The issuance of Interpol red notices against two Salvadoran human rights defenders currently in exile in Spain constitutes a grave misuse of the law enforcement mechanism, UN experts warned on 19 November 2025
“This move amounts to an act of transnational repression, as it extends the harassment of human rights defenders beyond borders, targeting them in a country where they are seeking safety,” the experts said.
Ivania Cruz and Rudy Joya have applied for asylum in Spain, fleeing legal harassment in El Salvador stemming from their legitimate human rights work. Both human rights defenders work for the non-governmental organisation UNIDEHC, which has been targeted by the Salvadoran authorities since February 2025 for its support to the La Floresta community, who have been facing attempts of forced eviction since 2024.
“The charges brought against Ivania Cruz and Rudy Joya in El Salvador and related arrest warrants issued by the authorities appear to be without basis and in direct connection with their legitimate human rights work for UNIDEHC to support communities under threat and denounce the actions of the Government under the state of emergency declared in 2022,” the experts said.
In May 2025, the court presiding over their case in El Salvador ordered the Interpol National Central Bureau to submit a request for the issuance of a red notice to the Interpol General Secretariat. Interpol confirmed the issuance in July 2025.
The experts pointed to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Interpol, which state that the organisation is “strictly forbidden” from undertaking “any intervention or activities of a political nature”, and that the organisation’s activities will be conducted “in the spirit of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.”
In September 2025, Rudy Joya was summoned by police under the pretext of his asylum application in Spain. Upon presenting himself to the authorities, he was detained and presented before a Spanish specialised court. Ivania Cruz was also summoned and appeared before the same court, which ordered that both defenders sign-in at a local court every 15 days, not leave the country, surrender their passports and report any change of address.
“We call on Interpol to immediately revoke the red notices and judicial sanctions against Ivania Cruz and Rudy Joya, and on Spain to refuse to accede to the red notice and to ensure their safety by rejecting their forcible return to El Salvador,” the experts said.
The experts are in contact with Interpol and the governments of Spain and El Salvador on these concerns.
Ganna Yudkivska (Chair-Rapporteur), Matthew Gillett (Vice-Chair on Communications), Miriam Estrada Castillo (Vice-Chair on Follow-Up), Mumba Malila, and Ethan Hee-Seok Shin,Working Group on Arbitrary Detent
On 14 November 2025, Al Jazeera (Mariamne Everett) and other media reported that international NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have decried a sharp decline in civil liberties and a pervading “injustice” in Tunisia since President Kais Saied came to power in 2019, as authorities escalate their crackdown on the opposition, activists and foreign nongovernmental organisations.
“Tunisian authorities have increasingly escalated their crackdown on human rights defenders and independent non-governmental organizations (NGOs) through arbitrary arrests, detention, asset freezes, bank restrictions and court-ordered suspensions, all under the pretext of fighting ‘suspicious’ foreign funding and shielding ‘national interests’,” Amnesty International said in a statement on Friday.
Tunisia’s crackdown on civil society has reached an unprecedented level, according to Amnesty, as six NGO workers and human rights defenders from the Tunisian Council for Refugees are “being criminally prosecuted on charges solely related to their legitimate work supporting refugees and asylum seekers”. The trial’s opening session, initially scheduled for October 16, has been adjourned to November 24.
Within the past four months, Tunisia has temporarily suspended the activities of at least 14 Tunisian and international NGOs, said Amnesty, including the Tunisian Association of Democratic Women and the World Organisation against Torture.
Human Rights Watch said in a statement on Friday that Tunis’s Court of Appeal will hear on November 17 the appeal of more than 30 people “unjustly sentenced to heavy prison terms in a politically motivated ‘Conspiracy Case’” mass trial in April.
“Four of those detained are on hunger strike, including one who, according to his lawyers, was subjected to physical violence in prison on November 11.”
The defendants were charged with plotting to destabilise the country under various articles of Tunisia’s Penal Code and the 2015 Counterterrorism Law. Human Rights Watch, which reviewed the judicial documents, said the charges are unfounded and lack credible evidence. The NGO has called on the court to immediately overturn the convictions and ensure the release of all those detained.
