UN independent experts on 26 May 2025 expressed grave concern over the continued detention of Anar Mammadli, a prominent Azerbaijani human rights defender who was arbitrarily detained on 29 April last year. “Defending human rights should never be considered a crime,” the experts said.
Anar Mammadli, Chair of the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre (EMDS), was arrested on 29 April 2024 amid what experts describe as a growing clampdown on critical voices and independent election observers in Azerbaijan. His arrest came shortly after EMDS reported irregularities during the February 2024 presidential elections, and after he participated in events at the UN Human Rights Council.
On 28 June 2024, the experts wrote to the Azerbaijani authorities to raise serious concerns about Mammadli’s alleged arbitrary detention, warrantless searches, restricted access to legal counsel, deteriorating health conditions in detention and a smear campaign reportedly targeting him in retaliation for his legitimate human rights work.
“There are serious concerns that Mammadli’s detention and prosecution may be in retaliation for his human rights work and his engagement with UN mechanisms,” they said.
The Azerbaijani Government responded by denying the allegations, stating that Anar Mammadli was under investigation for smuggling and money laundering. According to their response, he has been provided with all necessary legal rights and medical care during his detention.
The experts are still concerned about the legal proceedings, especially given Mammadli’s previous imprisonment in 2013, which the European Court of Human Rights deemed unlawful and politically motivated. Despite the Court’s 2018 judgment requiring Azerbaijan to quash the conviction and restore Mammadli’s civil and political rights, these remedies have allegedly not been implemented.
The experts will continue to monitor the case, particularly with regard to any potential connection to reprisals for engagement with UN human rights mechanisms.
Resilience of Human Rights Defenders a Source of Hope Amid Global Rollback on Rights – At least 324 defenders killed in 32 countries for their peaceful work in 2024
On 6 May 2025 Front Line Defenders Global Analysis 2024/25 was published giving a detailed panorama of the violations against HRDs at risk in 105 countries in all regions. Despite an increasingly hostile world with expanded threats to their work, human rights defenders (HRDs) everywhere demonstrated a remarkable level of resilience and determination as they resisted a global rollback on human rights, Front Line Defenders said as it launched its flagship report.
The report also reveals statistics gathered and verified by the HRD Memorial – which Front Line Defenders coordinates – documenting the killings of at least 324 HRDs in 32 countries in 2024. HRDs working on land rights, citizen’s rights and Indigenous peoples’ rights each made up almost a fifth of the total, and the countries with the highest number of killings documented were Colombia (157), Mexico (32), Guatemala (29), Palestine (22) and Brazil (15). (See pp. 6-13 for complete data.)
“Year on year, hundreds of human rights defenders pay the ultimate price when they are killed for their work, having a devastating impact on their families and communities. It is a grim reflection of the immense danger faced by those who work peacefully to defend human rights,” said Alan Glasgow, Executive Director of Front Line Defenders.“Other threats and risks are manifold. Front Line Defenders’ analysis shows that women’s rights defenders globally and HRDs working in situations of conflict were among those most targeted for their work. It is a remarkable sign of these defenders’ courage that they continue their struggle despite such immense danger. They are the best among us, who fervently believe a better world is worth fighting for.”
Arbitrary arrest/detention was the most commonly reported violation against HRDs around the world, followed by threats/other harassment, legal action, death threats and surveillance. Women HRDs reported slightly higher levels of threats/other harassment compared to their male counterparts, while trans and non gender-conforming HRDs reported this as the most common violation they faced overall.
Criminalisation of HRDs remained rife with 107 charges filed in 75 cases. The most commonly cited charges were linked to defamation (23.4%); national security (19.6%); other criminal charges (12.1%); public order offences (11.2%); and terrorism-related charges (11.2%). In every region, governments and non-state actors turned to the judicial system to disrupt, stymie, stigmatise, bankrupt and imprison HRDs, regardless of the human rights they were defending. Counter-terrorism legislation and “Foreign Agent” laws were among those weaponised for use against HRDs.
According to Front Line Defenders data, defenders working on women’s rights were among the most targeted globally in 2024, ranking in the top three for all regions except one. This trend played out in numerous ways, with women human rights defenders (WHRDs) subjected to smear campaigns, criminalisation, arbitrary arrest and detention, as well as targeted with threats – including threats of sexual and gender-based violence.
