The Board of Civil Rights Defenders would like to deeply thank Anders for his work. Under Anders’ leadership, Civil Rights Defenders has grown and developed greatly, gaining increased recognition, a higher turnover and becoming an important actor for democracy and human rights.
Effective immediately, John Stauffer, Legal Director and Deputy Executive Director, will step in as Acting Executive Director, sharing leadership with Karin Ancker, Chief Financial Officer, who will take on the role of Deputy Executive Director. The recruitment process for a new Executive Director will begin immediately.
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.
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.”
States have an obligation to pay UN membership dues in full and in time. The failure of many States to do so, often for politically motivated reasons, is causing a financial liquidity crisis, meaning that resolutions and mandates of the Human Rights Council cannot be implemented. This is a breach of legal obligations, a betrayal of victims and survivors of violations and abuses, and a waste of the time and resources we have collectively invested over the last 4 weeks. The cuts to Special Procedures’ activities, including fewer country visits and the cancellation of the annual meeting, greatly limit rights holders’ ability to engage with mandate holders and it hinders their access to situations on the ground, and their engagement with domestic authorities for human rights change. Pay your dues!
We deplore the double standards in applying international law and the failure of certain States to push for accountability and ending impunity for all atrocity crimes, when these involve geopolitical interests, despite the clear relevance to thematic principles they endorse. We also deplore initiatives and threats by some States to undermine or sanction the vital work of international justice and accountability bodies, including the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. This undermines the integrity of the framework, the legitimacy of this institution, and the credibility of those States. From Afghanistan to China, to Eritrea to Myanmar, to Palestine to Sri Lanka, to Sudan to Ukraine, resolving grave violations requires States to address root causes, applying human rights norms in a principled and consistent way. States promoting or supporting thematic resolutions must apply these same principles universally, including in their approach to country-specific issues. The Council has a prevention mandate and States have a legal and moral duty to prevent and ensure accountability and non-recurrence for atrocity crimes, wherever they occur. We urge all States to implement resolutions consistently, both nationally and internationally, and to align their actions with the universal human rights standards they claim to uphold, especially in responding to atrocity crimes. We urge States to enhance objective criteria for action, with predictable parameters, consistent actions and a demonstrable way forward to addressing human rights crises.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Expert Mechanism to Advance Racial Justice and Equality in the Context of Law Enforcement (EMLER) by consensus. We welcome the resolution’s request to strengthen the administrative and substantive support to the Mechanism, and to provide the resources necessary for it to effectively fulfill its mandate. This renewal is a recognition of the value of its unique work over the past three years, as well as the need for experts to continue investigating States’ law enforcement practices and their impact on Africans and Afrodescendant people and communities, including the legacies of colonialism and transatlantic slave trade in enslaved Africans. As recognised by the resolution, systemic racism particularly, against Africans and people of African descent needs a systemic response. In this regard, EMLER’s reports offer a powerful tool for much-needed transformation that governments everywhere should implement. We urge States to ensure full cooperation with EMLER towards the effective fulfillment of its mandate, including by implementing its recommendations and responding promptly to its requests for information and country visits.
This session was again marked by increasing attempts at retrogression on well-established human rights standards pertaining to sexual and reproductive rights and other thematic issues related to gender and sexuality. Nevertheless, civil society organisations continue to work together across movements to ensure the resilience of the multilateral system and the upholding of human rights standards. Out of the 26 draft resolutions presented this session, 5 had a stronger focus on gender and sexuality issues and took important steps in developing human rights standards in these areas. Specifically, we welcome the adoption of the resolution on HIV, the resumption of the tradition of adopting this resolution by consensus and the inclusion of a reference to sexual and reproductive health and rights. We welcome the adoption of the resolution on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and girls requesting human rights-based, gender-responsive and intersectional approaches to poverty reduction; while also expressing concern at the multiple attempts to weaken the resolution which the strongest human rights standards on women and girls are reflected, including through amendments. We also welcome the new resolution on Technology-facilitated gender-based violence, the procedural resolution on Accelerating progress towards preventing adolescent girls’ pregnancy and the resolution on menstrual hygiene management, human rights and gender equality.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on Eritrea, renewing the Special Rapporteur’s mandate.
The resolution on the situation of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities is essential to keep the situation of Rohingya high on the agenda of the Council. However, the resolution’s calls for repatriation of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar in the current context where remaining Rohingya in Myanmar are once again confronting the dire prospects of recurrence of grave atrocities they faced in 2016 and 2017 contradict and undermine the fundamental objectives of the resolution to ensure protection of Rohingya and to create conditions for their safe, voluntary, dignified and sustainable return.