The 37 people detained include opponents of Saied, lawyers, activists and researchers. Their prison terms range from four to 66 years for “conspiracy against state security” and terrorism offences. Jawhar Ben Mbarek – cofounder of Tunisia’s main opposition alliance, the National Salvation Front – began a hunger strike on October 29 to protest his arbitrary detention. Ben Mbarek was sentenced to 18 years behind bars on charges of “conspiracy against state security” and “belonging to a terrorist group”.
On 5 November, 2025Camilla Pollera, Human Rights and Climate Change Program Associate at the Center for International Environmental Law published a blog post about the upcoming COP30 and the role of human rights defenders:
There is no climate justice in a climate of fear. As governments prepare to meet in Belém, Brazil for, COP30, attention turns to a country where defending nature still comes at a high cost. Deep-rooted and intertwined impunity and violence against environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs) — including Indigenous defenders, Afro-descendent communities, women, and defenders from LGBTQIA+ —persist in Brazil.
COP30 decisions must recognize the efforts of those protecting the planet, in Brazil and beyond, and ensure that they can do so safely, freely, and without fear.
Around the world, EHRDs are on the frontlines of the climate crisis — protecting land, water, communities, and their rights, often at great personal risk. Faced with an escalating climate crisis and the inaction of governments, a growing number of people are stepping up to defend their rights, the rights of future generations and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, exercising their fundamental freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, and association, guaranteed under international human rights law.
…The violence and repression faced by defenders are intensified by intersecting forms of marginalization, especially affecting women defending the environment, who often suffer gender-based violence that rarely appears in the data, including sexual violence, harassment, and rejection within their families and communities. They are targeted not only as defenders of rights and natural resources but also as women, in all their diversity, challenging discriminatory societal norms, a combination that makes their work particularly dangerous and invisible. …The persistent violence and lack of effective guarantees for human rights protection are a stark reminder of what is at stake as COP30 comes to Belém.
The Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the climate emergency and human rights made it clear: States must take proactive steps to ensure the effective protection of environmental defenders — including for those such as Indigenous and women EHRDs who are most at risk of retaliation. The Court recognized EHRDs are “allies of democracy”, whose work takes on even greater importance amid the urgency and complexity of the climate emergency. It reaffirmed the right to defend human rights as an autonomous right and declared that States have a special duty of protection toward those who exercise it, and recognized the double layer of risk faced by women environmental defenders, requiring an even higher duty of care. The Court also formulated very concrete recommendations on what this means at the national level.
The Escazú Agreement and the Aarhus Convention both enshrine explicit provisions on the protection of EHRDs, setting legal and institutional frameworks to operationalize these duties. Recent work under these instruments has provided concrete guidance for States and businesses to uphold their obligations, safeguard civic space, and ensure defenders are protected and not penalized. The recent Action Plan under Escazú and the ad hoc rapid response mechanism under Aarhus are just a few examples marking concrete advances in protecting those facing threats.
At COP30, Parties can no longer ignore their human rights obligations. They have a duty to ensure that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—the central forum for global cooperation on climate action—and its outcomes align with legal standards. Rightsholders have been obstructed from participating and silenced the climate talks, a process that is deciding on their future. Restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and assembly, lack of transparency in the host country agreements, persistent visa barriers and financial burdens, continue to limit access. In recent COPs, civic space has continued to shrink, with obstruction often led by the very States hosting the negotiations.
Brazil has a chance to do things differently, by making civic space at COP30 and the protection of environmental defenders a true priority. This includes guaranteeing safe conditions for the meaningful participation before, during, and after COP30 and beyond. And it also means taking steps domestically, starting with the urgent ratification of the Escazú Agreement. Brazil has a key role to play in building upon its legacy of international environmental leadership and steering negotiations at the COP towards rights-based outcomes.
COP30 indeed offers a crucial moment to enhance the protection of defenders through critical decisions expected in Belém: the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) and the Gender Action Plan (GAP).
As highlighted by the recent report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Mary Lawlor, a just transition should be grounded in the protection of those who defend rights and call out false climate solutions, from Indigenous Peoples and land defenders opposing harmful mining projects to workers’ advocates demanding fair and equitable transitions. All decisions, measures, and mechanisms designed to enable a just transition from the fossil fuel economy must protect a safe and enabling civic space, and ensure the meaningful participation of EHRDs.