WHRDs played key roles in protest movements seeking more just societies – for example in Bangladesh – faced stark discrimination in countries like Afghanistan and Iran, and shouldered heavy burdens in conflict and crisis situations, ranging from Gaza to Colombia, DRC, Myanmar, Sudan and Ukraine.
Dr. Mahrang Baloch, an outspoken WHRD from Pakistan’s Balochistan region, faced ongoing risks throughout the year, including travel bans, smear campaigns and arbitrary detention. At the time of publication she remains jailed in Quetta after being arbitrarily arrested for leading a peaceful protest. In a foreword provided to Front Line Defenders, she described why HRDs persist in their struggle:
“We must continue to resist. Because human rights defenders are the ones standing on the frontlines, risking everything so that others may find their missing loved ones, so that everyone can go to school, so that the silenced can speak, so that women raped in refugee camps can find justice, so that those fighting alone in their homes, their villages, their cities can know they are not alone. We must stand with them, and we must stand together. Not for a nation. Not for a religion. Not for a race. But for humanity. Because if we do not, who will?”
Dr. Sabiha Baloch is a woman human rights defender and member of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), a network focused on advocating for the human rights and interests of the Baloch people in Pakistan. Dr. Sabiha Baloch has faced reprisals due to her work, including attacks against her family. Notably, her work as a woman human rights defender has led to the abduction of her brother and relative, who were subsequently released after several months in detention. Dr. Sabiha Baloch has been an integral part of peaceful campaigns against extra judicial killings, enforced disappearances and arbitrary arrests in Balochistan. She was part of the Baloch Long March and the Baloch National Gathering in 2024, which faced severe State reprisals, including violence and arrests. Since March 2025, following the arrest of several leading human rights defenders and members of the BYC, Dr. Sabiha Baloch has continued to document and highlight violations, and demand the release of detained colleagues and protesters.
On 5 April 2025, Pakistani authorities arrested the father of Baloch woman human rights defender Beebow Baloch. He is currently detained at the Hudda District Prison in Balochistan under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Act (MPO). The woman human rights defender Beebow Baloch has also been held at the same prison under the MPO since her arrest on 22 March 2025.
On 7 April 2025, Pakistani authorities arrested woman human rights defender Gulzadi Baloch in Quetta, Balochistan, with disturbing reports of excessive violence being used during the arrest. For several hours following her arrest, there was no information about her fate or whereabouts, causing serious concerns for her physical and mental safety. She is presently held at the Hudda district prison under the regressive Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Act, which severely restricts access to bail.
The NGO Frontline demands that Baloch human rights defenders in Pakistan are protected from reprisals, and end their ongoing persecution and punishment in the State, including for exercising their right to free expression and peaceful dissent, under the guise of national security.
Born in Damascus, Syria, Lina is a filmmaker, journalist, and human rights defender, who in 2011 decided to pick up her camera and start filming, without a plan, but with the knowledge that she has a story to tell. What ensued are five years of conflict, arbitrary arrests, as well as torture and ill-treatment in detention, but also of hope that things would get better, despite a veto. Five Seasons of Revolution was recently screened at the International Film Festival and Forum on Human Rights in Geneva, in an event co-hosted by OMCT, partner of the festival. In this interview, Lina tells us more about her process and the challenges she encountered in the making of the film, as well as her hopes for the future of Syria.
What made you decide to start filming?
We started shooting in the summer of 2011, and a lot was already happening in Syria, but it was not clear how things were going to go. I was optimistic, thinking it would be over in six months, maybe a year, with a release within two years. It took 12 years.
It took more than five years of filming, and then many more to edit, because the country hadn’t stabilised, and the characters’ decision to participate in the film shifted with every new development, for their own safety. We had to go back, take characters out, then put them back in, and make amendments to the storyline. But it wasn’t all negative. During this time, deepfake technology improved and gave us a solution for the anonymity issue of some of the characters who chose to stay in Syria in a way that is safe and does not interfere with the visual narrative.
What was the most challenging part about the filming process?
Not knowing where it’s heading. As a filmmaker, you have, even in documentaries, a rough script, or an idea of where you are heading, but we couldn’t. It was like surfing, we just had to keep up with weird twists and turns. At some point, there were so many arrests in the group that I was filming, the characters just kept going in and out of jail, and at any given moment, we would lose one of them. I was arrested several times and the rest of the film crew had to come up with plan Bs for ‘what if we lose the director, who also happens to be the camera person and the sole contact to all the other characters, how do we finish the film?’ There was even one editing session that was held in my absence because I was detained, and they didn’t know when I would be released. It was really challenging.
