Archive for the 'Human Rights Council' Category

Indigenous leader Brooklyn Rivera one of many to die in Nicaraguan custody

June 4, 2026

Collage: La Prensa

On 3 June 2026 UN experts expressed dismay at the death in custody of Indigenous Miskitu leader and lawmaker Brooklyn Rivera, and the allegations of enforced disappearance of seven members of his family who had come to claim his remains.

It is outrageous that repeated warnings and calls for protection have gone unheeded. We consider it an act of cruelty that the Nicaraguan Government is reportedly not allowing Brooklyn Rivera’s family to make decisions about funeral rites and the burial of his remains,” the experts said. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2026/03/14/where-is-nicaraguan-indigenous-leader-brooklyn-rivera/]

On 2 June 2026 La Prensa listed 8 victims. [https://www.laprensani.com/2026/06/02/english/3710346-these-are-the-eight-political-prisoners-who-died-in-the-custody-of-the-ortega-murillo-dictatorship]

They called for a prompt, effective, thorough, independent, impartial and transparent investigation into the circumstances of Rivera’s death in line with international standards, in particular the Minnesota Protocol, and for those responsible to be held accountable.

UN human rights mechanisms have followed this case since 2023 and have repeatedly raised concerns for Brooklyn Rivera’s life, physical integrity, health, and well-being. On 22 August 2025, the human rights experts wrote to the Government of Nicaragua about Rivera’s alleged arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance. They also requested proof of life from Nicaraguan authorities, following rumours of his death in custody. There was no response.

“The reported serious violations committed against Brooklyn Rivera and his family must stop. The Nicaraguan Government must reveal the fate and whereabouts of the seven missing family members and release them immediately,” the experts said.

They urged authorities to immediately respect the rights of Rivera’s family, including granting them access to all relevant information and records, ensuring their participation in decisions regarding his remains, and allowing funeral rites to be carried out in accordance with the family’s wishes and Miskito traditions.

The case of Brooklyn Rivera comes against the backdrop of a grave and sustained deterioration of the human rights situation in Nicaragua. On 1 May 2026, Human Rights Council’s experts warned of a pattern of enforced disappearances, incommunicado detention and detention conditions that could amount to torture or other cruel treatment. In March 2026, the report of a Group of Experts on Nicaragua described repression and persecution by authorities as systematic, amounting to, prima facie, crimes against humanity.

“Rivera’s case cannot be separated from the broader and deeply troubling human rights context in Nicaragua, including the repression of dissent, attacks on civic space, and the persecution of Indigenous leaders, human rights defenders and those perceived as opponents,” the experts said.

The arrest and subsequent enforced disappearance of Rivera occurred after his return from participation in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2023, the experts noted.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/06/nicaragua-un-experts-demand-truth-and-accountability-after-indigenous-leader

Theo van Boven, a giant in the field of international human rights law: 1934 – 2026. A personal look back.

May 19, 2026

Today was the funeral of one my best friends and, more importantly, one of the most significant architects of the international human rights system as it developed in the last 50 years. Theo (Theodoor Cornelis) van Boven, was born in Voorburg on 26 mei 1934 and died peacefully in Maastricht on 9 mei 2026.

I have had the honor to work with him for many years [our lives intertwined over a long period of time and on different locations] and wrote about him several times. Most recently “Courageous Leaders and NGO Initiatives” in Ramcharan and others (ed), The Protection Roles of Human Rights NGOs, Essays in honour of Adrien-Claude Zoller, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, 2023 (ISBN 978-90-04-51677-9), pp 614-636.

So, here a large part of the section on this great man:
This section is about a man who was crucial in getting the United Nations and NGO partners to deal with human rights protection. Much has been written about his work and the enormous contribution Theo van Boven made to the UN human rights machinery as we now know it. ..
Nowadays the United Nations has an elaborate machinery to deal with human rights violations. The system is far from perfect and still too often subject to political pressures and selectivity but there are now a great many thematic and country mandates, emergency sessions and there is an International Criminal Court against impunity. Wind back 40 years and none of this existed. The violations were there for all to see but not for the United Nations, which preferred to consider this part of the ‘internal affairs of sovereign states’. The man who would make it his life’s mission to change this, Theo van Boven, got in 1977 the position from where to do it: Director of Human Rights in the UN.