..
There is no climate justice without human rights and without protecting those on the frontlines. EHRDs step in to protect what governments have neglected, and their courage exposes States’ failure to meet their climate and human rights obligations. Despite the risk, around the world, defenders continue to organize, resist, and demand climate justice, leading the way forward. In their resistance lies the chance of a just and sustainable future.
Since 1989, CIEL has used the power of law to protect the environment, promote human rights, and ensure a just and sustainable society.
With offices in Washington, DC, and Geneva, Switzerland, CIEL’s team of attorneys, policy experts, and support staff works to provide legal counsel and advocacy, policy research, and capacity building across our four program areas: Climate & Energy, Environmental Health, Fossil Economy, and People, Land & Resources.
On 5 November 2025 Amnesty international endorsed this kind of view under the title “What is COP and why is this year’s meeting in Brazil so important?”
In a first-of-its-kind investigation into the closed-door negotiations of the UN’s budget in New York, ISHR uncovers how a small group of States – led by China and Russia – have coordinated efforts to block and slash funding for the UN’s human rights work through political manoeuvring and influence. At a moment of sweeping UN reform and financial crisis, these efforts – compounded by the US failure to pay their UN membership fees and outstanding debts – pose an existential threat to the UN’s human rights system.
…The UN’s historically underfunded human rights work now faces an existential threat due to budget cuts under the UN80 Initiative and the UN’s liquidity crisis, fuelled by the failure of the United States, China and other countries to pay their contributions in full and on time. Drawing from dozens of interviews and combing through official documents and internal budget negotiation documents from 2019 to 2024, ISHR’s report ‘Budget Battles at the UN: How States Try to Defund Human Rights’ finds that China and Russia have led a sustained effort to build influence, disrupt proceedings, and politicise technical discussions at the UN General Assembly’s Fifth Committee (5C), where States negotiate the UN’s budget, and its little-known yet influential advisory body, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). Over the past decade, Chinese influence within these bodies has expanded sharply, the report shows. Beijing has invested heavily in building its representation at the 5C, the ACABQ and other related bodies to push heavy budget cuts to human rights. Russia has frequently played the role of outspoken spoiler in negotiations, enabling China to deploy its influence more quietly but effectively behind closed doors.
Russian and Chinese diplomats have weaponised UN budget negotiations to serve their own interests and shield allies from scrutiny, at the expense of human rights. Budget negotiations should be solely guided by the goal of adequately funding the UN’s work, not serving as a political tool to weaken accountability and rights protection.‘ – Madeleine Sinclair, Director of ISHR’s New York office..
A deepening cash crisis The report finds that years of underfunding and attacks on the UN’s human rights budget are now being compounded by a severe liquidity crisis triggered by US and Chinese late or non-payment of dues, while the United Nations undergo urgent reform. Since taking office in January 2025, the Trump Administration has launched repeated assaults on UN bodies, often on grounds of an alleged ‘anti-Israel bias’, abruptly blocking the payment of overdue contributions from 2024 dues and all of the US contributions for 2025, while cutting nearly all voluntary funding to the UN. As the US, the largest contributor, withholds this vast portion of the UN budget, Beijing’s increasingly late payments risk depriving the UN of over 40% of its operational cash flow for 2025. Meanwhile, China’s paying in full but extremely late has a similar result to not paying contributions in full, as a little-known State-imposed UN rule perversely returns unspent cash – that could not be used as it came so late – to Member States in the form of credits to future dues. In 2024, China paid its contributions on 27 December, four days before the year’s end. The broader US withdrawal from multilateralism also enables China and Russia to further grow their influence in shaping a more State-centric UN, at the expense of civil society and the universality of human rights.
….
UN80 reform risks deepening the damage US cuts also forced the UN into an unprecedented race for reform through the UN80 Initiative, an internal reform drive to make the organisation more efficient and effective, yet so far focused primarily on austerity and cost-cutting. Initial cuts proposed by the Secretary-General in September slash the human rights budget by 15%, a higher percentage than cuts proposed for the UN’s development and peace and security work. Further cuts are expected once the ACABQ reviews the Secretary-General’s proposals, and States table additional reform proposals under UN80 in the coming months.