What was the most challenging part about having to change your identity several times throughout filming?
It was very confusing, but it was also very necessary. In order to make it work, you have to internalise it to a certain extent, which was challenging. This confuses your relationships with the people you’re working with, with the people you’re socialising with, with the people that trust you, despite only knowing your fake name. Very strong bonds are formed under extremely difficult conditions and something always felt wrong about not being able to be fully honest with people. it also created these compartments of who I am because different parts of me had different names in different places… and they didn’t always get along. Walking out of it was also a challenge. Normalising being one person and only using one name, only answering to one name. It was quite a journey.
Towards the end of the documentary, you talk about your experience with your arrest. Did what you experienced in custody change your approach to the film, or your activism?
I did not encounter anything during my arrest that I did not previously know exists and happens. What was detrimental was the repetition of detentions because you know you might get away with it once, maybe twice, if you’re lucky three times. But when I was released for the third time, I realised I did not know anybody that survived a fourth arrest. I felt like a cat with seven lives and I was really running out of them. I think this affected not only my decision-making in the film, but decision-making in my life in general, which obviously had consequences.
What are three things you hope people remember after watching your film?
Number one is that simplistic reductionist scenarios of war into black and white, good and bad are never true. Number two is that nobody has a blueprint for what to do in these cases. People improvise, people try to find solutions on the spot under pressure, and these are not always ideal. But also, people can be much braver than they think, because at the end of the day we are survivors, all of us, and there is a lot more to us than we sometimes give ourselves credit for. And number three, friendship is really important.
You are a filmmaker, but also a human rights defender. What are your hopes now for Syria and its people?
I hope people will be able to recover. I hope people will be given a break, given a chance to process everything they went through, given a bit of time to find a way out of this gigantic mess. It will take generations to rebuild the country. I understand that people have endured so much for so long that they cannot take one more day of it, so there is understandably also a lot of emotions. I just hope that we have the ability to open our hearts a bit more, understand each other a bit more and that people will in return give us the chance to process everything….
Alan Lu for RFA on 5 March 2025 refers to a a new report which shows the extent of Beijing’s arbitrary detentions, with severe sentences for prisoners of conscience.
Chinese authorities have arbitrarily detained thousands of people for peacefully defending or exercising their rights over the past six years and convicted 1,545 prisoners of conscience, a rights group said on Wednesday.
Chinese Human Rights Defenders, or CHRD, a non-government organization of domestic and overseas Chinese rights activists, said the scope and scale of wrongful detention by Chinese authorities may constitute crimes against humanity.
“They were sentenced and imprisoned on charges that stem from laws that are not in conformity with the Chinese government’s domestic and international human rights obligations,” the group said in a report.
“Their cases proceeded through the full criminal justice system, with police, prosecutors, and courts arbitrarily depriving them of their liberty in violation of their human rights.”
Prisoners of conscience have faced severe penalties, with an average sentence of six years, increasing to seven for national security charges.
Three people, identified as Tashpolat Tiyip, Sattar Sawut and Yang Hengjun, were sentenced to death, while two, Rahile Dawut and Abdurazaq Sayim, received life sentences, the group said, adding that 48 were jailed for at least a decade.
Map of sentenced prisoners of conscience in mainland China, excluding Hong Kong and Macao. (CHRD)
Among the convicted, women activists and marginalized groups, including ethnic Tibetans and Uyghurs, were disproportionately represented among those wrongfully detained, the group said.
Out of all the prisoners of conscience aged 60 or older, two-thirds were women, it added.
“Human rights experts and international experts have raised that people over the age of 60 should generally not be held in custody due to the effects on their physical and mental health,” Angeli Datt, research consultant with CHRD, told journalists in a press briefing Wednesday.
“That two-thirds of them are women was really shocking to me,” she said.
“Worse still, the impunity Chinese government officials enjoy at home emboldens them to commit abuses abroad,” the group said.
China dismissed a Swiss report last month alleging that it pressures Tibetans and Uyghurs in Switzerland to spy on their communities.
‘Endangering national security’
The CHRD said that under Chinese leader Xi Jinping, the scope and scale of the use of arbitrary detention to silence critics and punish human rights personnel had grown.
The organization documented a total of 58 individuals known to have been convicted of “endangering national security.”
“The overall average prison sentence for a national security crime is 6.72 years, though this figure excludes those sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve or life imprisonment,” it said.