His teenage years were eaten up by the second world war. His memories of that period, his strict protestant background and his law studies in Leiden led him to enter an area that was not so obvious at the time: international human rights. He studied in the USA, wrote there a thesis on freedom of religion and soon afterwards, around 1960, he found himself as a young diplomat shaping the human rights policy of the Netherlands. A decade later the protest against the Vietnam war, the violations by the Greek colonels, the coup d’état in Chile and President Carter’s new policy on human rights pushed human rights suddenly higher on the political agenda. Theo had become an expert member of the UN Sub-commission on Human Rights and was one of the engineers of the first UN effort to investigate large-scale human rights violations, namely Chile. I myself met him when he was still a young professor lecturing on human rights in Amsterdam. Then – in the summer of 1977, the same month I started at the ICJ – he was appointed Director of the small human rights secretariat of the UN in Geneva. Here he started his work to bring dictators to accountability and to give the UN a capacity to deal with gross and systematic violations of human rights. Something that is now taken for granted but it would cost Theo his job.

Unlike his predecessors, Theo van Boven did not put all his faith in quiet diplomacy and he regularly talked about the need for the UN to address gross and systematic violations, about the mobilisation of shame and stated that the UN should care about victims. He also started to receive the victims – and the NGOs who represent them – in his office. This led to an incident that would be comic if it was not for the consequences. J. Matarollo was an Argentinean exile lobbying against the generals in his homeland who were killing left-wing opponents by the thousands. Theo agreed to hear him and told his secretary (inherited from his predecessor) to call Matarollo to give him an appointment in the early of hours of the next day. She faithfully called the Argentinean embassy assuming that he was a diplomat as these were the kind of people that normally met with the Director. The next day there was no Matarollo but an angry Note Verbale from Argentinean Ambassador Martinez accusing Theo of meeting with terrorists.

In the UN he did not conform to the image of the traditional diplomat, e.g. by pinning an anti-apartheid button on his suit, but even more so by publicly stating that NGO reports about dead bodies floating down a river in Guatemala were true, or by denouncing disappearances in Chile and Argentina. When in 1980 the government in the USA changed and Ronald Reagan and his team decided to play down violations by right-wing regimes, especially in Latin America, Theo did not flinch and openly criticised their support to these dictatorships. “Naming and shaming” by a UN official was unusual and not easily accepted by the diplomatic community. The Latin American regimes – led by Argentina and silently encouraged by the US – started a campaign to oust Van Boven as Director of Human Rights.

To complicate matters for van Boven, the new UN Secretary-General must have felt little sympathy for this particular Director, as J. Perez de Cuellar had earlier, in 1980, been appointed as Special Representative by the previous Secretary General to go to Uruguay and look into the human rights situation. His report was such a whitewash that it was heavily criticized in the Commission on Human Rights. How correct this reaction had been was shown when the famous pianist Estrella – whom de Cuellar claimed to have visited in the Libertad prison – came to Geneva and told the I.C.J and others that there had been no such visit.

In the meantime in 1980 Theo had put great energy – together with some key NGOs in creating a Working Group on Enforced Disappearances. As a mechanism focusing only on Argentina was politically not feasible, the new idea was to create a thematic mandate on the phenomenon of disappearances in the knowledge that Argentina was going to be the main target. At the decisive session the tension was enormous as the outcome of the vote was very uncertain. The Jordanian Chairman of that session had to deal with endless procedural issues, many of them proposed by Uruguay (egged on by Argentina which was only an observer). Finally, late at night the Chair felt that the resolution creating the mandate could be passed without a vote and moved to do so, but the Uruguayan Ambassador again started to put up his name plate as a sign that he wanted the floor. The Chairman quite unusually interrupting, looked directly at the Uruguayan Ambassador and said: “I URGE my brother from Uruguay NOT to do this..” The name plate slowly turned downwards again and the Chair immediately declared the resolution adopted. The NGOs and tens of Mothers and Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo in the public galleries started a spontaneous applause and quite a tear was shed. ..