‘China and Russia have long exploited UN processes in order to spin a web of influence against human rights progress, and now the Trump administration is moving in that same direction. But this is not irreversible. The UN80 Initiative must be more than a hunt for ‘efficiency’: it should be a collective effort towards meaningful, human rights-driven reform. For this, States, and particularly Global South countries who have a clear stake in having strong, responsive UN human rights bodies, can still take back the space and ensure funding for a UN that advances human rights protection on the ground for all.’ – ISHR Executive Director Phil Lynch
Funding for the UN’s human rights work is on the brink of collapse at a time when it is most needed to address global crises…
On this International Day of Political Prisoners, the NGOs mentioned below stand together to affirm a simple truth: no one should be imprisoned for exercising their fundamental rights or for peacefully expressing their beliefs. Yet around the world, there are an estimated one million political prisoners, who are unjustly detained for political reasons. These individuals—journalists, human rights defenders, democratic opposition leaders, religious leaders, artists, and ordinary citizens—represent the conscience of their societies. Their imprisonment is an assault not only on their freedom, but on the shared principles of human dignity and justice.
The International Day of Political Prisoners originated in the Soviet Union in 1974, when political prisoners collectively held a one-day hunger strike. Soviet prisoners of conscience repeated this protest every October 30, supported by demonstrations of solidarity in major cities. In response to Vladimir Putin’s ongoing and deepening repression, Russian political prisoners rekindled the tradition in 2021. In the years since, it has become an international day of solidarity with political prisoners worldwide.
Political imprisonment corrodes the rule of law, silences dissent, undermines press freedom, and weakens the foundations of democracy. Authoritarian governments use it to suppress opposition, instill fear, and consolidate control. Each unjust detention sends a chilling message to others who seek to speak truth to power.
We, as organizations who advocate on behalf of those unjustly detained around the world, call on democratic governments to continue to make the release of political prisoners a global priority—to raise these cases consistently in bilateral and multilateral forums, to request information and specific actions be taken on the prisoners’ behalf, to support accountability mechanisms, and to continue to provide support to organizations that advocate on behalf of those unjustly detained and provide legal and humanitarian assistance to them and their families. Solidarity with the unjustly detained must be sustained, coordinated, and visible.
We also stand in solidarity with the families, lawyers, and civil-society organizations who continue to advocate for freedom in the face of repression. Their courage reminds us that the defense of liberty is a collective responsibility.
On this day, and every day, we reaffirm our shared commitment to the universal right to freedom of thought, expression, association, and belief. The world’s political prisoners must not be forgotten—and their freedom must remain a global cause.
Signed:
Freedom House
Free Russia Foundation
McCain Institute
National Endowment for Democracy
Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran
Al-Tahreer Association for Development (TAD)
Amnesty International
Center for Civil Liberties
Committee to Protect Journalists
Freedom Now
George W. Bush Institute
Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign
Human Rights Center Viasna
Human Rights Defense Center Memorial
Human Rights First
Human Rights Foundation
Human Rights Watch
International Republican Institute
James W. Foley Legacy Foundation
Lantos Foundation for Human Rights & Justice
Oma Organization for Human Rights and Democracy Promotion
Organization for Community Civic Engagement
OVD-Info
Political and Governance Development Academy
Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP)
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion Irene KhanMary Lawlor UN Special Rapporteur for human rights defenders
On 5 August 2025 a group of United Nations human rights experts has written to the Kenyan government over allegations of serious human rights violations. These violations include the killing of protesters, the arrest and detention of human rights defenders, the deportation of a Ugandan lawyer, and the suppression of media freedom during the June 25 protests across the country.
The letter (referenced AL KEN 3/2025,) was sent by four UN Special Rapporteurs, namely Mary Lawlor (Human Rights Defenders), Matthew Gillett (Arbitrary Detention), Irene Khan (Freedom of Expression), and Gina Romero (Freedom of Assembly and Association).