We welcome that the Council decided to devote its annual resolution on climate change and human rights to address just transition. However, we regret that some fundamental points are missing in the resolution. The recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment by the Human Rights Council (res 48/13) and the General Assembly (res 76/300) has been a landmark achievement. Yet, we regret to see that once again, the resolution on human rights and climate change has failed to include this right more explicitly. Parties to the UNFCCC have already acknowledged that when taking action on climate change, States should respect, promote and consider the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, among other rights (decision 1/CP.27). This resolution also failed to call upon States to transition away from fossil fuels. As has been repeatedly stated by the UN Secretary General, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and several Special Rapporteurs, fossil fuels are the root cause of the triple planetary crisis, and the main driver of climate change. Despite the support expressed by numerous delegations, this resolution is deliberately silent in recognizing the positive, important, legitimate and vital role that environmental human rights defenders play in the promotion and protection of human rights and the environment. As recognized by the HRC resolution 40/11, EHRDs are one of the most exposed and at risk around the world. Many of these attacks include Indigenous Peoples and defenders raising concerns about climate related projects, transition minerals mining and renewal projects. We will not have a just transition in the context of climate change without listening and consulting EHRDs. It is time that the annual resolutions on human rights and climate change align itself to the recent developments and strongly reaffirm a commitment to effective, rights- and science-based climate action.
We welcome the Council’s continued efforts to address the human rights impacts of arms, including by highlighting human rights obligations of States and responsibilities of the arms industry and other businesses contributing to its operations. The adoption of the resolution on human rights and the civilian acquisition, possession and use of firearms is another significant contribution to these efforts. The OHCHR report requested by the resolution, —which will explore the root causes and risk factors of firearms-related violence and its impact on the enjoyment of the right to participation, particularly of individuals in vulnerable or marginalised situations, — presents a key opportunity to highlight critical concerns surrounding civilian firearms and their broader human rights impacts and to promote an effective response to these concerns.
We welcome a new resolution on freedom of opinion and expression, which rightly highlights how this right is an enabler for all other human rights and sustainable development. Among other key issues, the resolution has been updated to express concern at the growing trend of strategic lawsuits against public participation and calls on governments to adopt and implement measures to discourage such legal harassment. In this vein, it mandates a report and expert workshop to explore the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation. We urge all States committed to freedom of opinion and expression to co-sponsor and fully implement the commitments of the resolution.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on Independence and Impartiality of Judges and Independence of Lawyers, focusing on the use of Digital Technologies, including Artificial Intelligence. We welcome the inclusion of language addressing serious concerns relating to the potential negative impact on international fair trial standards, including equality of arms, confidentiality and the protection of legal professions, as well as risks connected to judicial independence and impartiality, the perpetration of existing stereotypes, discrimination or harmful biases. We also welcome the emphasis on the need to always ensure human oversight, scrutiny and accountability with respect to the use of artificial intelligence in the administration of justice.
We continue to deplore this Council’s exceptionalism towards serious human rights violations committed by the Chinese government. Despite China’s efforts to instrumentalise allied countries and GONGOs to portray itself as a constructive actor during its UPR adoption, NGO statements pointed to evidence of Beijing’s lack of willingness to engage in good faith with the UN system, including: a 30% rejection rate higher than its last UPR, acts of reprisals against civil society committed during the UPR cycle, disregard for calls from Western and Global South States to implement Treaty Body recommendations and to provide unfettered access to UN experts. We urge China to genuinely engage with the UN human rights system to enact meaningful reform, and ensure all individuals and peoples enjoy internationally protected human rights. Recommendations from the OHCHR Xinjiang report, UN Treaty Bodies, and UN Special Procedures chart the way for this desperately needed change. In the absence of genuine efforts, it is equally imperative that this Council establishes a monitoring and reporting mechanism on China as repeatedly urged by over 40 UN experts since 2020.
We regret that the Council failed to uphold its obligations to the Libyan people. We are concerned that the resolution on Libya falls short in addressing the urgent need to end impunity for widespread and serious human rights abuses across the country. It ignores the findings of the Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Libya, which documented likely war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by State security forces and armed militia groups, and recommended the creation of an independent international investigation mechanism. Moreover, the resolution overlooks the inability of OHCHR and UNSMIL to conduct capacity-building activities in much of Libya due to threats of violence and governmental non-cooperation. Additionally, it neglects the severe suppression of civil society through arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, abductions, social media monitoring, harassment, and other forms of intimidation.