In early 1982 the issue of Theo van Boven’s tenure as Director came to the fore. His contract had to be renewed which normally was a routine matter, but not this time. The issue came to an explosion when Theo’s opening speech to the Human Rights Commission was sent on a Friday evening to the UN Secretariat in NY for information and at the same time given to the UN Office of Information in Geneva for distribution at the time of delivery the next Monday morning. The UN Office of Information decided to make the statement available to the media that very Friday evening (with the usual proviso: “check against delivery”). The Representative of Guatemala in Geneva obtained a copy of the statement and vehemently objected to the statement. The SG’s office demanded that Theo should refrain from mentioning countries by name – which Theo refused not only out of principle but also because the press would notice the difference on Monday and assume that there had been pressure to remove the names.

As a family friend bringing the kids back from a ski outing, I happened to overhear Theo on the phone to New York agreeing to a ‘compromise’: he would mention at the beginning of his speech that certain passages were done in his ‘personal capacity’. A few days later Theo was suddenly informed that his contract would anyway not be prolonged. His announcement at a dramatic session of the Human Rights Commission grew quickly into an international diplomatic incident.

As I was on the verge of leaving the ICJ, I had some time on my hands. So I got the idea – warmly supported by Niall McDermot – to publish a book with a selection of Theo’s major speeches from the last five years. One of his Special assistants, Bertie Ramcharan, who had written a good part of them, was very helpful and we managed to get a book out within only 6 weeks. The first copy was flown in to Geneva by the publisher and presented to Theo at a public farewell which the ICJ had organised for him. NGOs, some UN staff and students showed up in such large numbers at the university hall that the fire brigade had to refuse access to late comers. Speech after speech – including by Saddrudin Aga Khan – cantered on Theo role in getting the UN machinery on human rights to deal with violations more concretely and on his support for human rights NGOs…

With Ian Guest and many others, I remain convinced that Theo’s dismissal from the UN was the result of pressure by Latin American dictatorships with support from the Reagan administration. As stated in People Matter, he was “hired and fired for the same reason: his deep commitment to human rights”.

After his dismissal Theo and his family returned to the Netherlands where many were very disappointed that there was no real interest in giving him an equivalent position in the foreign affairs department and he ‘ended up’ in the new University of Maastricht as professor of international law, where together with others such as Cees Flinterman he bent the research programme into his favourite direction: human rights. He continued his involvement in international activism in a variety of functions: with NGOs (e.g. European Human Rights Foundation, IMADR, International Alert), and with the UN (e,g. the Sub-commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Compensation 1990 -1993, Special Rapporteur on Torture 2001-2005, first Registrar of the UN Yugoslavia Tribunal). In 1998 he became the Head of the Dutch Delegation to the Rome Conference which created the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In 1985 he was called to Buenos Aires as a witness to testify against the nine military leaders (including Videla) for their human rights violations in the period 1976 en 1983. The UN had advised him not to go but he felt that he should do anything to end the impunity of these perpetrators. Theo’s testimony – he was called already on the 2nd day – was seen as crucial in establishing that the leaders of the Junta must have known about the massive violations. Theo took the same position with regard to the father of princess Maxima Zorreguieta (the wife of the king of the Netherlands). As Minister of Agriculture Jorge Zorreguieta must have known about the atrocities and should at least have taken distance instead of denying any knowledge. A position which Theo took in 2001 and was still heard defending in 2012.

In the light of Theo van Boven’s recurring clashes with Argentina it must have given him great moral satisfaction when on 26 November 2009 he received a degree honoris causa from the University of Buenos Aires as well as the highest decoration from the Government.