Copies of the letter were also shared with the governments of Uganda and Tanzania, given their involvement in the alleged incidents. The Kenyan government was given 60 days to respond to the communication before being made public on the UN’s human rights website.
By October 22, Kenya had not responded to the contents of the letter. The experts expressed grave concern over what they described as “an emerging pattern of criminalisation and harassment of human rights defenders in Kenya.”
According to the communication, nationwide protests on June 25, 2025, left 16 people dead and hundreds injured. The demonstrations, which marked the first anniversary of the 2024 anti-Finance Bill protest, were allegedly met with excessive police force.
During the protests, several major media houses reportedly had their transmission centres raided by police and communication officials who switched off live broadcasts. The Communications Authority of Kenya allegedly issued a directive barring media outlets from airing live coverage of the protests, a decision later suspended by the High Court in Milimani, which termed it “potentially unconstitutional” pending a hearing scheduled for October 24, 2025.
The letter cites the arrest of Mark Amiani, John Mulingwa Nzau, and Francis Mutunge Mwangi, all members of the Social Justice Centres Working Group, who were detained by police on June 27 while travelling to work in Mombasa. They were later charged with incitement of violence, damage to property, and theft, though the experts said no credible evidence was presented in court.
They were held for five days before being released on bail on July 2, with conditions requiring them to report to the police twice weekly. Their next court hearing was scheduled for August 21, 2025.
Prominent activist and photojournalist Boniface Mwangi was also arrested at his Nairobi home on July 19, where police allegedly confiscated electronic equipment and even tear gas canisters. He was charged with unlawful possession of ammunition and released on bail two days later.
The UN experts noted that Mwangi had previously been arrested several times and was abducted in Tanzania in May 2025, before being found in Kenya’s coastal town of Ukunda days later.
The letter further highlighted the deportation of Ugandan lawyer Martin Mavenjina, a senior legal advisor at the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), who was expelled from Kenya on July 5 despite having a valid residency and a Kenyan family.
He was allegedly detained at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport and forced onto a flight to Kampala without being informed of the reason or given access to legal counselADVERTISEMENT
A day after Mavenjina’s deportation, armed men reportedly stormed a press conference hosted at the KHRC offices in Nairobi, where women and widows were calling for an end to police brutality and enforced disappearances. The assailants allegedly destroyed journalists’ equipment and accused the women of organising protests. Despite reports being filed, no investigations have been launched, according to the letter.
UN calls for action and accountability: The UN experts urged the Kenyan government to clarify the legal basis for the arrests, detentions, and deportations, and to end the intimidation of journalists and human rights defenders.
They also demanded investigations into the killings and injuries from the protests.
The experts warned that the events “constitute blatant violations” of international human rights laws, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees freedoms of
On 13 October 2025, Nina Lakhani, climate justice reporter the Guardian, published this interview with Mary Lawlor, UN special rapporteur for human rights defenders, who presented her final annual thematic report during an interactive dialogue at the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly’s Third Committee. The Special Rapporteur’s report focused on the contributions of human rights defenders addressing climate change and working to realise a just transition from fossil fuels, and the risks they face in carrying out this work.
Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur for human rights defenders since 2020, has documented hundreds of cases where states have sought to smear and silence climate defenders engaged in peaceful protest, non-violent civil disobedience and litigation.
“Attacks against climate defenders have surged over the course of the mandate, and we now see outright repression against people who are organizing for climate action. It’s some of the states that have claimed to be the strongest supporters of human rights defenders including the UK, Germany, France and the US, that are most often repressing climate activists and where the right to protest is being denigrated and delegitimized.
“These big countries spew out the rhetoric about 1.5C, but they don’t mean it. They are playing the game to suit themselves. It’s business as usual,” Lawlor said in an interview with the Guardian.
It documents state repression including police violence and surveillance, civil litigation deployed to deliberately wear down and silence climate defenders known as Slapp (strategic lawsuits against public participation), as well as bogus criminal charges ranging from sedition, criminal defamation, terrorism and conspiracy to trespass, to public disorder and to disobedience.