In Hong Kong, more people were convicted of “subversion” and “inciting subversion” — terms that the U.N. describes as “broad and imprecise, making them prone to misapplication and misuse.”
In one 2024 case, authorities convicted 45 people for participating in a primary election, an act fully protected under both domestic and international law. Subversion charges accounted for 37% of all prisoners of conscience sentenced in Hong Kong during this period.
The Zimbabwean authorities must immediately release human rights defenders who have been arbitrarily detained for over two weeks and drop charges against them, independent human rights experts said on15 August 2024.
Woman human rights defender Namatai Kwekweza, teacher and labour rights defender Robson Chere, the Secretary-General of Amalgamated Rural Teachers Union of Zimbabwe (ARTUZ), along with local councilor for Harare Ward 5, Samuel Gwenzi, were forcibly removed from a departing flight at Harare Airport on 31 July 2024. Unidentified men escorted the three to a high security zone within the airport and held them incommunicado for eight hours. During this time, the three were reportedly subjected to enforced disappearance, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including waterboarding. Additionally, they were severely threatened against protesting in advance of or during the Southern African Development Community (SADC) summit scheduled for 17 to 19 August 2024 in Harare.
“The enforced disappearance, incommunicado detention and torture, followed by the arbitrary detention of these human rights defenders is inexcusable, and not only violates international human rights law but also makes a mockery of the safeguards contained in Zimbabwe’s own Constitution,” the experts said.
The experts said, “These baseless charges are being used as a fig-leaf to target human rights defenders and opposition voices for calling for greater democracy, human rights and accountability in Zimbabwe. At a time when Zimbabwe is preparing to host the SADC summit, whose values include institutions that are “democratic, legitimate, and effective”, it is unconscionable that these human rights defenders working to strengthen such institutions remain arbitrarily detained.”
The release of the human rights defenders on bail has been opposed by the prosecutor and a further bail hearing has been scheduled for 16 August 2024. The experts have been in touch with the Government of Zimbabwe on the issue.
In response, Zimbabwean Government Spokesperson Ndavaningi Mangwana asserted on X (formerly Twitter) that Zimbabwe is a sovereign nation and will not tolerate interference in its internal affairs. Mangwana stated, “No country’s sovereignty can be compromised! The rule of law must be upheld within each nation’s borders. Even the United Nations Human Rights Council cannot interfere with the implementation of a country’s laws. Respect for sovereignty is paramount!”
On 18 April 2023 CHRD called on the Chinese government to immediately release human rights lawyer Yu Wensheng and his wife Xu Yan, who have been criminally detained and denied access to lawyers of their choice. CHRD also calls on the Chinese government to end its de facto house arrest of Yu Wensheng and Xu Yan’s 18-year-old son. CHRD urges the EU, EU member states, the US, UN bodies, and other member of the international community to forcefully condemn the Chinese government’s detention of Yu Wensheng and Xu Yan. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/03/03/breaking-news-mea-laureate-yu-wensheng-released/
On April 13 at approximately 4:00 pm, human rights lawyer Yu Wensheng and his wife Xu Yan left their home in Beijing to travel by subway to attend an event at the European Delegation. They were invited to an event with the EU’s Ambassador to China Jorge Toledo Albiñana according to Politico.
However, Yu and Xu were prevented from accessing the subway by four plainclothes police officers. One of the officers, a state security police officer, told them that they were being summoned to a police station, which Yu Wensheng announced on Twitter. The four police officers took them to the Shijingshan Bajiao police station. Human rights lawyers Wang Quanzhang, Li Heping, and Bao Longjun were also harassed by authorities during this period.
The EU Delegation to China tweeted on April 13, “We demand their immediate, unconditional release. We have lodged a protest with MFA [China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs] against this unacceptable treatment.”
According to Rights and Livelihood Watch, on April 15 in the evening, approximately seven police officers came to Yu Wensheng and Xu Yan’s home, and they orally read a criminal detention notice to the couple’s son, who had just turned 18 years old. The pair were criminally detained on the charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” Police would not allow the son to take photos, nor would they give him the criminal detention notice. Also, even though no warrant was presented, police proceeded to search the home and carried off many items.
On April 16, two lawyers, Song Yusheng and Peng Jian, paid a visit to Yu and Xu’s son to bring him fruit, and fill out paperwork to obtain legal status to represent Yu and Xu. There were two people guarding the door of Yu and Xu’s home. Lawyer Song knocked on the door, and it was answered by the son, but the lawyer saw that in the home there were also two officers inside, one plainclothes and one wearing a uniform. The plainclothes officer, who said his name was Lu Kai, asked what they wanted. The lawyers said that they were there to visit the son and have him sign an agreement (委托书) to entrust them as lawyers. However, the plainclothes police officers said that Yu Wensheng told them that he “doesn’t want to have lawyers at this stage” and that Xu Yan had already found two lawyers.
