digital-space

Posted in human rights, ICJ | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

First World Congress on Enforced Disappearances 15 – 16 January in Geneva

January 15, 2025

The first World Congress on Enforced Disappearances will convene from 15 – 16 January in Geneva, marking a pivotal step in the global fight to prevent and eradicate this egregious human rights violation.

This event will bring together governments, victims, civil society organisations, and international bodies to foster dialogue and chart a collective path forward to end enforced disappearances worldwide. Over the course of the two-day event, panel discussions will be held on topics such as international responsibility for the forcibly disappeared, strengthening search procedures, and protecting victims, rights defenders, lawyers and journalists.

See also https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/5E526725-F43B-83FB-3B7E-2B3C56D01F60

and https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/81468931-79AA-24FF-58F7-10351638AFE3

The Congress, open to the press and the public, is co-organised by the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED), the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID), the UN Human Rights Office, and the Convention Against Enforced Disappearances Initiative (CEDI).

Details of the programme are available online. The event will take place at the Geneva International Conference Centre (CICG). Onsite registration is open at the venue.

The Committee on Enforced Disappearances monitors States parties’ adherence to the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which as of to date, has been ratified by 77 States parties. The Committee is made up of 10 members who are independent human rights experts drawn from around the world, who serve in their personal capacity and not as representatives of States parties.

The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances comprises five independent experts from all regions of the world. The Chair-Rapporteur is Ms. Gabriella Citroni (Italy); and the Vice-Chair is Ms. Grażyna Baranowska (Poland); other members are Aua Balde (Guinea-Bissau); Ms. Ana Lorena Delgadillo Perez (Mexico); and Mr. Mohammed Al-Obaidi (Iraq).

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/01/first-world-congress-enforced-disappearances-chart-course-collective-action

https://www.dailyparliamenttimes.com/2025/01/13/worlds-first-congress-on-enforced-disappearances-kashmirs-silenced-voices/

https://www.icj.org/wced-1st-world-congress-on-enforced-disappearances/

The report: https://www.icj.org/world-congress-on-enforced-disappearance-preventing-and-ending-impunity-for-a-global-scourge/

Posted in Human Rights Council, Human Rights Defenders, ICJ, OHCHR, UN | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,

ICJ new President is human rights defender Carlos Ayala

December 11, 2024

On 28 November, 2024 the International Commission of Jurists announced Carlos Ayala as its new President

CarlosAyala_3
Ayala brings decades of experience defending the rule of law, advocating for constitutional justice, and championing the rights of marginalized groups

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) proudly welcomes Carlos Ayala as its new President, taking over from Robert Goldman after seven years in the role. A distinguished legal scholar and human rights advocate, Ayala brings decades of experience defending the rule of law, advocating for constitutional justice, and championing the rights of marginalized groups.

Ayala, born in Caracas in 1957, has dedicated his career to advancing human rights. From his early days as a law student at Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, Ayala developed a profound sense of defending rights and social justice, which he carried through his graduate legal studies at Georgetown University and later in his legal practice. He is tenured professor and chair of Constitutional Law and a member of the board of the Ibero-American Institute of Constitutional Law. His commitment has spanned defending indigenous land rights in Venezuela to addressing transitional justice issues across Latin America. Notably, Ayala was instrumental in the landmark decision against blanket amnesty laws for human rights violators in Peru, a victory that set critical international legal precedents.

He has been President of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as well as Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the Americas, and President of the Andean Commission of Jurists, giving him a vision of the human rights landscape that takes in the whole hemisphere of Americas from Alaska to Tierra Del Fuego.

Ayala has worked extensively on issues relating to the independence of the judiciary and he became involved with the OHCHR in monitoring the appointment of judges of several high courts. He states that one of the cases that impacted him most has been that of Venezuelan Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni, who was arrested and detained after making a ruling that implemented a decision of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions which was not in the political interest of the government. She was immediately arrested and her trial lasted 10 years, was a flawed process throughout and ended in a flawed decision to convict.

As President, Ayala envisions the ICJ working as a unified community with other partners and allies committed to reinforcing the rule of law and international justice. Under his guidance, he will support the ICJ to advance human rights standards globally, counter setbacks, and provide critical support to governments, civil society, and multilateral institutions.

“We are facing new threats to reverse the advancement of human rights that we have achieved in the past 70 years – we need to defend against unilateralism and authoritarianism. The ICJ has been actively contributing to stop any setback in international standards, and we will continue this essential work.”

https://www.icj.org/icj-welcomes-its-new-president-human-rights-advocate-carlos-ayala/

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, ICJ | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Obituary of Leah Levin: 1926 – 2024

June 7, 2024

I am not a professional obituary writer, but I surely wished I were, as writing about my dear friend Leah Levin deserves the best possible skills. Fortunately, I received some excellent input from her caring family of which I am making good use. A celebration of Leah’s life will be held by the family on 13 June, 4 pm BST which can also be followed online.