One trend documented by Lawlor is the conflation of non-violent climate action with terrorism. In 2022, the French minister of interior at the time, and current minister of justice, accused the national environmental movement Les Soulèvements de la Terre of “ecoterrorism”. The government sought to close down the group, but the country’s highest administrative court eventually overturned the effort.
Lawlor is adamant that climate activists are human rights defenders. They use non-violent protest, disruptive civil disobedience and litigation to stop fossil fuel projects and pressure elected officials to take meaningful action precisely because they are trying to protect the right to food, clean water, health, life and a healthy environment.
But it’s not just fossil fuels. Human rights are now being targeted in the rush for critical minerals and new sources of non-fossil energy. The same repressive playbook is being used by governments and private companies involved in land grabs, pollution and Indigenous rights violations in pursuit of a green transition.
“Governments are repressing human rights defenders and the current trajectory is incompatible with the realization of human rights for all. It’s just a road to destruction … I think states are behaving in a criminal fashion,” Lawlor said.
“No system, no power, no government, no big company seeking profit should trump the rights of billions of people in the world. And that’s what’s happening. It’s the rich, the powerful that are creating such a disaster for humanity.”
On 16 October 2025 Amazon Watch reported that more than 130 civil society and human rights organizations from across Latin America and around the world have issued an urgent appeal for an immediate end to repression, militarization, and human rights violations by the Ecuadorian government. The statement follows weeks of violent crackdowns against Indigenous-led protests that began on September 21, when social movements mobilized to defend democracy, rights, and the environment amid controversial government reforms.
According to Ecuadorian human rights groups, the government’s response has been brutal and disproportionate: at least three people have been killed, including Indigenous leader Efraín Fuerez; over 282 people injured; 172 detained; and 15 temporarily disappeared. Reports also confirm attacks on journalists, raids without warrants, internet blackouts, and summary deportations, while military operations continue across several provinces.
The joint declaration denounces the criminalization of Indigenous and human rights defenders, who face fabricated charges of terrorism, sabotage, and illicit enrichment, along with the freezing of organizational bank accounts. The signatories condemn President Daniel Noboa’s use of racist and stigmatizing rhetoric to justify state violence and to discredit legitimate social protest.
“Defending life, land, human rights, and freedom of expression cannot be criminalized. Peace cannot be imposed by force; it is built on truth, justice, and dialogue,” the statement affirms.
The organizations also point to international alarm: on October 8, seven United Nations Special Rapporteurs expressed concern about the repression and institutional rollbacks that weaken environmental protections and Indigenous rights. Two days later, members of the European Parliament called for a public EU statement, a monitoring mission, and a review of the E.U.–Ecuador Trade Agreement under its human rights clauses.
In response to the escalating crisis, Amazon Watch has launched an international action urging President Noboa to cease all violence immediately, end the criminalization of Indigenous movements, and ensure full respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Download the statement in PDF format to view a complete list of signatories.
During October 2025, new guidelines on Environmental Protest and Civil Disobedience were released by Michel Forst, UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention.
The new guidelines aim to support states, civil society, environmental activists, and legal practitioners in understanding and implementing the rights guaranteed under the Aarhus Convention. The document underscores that individuals and groups have a recognised international right to engage in peaceful environmental demonstrations, even when challenging public or private actors whose practices may harm the environment.
The document outlines five guiding principles to help states ensure that peaceful environmental activism is respected, not repressed:
Address the root causes of the protest: Governments should tackle the real reasons behind environmental protests, such as inaction on environmental protection, lack of transparency, or exclusion from decision-making.
Reject criminalization of defenders: Authorities and media must stop portraying environmental activists as criminals and instead recognize their legitimate role in defending public interests.
Protect civic space: Civil disobedience must not be used as a pretext to restrict fundamental freedoms or limit peaceful public expression.
Ensure human rights–based policing: Law enforcement responses must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate — never arbitrary, excessive, or punitive.
Uphold justice and civic freedom: Courts should avoid rulings or sanctions that discourage peaceful protest or shrink civic space.