We regret that the Council failed to adequately respond to the situation in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is not fit to sit at the Human Rights Council, as it is responsible for the commission of atrocity crimes, a pattern of reprisals against those who cooperate with the UN, and the repression of civil society. The human rights situation in the country is dire, with the criminalisation of women human rights defenders, arbitrary detention and the application of the death penalty, among other abuses. We call on all UN States at the General Assembly not to vote for Saudi Arabia in the upcoming HRC elections.
We regret that once more, civil society representatives faced numerous obstacles to accessing the Palais and engaging in discussions during this session, as well as continuing and worsening incidents of reprisals and transnational repression here in Geneva against those seeking to cooperate with the Council. We are concerned by the barriers imposed to access room XX and that the majority of informal consultations on resolutions were held exclusively in person. We remind UN member States, as well as UNOG, that the Council’s mandate, as set out in HRC Res 5/1, requires that arrangements be made, and practices observed to ensure ‘the most effective contribution’ of NGOs. We reiterate that an inclusive approach to participation requires that the UN addresses the limited space for civil society engagement. Undermining civil society access and participation not only undermines the capacities and effectiveness of civil society but also of the Council itself.
Signatories:
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
CIVICUS
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Right (EIPR)
FIDH
GIN SSOGIE – The Global Interfaith Network For People of All Sexes, Sexual Orientations, Gender Identities and Expressions
Are you an artist passionate about human rights and social justice? We’re looking for talented creators to develop original art pieces for our 2024 Write for Rights campaign. This is your chance to use your creative skills to fight injustice and show your solidarity with people who are advocating for change.
What We’re Looking For
We are looking for a wide range of artistic expressions, including but not limited to:
Graphic design artwork
Videos of spoken-word art
Musical pieces (vocal, instrumental…etc.)
Videos of dances, skits
Animations
Paintings
Comic Illustrations
Project Details
Objective: Create an original art piece representing a specific Write for Rights case. Compensation: TBD Timeline: September 15, 2024 – October 15, 2024 Submission Deadline: August 30th, 2024
How to Apply
Submit your application including:
A brief introduction of yourself, your artistic background and your interest in social justice
A short proposal outlining:
Two Write for Rights cases you are interested in working on and why
A short description of your artistic vision for the piece
Don’t miss this chance to make a global impact with your art. Join us in advocating for human rights through powerful, creative expression.
Write for Rights Cases
Manahel al-Otaibi (Saudi Arabia)
Manahel al-Otaibi is a fitness instructor and a brave outspoken advocate for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. In November 2022, she was arrested after posting to Snapchat photos of herself at a shopping mall. In the photos, she was not wearing the traditional long-sleeved loose robe known as an abaya. Manahel has been sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Wet’suwet’en Nation Land Defenders (Canada)
The Wetʼsuwetʼen Nation are deeply connected to their ancestral lands, but this is threatened by the construction of a fossil fuel pipeline through their territory. Their Hereditary Chiefs did not consent to this construction. Land defenders have been charged for blocking pipeline construction sites, even though these sites are on their ancestral lands. They could face prison and a criminal record.
Maryia Kalesnikava (Belarus)
Political activist Maryia Kalesnikava dared to challenge the repressive Belarus government. On 7 September 2020, Maryia was abducted by the Belarus authorities. She was taken to the border where she resisted deportation by tearing up her passport. She was detained and later sentenced to 11 years in prison on false charges. Maryia’s family haven’t heard from her for more than a year.
Floraine Irangabiye (Burundi)
Floriane Irangabiye is a mother, journalist, and human rights defender from Burundi. In 2010 she relocated to Rwanda where she co-founded a radio station for exiled Burundian voices. In August 2022 she was arrested while visiting family in Burundi. In January 2023 she was sentenced to 10 years in prison for “undermining the integrity of the national territory”, all for criticizing Burundi’s human rights record.
Kyung Seok Park (South Korea)
Kyung Seok Park is a dedicated disability rights activist. Holding peaceful protests on Seoul’s public transport systems, Kyung Seok Park has drawn attention to how hard it is for people with disabilities to easily access trains and subways safely – denying them the ability to travel to work, school, or to live independently. Kyung Seok Park’s activism has been met with police abuse, public smear campaigns and punitive litigation.
On the 26th to 28th July 2024, six student human rights defender namely: Nahid Islam, Abu Bakar Majumder,Asif Mahmud,Sarjis Alam,Hasnat Abdullah, and Nusrat Tabassum reportedly have been arbitrarily detained under custody of Dhaka Metropolitan Police’s (DMP) Detective Branch (DB) and coerced to announce the withdrawal of their protest programmes through a video message sent to media from the DB office at around 8:00 PM on 28 July 2024.