He was rigthly honored with 4 human rights awards, see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/01889BD2-06CD-49BA-9A71-1BBFFFA9121A

ICTJ stated: “Van Boven’s commitment to the pursuit of justice was relentless. He spoke up about impunity and accountability in contexts of repression such as the military dictatorships in Argentina and Chile, where he also championed the cause of the disappeared, even when political pressure limited others from doing so. Today, ICTJ honors his voice, his perspective, and his deep-rooted legacy. Inspired by his resolve, we will continue our commitment to uphold human dignity above all else in the pursuit of justice and lasting peace all over the world, however long it takes.

https://www.ictj.org/latest-news/ictj-mourns-passing-theo-van-boven-pioneer-victims%E2%80%99-rights

https://www.icj.org/icj-mourns-the-passing-of-theo-van-boven-a-leading-light-in-the-human-rights-movement

for the Dutch speakers :

https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2026/05/14/voorvechter-van-mensenrechten-theo-van-boven-was-voor-de-duvel-niet-bang-a4927748?gift_token=4927748~1779425764~ZoNkCp0IEeKfgABQVoV_mg~qz1T0tF_jkfHhM3-1nfqmOps9ohrOWVEsPKAKJ5VJVA

Alarm over yearlong detention of woman human rights defender Ruth López in El Salvador

May 19, 2026

On 18 May 2026 UN experts and Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International expressed serious concern about the yearlong pre-trial detention of lawyer and woman human rights defender Ruth Eleonora López Alfaro in El Salvador.

As time passes without the trial beginning, the presumption that detention is necessary is weakened,” the experts said.

López has been held in pre-trial detention for a year, officially authorised since 4 June 2025. During this time, she has been denied regular visits, despite precautionary measures ordered on 22 September 2025 by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. “This increases Ms. López’s vulnerability and puts her physical and psychological integrity at risk,” the experts said.

In maintaining judicial secrecy, the public is prevented access to hearings and the defence’s access to the criminal file is limited, thereby threatening the principle of equality of arms and the right to an adequate defence. The right to legal assistance of a lawyer of one’s choice is a cornerstone of the right to defence as established in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

“The circumstances of detention and the irregularities in the proceedings, point towards López being subject to reprisals because of her legitimate activities as a human rights defender and lawyer,” they said.

The experts underscored that there are elements suggesting that the criminalisation and prolonged pre-trial detention of Ruth López not only stem from her work exposing corruption and human rights violations, but also appear to reinforce patterns of social control designed to silence women leaders in the public sphere, while also seriously undermining the work of their organisations.

The experts urged the State to release Ruth López Alfaro immediately and consider alternative measures instead of keeping her in custody. They also called for the removal of the judicial secrecy imposed in the criminal proceedings, the cessation of all acts of harassment against her, and guarantees that she may carry out her human rights work without fear of reprisals. The experts are in contact with the Government of El Salvador on this matter.

See also: UN experts concerned by weaponisation of Interpol red notices against human rights defenders from El Salvador

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/05/el-salvador-un-experts-alarmed-yearlong-detention-woman-human-rights

https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/05/18/el-salvador-human-rights-lawyer-still-in-jail-one-year-on

https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/el-salvador-after-a-year-in-detention-and-repeated-rights-violations-authorities-must-immediately-release-ruth-lopez

https://www.humanrightsresearch.org/post/calls-grow-for-the-immediate-release-of-salvadoran-anti-corruption-lawyer-ruth-l%C3%B3pez

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/

Strategy 2030: ISHR’s new Strategic Framework

April 16, 2026

For over 40 years ISHR has worked with human rights defenders to promote freedom, dignity, equality and justice. We have partnered with them to strengthen human rights laws, systems, networks and narratives. Over the next decade the work of defenders, supported by ISHR, will be critical to reverse rising authoritarianism, combat the accelerating climate crisis, prevent regress in the areas of women’s rights and the rights of LGBTIQ+ people, address systemic racism and discrimination, adequately regulate new and emerging technologies, and promote accountability for widespread atrocity crimes, among other challenges.

This Strategic Framework is designed to ensure that human rights defenders and the international human rights movement and system are equipped to respond to these challenges. It will ensure that ISHR’s work is relevant, responsive, effective, efficient, impactful and sustainable, and that our partnerships are equitable, powerful and influential.