Furthermore, the guidelines recognize that some environmental defenders may resort to civil disobedience when legal channels fail, and the guidelines set out conditions under which such acts may be tolerated (e.g., proportionality, non-violence, necessity, public interest). The guidelines stress the need for states to prevent and remediate retaliatory actions against protestors, such as legal harassment, surveillance, excessive use of force, or criminalisation of protest. The text encourages states to review and reform national laws, police protocols, and judicial practices to ensure that protest rights are respected, especially for environmental defenders, and it calls for transparent mechanisms to monitor how protests are handled, report abuses, and hold responsible persons and institutions to account.
The guideline highlights that public authorities (including political figures) should refrain from using language labelling protesters as threats, “eco-terrorists,” or “foreign agents”, and media (especially public or state media) should maintain factual accuracy, avoid derogatory language, and refrain from mischaracterising environmental defenders.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) recently published its General Comment on the environmental dimension of sustainable development. In addition to recognising human rights defenders, the Comment clarifies State obligations towards marginalized communities and notes the importance of transitioning away from fossil fuels. It also outlines States’ extraterritorial obligations.
ISHR provided two written inputs to the draft of this General Comment earlier this year – a standalone submission regarding the recognition and protection of environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs) based on the Declaration+25, a supplement to the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, and a joint submission in partnership with the Center for International Environmental Law, Earthjustice, FIAN International, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam.
‘States parties should respect, protect, and promote the work of environmental and indigenous human rights defenders, as well as other civil society actors who support people in marginalized and disadvantaged situations in realizing their Covenant rights.’ States parties should take all necessary measures to ensure that environmental human rights defenders and journalists can carry out their work, without fear of harassment, intimidation or violence, including by protecting them from harm by third parties.’
ISHR welcomes that priorities from the joint NGO submission to the CESCR are reflected in the General Comment, in particular Indigenous Peoples’ right to ‘free, prior and informed consent’ and the need to transition away from fossil fuels (including by reducing ineffective subsidies).
However, we regret that the Comment does not more explicitly acknowledge the critical role of EHRDs in promoting sustainable development or strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) as an obstacle to their engagement. The CESCR has previously noted the risks faced by HRDs and provided guidance on their recognition and protection in the context of land issues in General Comment No. 26 and it should have extended this analysis to EHRDs in the context of sustainable development. The use of SLAPPs to silence HRDs has been acknowledged by other UN bodies, including in the most recent report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Ms. Mary Lawlor, to the Third Committee of the General Assembly.
Some additional highlights from the General Comment are set out below.
The Committee found that ‘[t]he full realization of Covenant rights demands a just transition towards a sustainable economy that centres human rights and the well-being of the planet’.
States should supervise commercial activity, establish a legal obligation for businesses in respect of environment and human rights due diligence, and ensure that victims of human rights violations stemming from businesses have redress.
States have obligations to conduct human rights and environmental impact assessments, which are to be undertaken with ‘meaningful public participation’.
States have an extraterritorial obligation to ensure that any activities within the State or in areas under its control do not substantially adversely affect the environment in another country. This also extends to preventing businesses in the State from causing such harm in another jurisdiction. Even though the CESCR does not expressly mention it in the Comment, this should also apply to cases of attacks against EHRDs.
The CESCR also clarifies States’ obligations towards marginalized communities, spotlighting the concept of intersectionality. It also explicitly notes that equal exercise of economic, social and cultural rights by women and men is a prerequisite for sustainable development, encouraging States to redistribute the unpaid domestic work undertaken by women and girls.
Environment-related obligations have also been set out for States in the context of specific Covenant rights, for example, the right to self-determination , right to freely utilize natural resources , right to work , right to an adequate standard of living, right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, right to education and other economic, social and cultural rights.
The General Comment recognises that certain communities are particularly vulnerable to the effects of environmental degradation – it calls on States to identify and protect those at risk. The CESCR focuses particularly on children (specifically calling for child rights defenders to be recognised and protected and for their participation in climate action to be facilitated), Indigenous Peoples, peasants, pastoralists, fishers and others in rural areas, and displaced persons.
‘Environmental degradation, including climate change, intensifies the vulnerabilities of individuals and groups who have historically experienced and/or experience marginalization. These vulnerabilities are shaped by intersecting factors such as socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, gender, disability, age, migratory status, sexual orientation, and gender identity.’
&format=jpeg)
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 