Nahid Islam, Abu Bakar Majumder, Asif Mahmud, Sarjis Alam, Hasnat Abdullah, and Nusrat Tabassum are students and dedicated human rights defenders and National Coordinators of the Students Against Discrimination Movement. Nahid Islam is from the Sociology Department, Abu Bakar Majumder from the Geography Department, Asif Mahmud from the Linguistics Department, Sarjis Alam is affiliated with the Zoology Department, Hasnat Abdullah is from the English Department, and Nusrat Tabassum is from the Political Science Department of Dhaka University.
Students Against Discrimination Movement is a student led protest demanding reform of the present quota system in government jobs. A total 56 percent of first and second class government jobs in Bangladesh entailed quotas. 30 percent of the total reserved for the descendants of ‘freedom fighters’. This quota has been widely criticised especially by the students, stating that it create a discriminatory system and allegedly used to recruit students affiliated with the ruling party. Following widespread protests in 2018, the Government of Bangladesh abolished all quotas with an executive order. However, on 5 June 2024, the High Court ordered the Government to reinstate the quota with the power of any adjustment they want to make.
Since 01 July 2024, the protests have escalated in several university campuses.The protests was met with a severe crackdown from the authorities involving ruling party goons, police and paramilitary forces from Rapid Action Battelion (RAB) and Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB). It has reportedly resulted in the deaths of at least 250 people with thousands more injured. With the internet shutdown for almost a week, suspicion remains about many more killings. Since 18 July 2024, local media reported over 10000 people, including many students been arrested in a mass arrest spree.
On 28 July 2024, at around 5:00 AM, woman human rights defender Nusrat Tabassum from Dhaka University had been reportedly picked up by individuals claiming to be from Dhaka Metropolitan Police’s DB at her cousin’s home in Mirpur.
On 27 July 2024, two more student human rights defenders Sarjis Alam and Hasnat Abdullah were picked up and brought to the DB office. The Additional Commissioner of the DB claimed in a press conference that the student human rights defenders have been brought to their custody to ensure their safety, however the comissioner did not clear it whether they have been arrested. While the family members were not allowed to even enter into the DB office on 28 July 2024, they were allowed to meet the students on 29 July – only after their video message of withdrawal of their protest program been covered in media.
On 26 July 2024, at around 4:00 PM, human rights defenders Nahid Islam, Asif Mahmud and Abu Bakar Majumder were forcefully taken from Gonoshasthaya Kendra Hospital by the police in plainclothes in Dhaka and taken to custody of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police’s DB. Nahid and Asif were undergoing treatment Gonoshasthaya Kendra Hospital while Abu Bakar was accompanying them. Police also took away their phones.
Front Line Defenders condemns the arbitrary detention and coercion of student human rights defenders Nahid Islam, Abu Bakar Majumder, Asif Mahmud, Sarjis Alam, Hasnat Abdullah, and Nusrat Tabassum by the Dhaka Metropolitan Police in an attempt to repress their human rights work and target legimate students protests in Bangladesh.
Front Line Defenders urges the relevant authorities in Bangladesh to:
Immediately and unconditionally release Nahid Islam, Abu Bakar Majumder, Asif Mahmud, Sarjis Alam, Hasnat Abdullah, and Nusrat Tabassum.
Ensure the physical and psychological safety and well-being of Nahid Islam, Abu Bakar Majumder, Asif Mahmud, Sarjis Alam, Hasnat Abdullah, and Nusrat Tabassum while they remain in custody.
To secure their immediate access to their families, legal representation, and any medical care they may require.
End to all forms of harassment, intimidation, and arbitrary detention of student human rights defenders in Bangladesh. The rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association must be respected and protected.
Conduct independent and transparent investigation into the arbitrary detention and coercion of these student human rights defenders.
4 July 202: China’s government accepted – wholly or partially – 298 of the 428 (70%) recommendations the country received from UN member states during its fourth UPR on 23 January 2024. This represents a 12% drop in the proportion of recommendations the government accepted compared to the previous UPR in 2018.
In a worrying sign of the government’s outright refusal to heed the mounting international concern over key human rights issues, of the 130 recommendations Beijing did not accept, an unprecedented number – 98 – were categorised as “rejected” and 32 were “noted.