In developing this Framework, we consulted more than 800 human rights defenders working in diverse contexts and on diverse issues. The strategy is also informed by key intelligence and insights gathered over the period 2021-25 from 5 staff strategy retreats, 9 Board and expert panel discussions, over 10 programme and campaign evaluations, a 40th anniversary survey with key stakeholders, and an intensive 3-month process of internal and external reflection on 12 key strategic questions.

file:///Users/mlr/Downloads/ISHR%20Strategic%20Framework%202030%20overview.pdf

https://ishr.ch/defenders-toolbox/resources/ishr-strategy-2030

UN experts condemn murder of human rights defender Zweli ‘’Khabazela’’ Mkhize’ in South Africa

April 16, 2026

On 15 April 2026 UN experts deplored the killing of Zweli “Khabazela” Mkhize and urged South Africa to ensure accountability.

“Mkhize’s murder forms part of a sustained pattern of violence and killings targeting human rights defenders within the Abahlali baseMjondolo movement,” the experts said. “Such heinous acts of violence constitute a direct assault on the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms.”

On 20 January 2026, Mkhize was shot and killed by two men in the eNkanini occupation. Prior to his murder, he had been subjected to death threats as a result of his opposition to the illegal sale of local land. “Zweli ‘Khabazela’ Mkhize, a leading member of the Abahlali baseMjondolo movement, was renowned for his dedication to the protection of housing and land rights in South Africa,” the experts said.

They warned that land rights defenders face heightened vulnerability to attacks and threats to their lives in retaliation for their human rights work, stressing that robust measures must be put in place to ensure their effective protection in line with the State’s obligation under international law.

“We urge South Africa to ensure a prompt, effective, impartial and thorough investigation into the killing and to take all necessary measures to hold those responsible accountable,” the experts said.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/04/south-africa-un-experts-condemn-human-rights-defender-zweli-khabazela

Interview with Mary Lawlor the departing Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders

March 15, 2026

https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/22592839/

Drivetime on RTE Radio of 13 March 2026 carries an interview with Mary Lawlor the departing UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders about her work as a human rights activists.

https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/22592839/

see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2025/10/29/interview-with-mary-lawlor-departing-un-special-rapporteur/

Acid Attack Against Human Rights Defender Andrie Yunus in Indonesia

March 14, 2026

Front Line, Amnesty International, Forum Asia and several newspapers reported on this shocking event: On the evening of 12 March 2026, human rights defender Andrie Yunus became the victim of a targeted acid attack by two unidentified perpetrators in Central Jakarta. The human rights defender sustained severe chemical burns, including on his hands, face, chest, and eyes. The attack occurred immediately after Andrie Yunus participated in a podcast on ‘Remilitarism and Judicial Review in Indonesia’, a central topic of his human rights work. The human rights defender fell from his motorcycle, experiencing severe pain. He was immediately brought to the nearest hospital for emergency treatment. Medical examination confirmed burns on approximately 24% of his body.

Andrie Yunus is a human rights defender and the Deputy Coordinator for External Affairs of KontraS, the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Komisi untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan). Founded in 1998, it is one of Indonesia’s leading human rights organisations. KontraS monitors human rights situation in Indonesia and documents cases of enforced disappearances and state violence. Andrie Yunus was among the human rights defenders and activists who participated in the Fairmont Protest in March 2025. Since then, he has repeatedly been targeted with intimidation and harassment in connection with his human rights work. At the Fairmont Protest, Andrie Yunus was part of the efforts to oppose the revision of Indonesia’s Military Law (RUU TNI), which allows active-duty military officers to hold positions in 14 state institutions without needing to resign. The ratification of this law in March 2025 led to a significant expansion of the military into civilian and political affairs.

According to KontraS, none of Andrie Yunus’s belongings were stolen during or after the attack, indicating that robbery was not the motive. The organisation affirms that the attack was premeditated as the perpetrators selected the specific time and location immediately after Andrie Yunus’s public engagement on militarism in Indonesia. This attack has been the most severe incident in the series of intimidation attempts and violations against KontraS and its staff members. Since March 2025, KontraS’s office in Jakarta has been surveiled by unidentified persons and on multiple occasions in March and April 2025, army vehicles were observed stopping outside the office and photographing the premises.