For those of you who wish to attend via zoom, here is the link:
https://ted-conf.zoom.us/j/91594050908?pwd=cE9SaHB4S0JkSW5MWFEwUTdOWmJIZz09

And you can leave messages at: : https://www.mykeeper.com/profile/LeahLevin/ 

Leah Levin, was a well-known figure in the international human rights movement of the 1970’s and onwards. She died of cardiac arrest on 25 May, 2024, at the formidable age of 98. For over half a century, she served and led a range of human rights organisations and collaborated globally with some of the world’s leading activists. For which she received an honorary doctorate from the University of Essex in 1992 and an OBE in 2001.

She was the author of UNESCO’s “Human Rights: Questions and Answers”, one of the world’s most widely disseminated books on human rights, (translated into more than 30 languages).

From 1982-1992, she was director of JUSTICE, a pioneering organisation that sought to right miscarriages of justice and which was a national section of the International Commission of Jurists . She served as a board member or trustee of the United Nations Association, the Anti-Slavery Society, International Alert, Redress, Readers International and The International Journal of Human Rights. But most of all, I remember her from the work she did to make sure that we would not forget one of our most impressive friends: Martin Ennals, who had led Amnesty from 1968 to 1980 and had been one of her closest friends until his death in 1981. [see his biography in the Encyclopedia of Human Rights, OUP, 2009, Vol 2, pp 135-138].

Leah’s contribution to the creation and development of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders was enormous. She stepped down from the board after two decades in 2013.[see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2013/10/07/leah-levin-a-human-rights-defender-of-the-first-rank/].

Frances D’Souza, said about Leah: “without any pretension she was nearly always right. She hit the nail on the head whether dealing with world affairs or people. She made a significant difference by her wise counsel and fact that she could really see what the issues were, read the situation and do something about it.”

Leah Levin had the special talent to draw other like-minded people to her and help coalesce a community of activists with whom she would collaborate throughout her entire life.

Her own life story is one of human rights struggle: Leah was born Sarah Leah Kacev on 1 April 1926 in Lithuania. She grew up as Leah Katzeff in Piketberg, South Africa, a small, rural town in Western Cape to where the family had to flee to escape poverty and anti-Semitism in the difficult years after the First World War and Russian revolution. Leah was the first of four children and the first person in her family to go to university. She graduated in 1945, when at the end of the second world war, the Katzeffs found out that their family along with their entire Jewish community in Mazeikiai, had been murdered by local Lithuanians organized by the Germans in the very first days of the Nazi advance in 1941.

In 1947 she married Archie Levin, fifteen years her senior. Like Leah, Archie was the child of European Jewish immigrants. Together they set up a new business, writing travel guides to Central and Southern Africa. In 1960, disgusted by the repression of anti-apartheid protest, the couple moved to the British colony of Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) with their two children Michal and Jeremy. A third son, David, was born in Salisbury (now Harare).  

In Rhodesia, Leah completed a second degree in international relations at the University of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, while her husband became politically active. His activities angered those in power; shortly before Rhodesia unilaterally declared independence. Archie was tipped off that he was likely to be arrested. He rapidly left for the UK with his daughter Michal and later was joined by his son Jeremy; a few months later, Leah and her infant son David joined the rest of the family in the UK. 

In London, Leah found a volunteer post as Secretary of the newly founded United Nations Association. The UNA human rights committee brought together people who became lifelong friends as well as colleagues: Martin Ennals, Sir Nigel Rodney, Amnesty’s first legal officer and later UN rapporteur on torture, and Kevin Boyle, who ran the Human Rights Centre of the University of Essex.  After the death in 1977 of her husband Archie, Leah threw herself still more wholeheartedly into human rights work.  In 1978, she took a job as Secretary of the Anti-Slavery Society, which connected her to the United Nations in Geneva. And in 1982 she moved to run JUSTICE for a decade. In 1992, she co-founded Redress, representing victims of torture to obtain justice and reparation for them. 

Even when fully retired Leah continued to keep an active interest in children and grandchildren as well as her human rights “children”. I will bitterly miss her almost yearly phone calls to check on me to make sure I am doing the right thing.

See also: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/ac7b872e-5b7d-409f-975b-265a59f5f160

On 21 June 2024 the Times published https://www.thetimes.com/article/4a2d6b5a-a2a0-477d-8701-29a8358a6dee?shareToken=0dd6ee7a6cedbc723f18cce633713205 with emphasis on her ‘national’ role but disappointingly leaving out much of her international contribution.

and later:https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2024/06/26/leah-levin-human-rights-dies/

Posted in awards, human rights, ICJ, MEA | 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Older posts