China’s government used the United Nations (UN)-backed review of its human rights record to rebuff international concern over serious abuses, issue blanket denials, and make blatantly false statements, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Human Rights in China (HRIC), the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT), the Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR), and the Database Center for North Korean Human Rights (NKDB) said after the adoption of the outcome of China’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva, Switzerland.
Despite well-documented evidence to the contrary, the government claimed that many of the recommendations it accepted were being implemented or had already been implemented. Such was the case regarding the accepted recommendations related to human rights in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang, and the situation of human rights defenders, lawyers, civil society, media, and journalists. The government also made the false claim that it protected “freedom of speech, association and assembly” and “the lawful rights of all citizens as equals“.
FIDH, HRIC, ICT, TAHR, and NKDB urge China’s government to reverse course and use the fourth UPR to address the concerns voiced by numerous UN member states without delay by implementing all the recommendations that are consistent with its obligations under international human rights law.
Below is an analysis of the government’s response to the UPR recommendations on selected human rights issues.
Human rights situation in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang
The government received 57 recommendations on human right issues in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang and accepted only 19 (33%) of them. With regard to Hong Kong, the rejected recommendations were overwhelmingly related to the National Security Law and its negative impacts. Rejected recommendations concerning the situation of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang included those that called for the implementation of the 2022 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) assessment on Xinjiang which China’s government called “illegal“. China rejected 70% of the unprecedented number of Tibet-specific recommendations it received – notably the ones calling for an end of the boarding school system for Tibetan children – often claiming they were based on “false information” despite many verified reports, including by UN experts. Other recommendations concerning the respect of cultural and religious rights in Tibet were listed as “accepted and already implemented” in a blunt misrepresentation of the reality on the ground. Many of the recommendations received by China’s government concerning the situation in Tibet echoed those contained in the joint submission made by FIDH and the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) for China’s fourth UPR.
Human rights defenders, lawyers, and civil society
The government accepted only 10 of the 25 recommendations it received on human rights defenders, lawyers, and civil society. It rejected recommendations that called on China’s authorities to end the harassment and arbitrary detention of human rights defenders and lawyers and to cease the restrictions on civil society. A submission by HRIC highlights how online rights and internet freedoms in Hong Kong have significantly deteriorated in the post-COVID era, especially after the promulgation of the National Security Law, and that women have been disproportionately affected, as evidenced by the online gender-based violence they experienced.
Media and journalists
The government rejected 10 of the 14 recommendations it received concerning the protection of media and journalists, claiming the authorities protect the right to freedom of speech.
Death penalty
The government rejected all 20 recommendations it received concerning the death penalty. It stated that the death penalty “should be retained with its application strictly and prudently limited” – a statement that clashes with the reality of a country that has consistently ranked as the world’s most prolific executioner.
Civil society actors across the world frequently operate in challenging or hostile environments in their efforts to defend human rights. The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) supports members of the SOS-Torture network, along with local actors, working to end torture and impunity and to support the rehabilitation of victims. We provide support by:
Engaging in joint activities and campaigns.
Sharing expertise and capacity-building opportunities.
Providing financial support to local actors, individuals, organisations, and initiatives, primarily outside the European Union.
This assistance enables them to carry out their crucial work in defending human rights and ending torture.
Our activities in support of the human rights movement are made possible by the generous contributions of our donors.
Óscar Calles is a journalist and human rights defender from Venezuela. Since 2019, he has been working for PROVEA, one of the country’s most prominent rights groups.
In an interview with ISHR, he recalled his experience of witnessing and broadcasting mass protests in his country in 2017, and how harshly these were repressed. This, he said, led him to take direct action in the defence of human rights and civil liberties.
Human rights organisations, activists and defenders only exist to ensure that all persons can live with dignity,’ says Oscar Calles. ‘Do not turn your backs on the hundreds of victims who are still awaiting justice to this day,’ he further urges States at the UN Human Rights Council, calling on to renew a key accountability mechanism for Venezuela.
In June 2024, Óscar was also one of 16 defenders who participated in ISHR’s Human Rights Defender Advocacy Programme (HRDAP)
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.
Sara Nabil is a human rights defender and artist from Afghanistan. She spoke to ISHR about her dream of one day seeing a ‘free democratic Afghanistan, where each human being [regardless of which] gender they are, man or woman, neutral or other genders, [would be] treated equally.’
Stand in solidarity with Sara and other women human rights defenders from Afghanistan: join us in our campaign to push for UN experts and States to explicitly and publicly recognise the situation in Afghanistan as a form of gender apartheid and the need for an accountability mechanism to address gross human rights violations against women.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 