Front Line Defenders strongly condemns the acid attack against human rights defender Andrie Yunus and asserts that it was a reprisal for his legitimate and peaceful work in the promotion and protection of human rights in Indonesia. Front Line Defenders is gravely concerned that this attack forms part of a broader and escalating pattern of intimidation targeting KontraS and other human rights defenders in the country.

Moreover: Unidentified assailants ambushed Veronika Lumban Tobing in Jakarta, beating her and warning her to halt activism on corruption and indigenous land rights. This violence directly ties to her exposés on elite-driven encroachments in North Sumatra, mirroring patterns where Human Rights advocates face retaliation for public interest work.

https://impactpolicies.org/news/840/indonesias-hrd-assault-signals-free-speech-crisis-under-eit-law

https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/case/acid-attack-against-human-rights-defender-andrie-yunus

https://en.antaranews.com/amp/news/408402/indonesias-kontras-urges-probe-after-activist-hurt-in-acid-attack

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesian-activist-maimed-in-acid-attack-ngo-urges-probe

https://www.kompas.id/artikel/en-teror-terhadap-andrie-yunus-terindikasi-terorganisir-yusril-desak-polisi-usut-tuntas

https://en.tempo.co/read/2092670/andrie-yunus-case-a-test-for-indonesia-at-un-human-rights-council

https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2026/03/16/a-brutal-warning-shot-the-decisive-moment-for-indonesias-fragile-democracy.html

Four members of the Indonesian Armed Forces have been arrested over an acid attack on a human rights activist in Jakarta

https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/24/indonesia-acid-attack-against-rights-activist

Andrea Bolaños Vargas next Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders?

March 10, 2026

The Human Rights Council President has proposed that States select Bolaños Vargas as the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders by the end of the body’s ongoing 61st session.

The Office of the President of the United Nations Human Rights Council has made public a letter in which it presents 15 candidates to fill mandates within the UN human rights system. This includes the key position of Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, for which the President has proposed Andrea Bolaños Vargas.

In selecting a new mandate holder, we urge States to commit to fully cooperating with the Special Rapporteur to promote and enable the work of human rights defenders everywhere. The work under this mandate is central at this time where we urgently need the voices of individual activists and civil society to reinvent multilateralism.

A Colombian national, Andrea Bolaños Vargas is a human rights expert with experience as a researcher and advisor for UN agencies, regional bodies, international, regional civil society and grassroots organisations across Latin America, particularly on migration, gender, and human rights protection issues.

Should the Council approve this nomination in the closing days of its 61st session, Bolaños Vargas will succeed Mary Lawlor, who has held the position of Special Rapporteur since 2020.

Andrea Bolaños Vargas became the next UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, by decision of the UN Human Rights Council at the close of its 61st session in Geneva on 31 March 2026.

https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/andrea-bolanos-vargas-set-to-become-next-focal-point-for-defenders-at-the-un

https://www.openglobalrights.org/andrea-bolanos-vargas/

https://andreabola.academia.edu/

https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/statement-report/andrea-bolanos-vargas-appointed-un-special-rapporteur-situation-human-rights

Checklist with criteria for candidates Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression

March 7, 2026

UN: Vacancy for Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression - Civic Space

In June 2026, the President of the UN Human Rights Council (the Council) will appoint a new UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Candidates must have the required expertise and experience in the field of the mandate, be independent and impartial, and show a high level of personal integrity and objectivity.

Alongside partners, we have developed a document including a checklist with criteria for candidates for the position. Its intention is to support all stakeholders in the identification of, and outreach to, highly qualified and independent candidates. It is also intended as a checklist that can be used by the President and Consultative Group of the Human Rights Council to ensure that only highly qualified and independent candidates are considered and appointed as the mandate holder.

It is part of a series of documents developed for vacant positions of Special Procedures mandate holders.

The signatory organisations call on governments, civil society, and other stakeholders, including relevant professional networks, to use this checklist to identify eligible candidates for the upcoming vacancy for the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Read the document

Signatories:

  • ARTICLE 19
  • Amnesty International
  • Access Now
  • Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  • DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
  • IFEX
  • International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)
  • International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
  • International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)