Yu Wensheng’s detention may also be related to his condemnation of the sentencing of Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi, two prominent pro-democracy figures. On April 12, Yu Wensheng wrote on Twitter that he had been visited at his home by Shijingshan police for a tweet he had sent out on April 9 that said, “[I] strongly condemn the Chinese authorities heavy sentence of scholar Xu Zhiyong to 14 years and of Lawyer Ding Jiaxi to 12 years! I pay my respects to Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi, who have worked hard in the struggle for freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. I believe that one day the Dream of a Beautiful China will be realized.”
In March 2022, Yu Wensheng was released from prison after serving four years and three months on the charge of “inciting subversion of state power.” Yu was taken away by police in 2018 the day after he released an open letter recommending changes to China’s Constitution, including a call for elections and the creation of an oversight system for the Chinese Communist Party.
The Chinese government has put heightened pressure on human rights award winners. Yu Wensheng was the recipient of the prestigious Martin Ennals Award in 2021 [see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/69fc7057-b583-40c3-b6fa-b8603531248e] and the winner of the Franco-German Prize for Human Rights and the Rule of Law in 2018. Previous winners of awards have been subjected to extra-legal abuse. While Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Liu Xiaobo was at one point granted “medical parole,” he was not allowed the freedom of movement to seek medical treatment outside of China and died in de facto state custody. Likewise, Hu Jia, a prominent human rights defender and winner of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 2008, was prevented from seeing his dying father in his final days. Hu Jia was deprived of his liberty and “forcibly traveled” starting from March 4 of this year. Being “traveled” is a common tactic used by state security officers to ensure journalists at the annual March Two Sessions meetings or other “sensitive” political events do not talk to dissidents. Hu Jia’s father passed away from pancreatic cancer on March 9, 2023.
The Chinese government is preventing defendants in sensitive cases from having lawyers of their own choice and instead mandating government-approved lawyers in order to prevent real legal defense. On February 10, 2023, digital rights activist Ruan Xiaohuan was sentenced to seven years in prison on the charge of “inciting subversion of state power.” His wife, Ms. Bei, wanted to hire an experienced lawyer for the appeals stage, and so she went to Beijing to talk with Shang Baojun. However, upon landing in Beijing, she was taken away by eight Shanghai police. Meanwhile lawyer Shang Baojun tried to visit Ruan at the Yangpu Detention Center in Shanghai, but staff there would not allow for the visit since they claimed that Ruan already had two legal aid lawyers.
The Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders, on 10 April 2023 condemned the Chinese government’s sentencing of Ding Jiaxi and Xu Zhiyong, two of China’s most notable human rights defenders. “Their sentencing once again demonstrates the Chinese government’s hostility to peaceful advocacy of democracy and human rights, and marks a new low in the Chinese government’s human rights record,” said Ramona Li, Senior Researcher and Advocate for the group.
On April 10, the Linshu County Court sentenced Ding Jiaxi to 12 years imprisonment and 3 years deprivation of political rights, and Xu Zhiyong to 14 years imprisonment. The court, located in Shandong province, found both guilty of the crime of subverting state authority following closed-door trials.
The government consistently violated their rights under international and Chinese law throughout their detention and trial. Both Ding Jiaxi and Xu Zhiyong had been held in prolonged pre-trial detention for over three years, including periods in a form of incommunicado detention referred to as “residential surveillance in a designated location” where both were subjected to torture. Ding Jiaxi’s lawyers attempted multiple times to have the court dismiss his “confessions” as illegally obtained evidence because of they had been extracted under torture; the court rejected these motions.
Ding Jiaxi and Xu Zhiyong were refused access to lawyers for the first thirteen months of their detention, and their attorneys were refused copies of the files containing the information on which the charges were based. Witnesses cited by the prosecution, Wang Jiangsong and Dai Zhenya, publicly refuted testimony that the prosecution alleged they had provided. Family members said that authorities charged the two in Linshu county, far away from Beijing, to avoid public scrutiny of the case.
Ding Jiaxi and Xu Zhiyong were active in the New Citizens Movement, which promoted a form of civic engagement through grassroots advocacy for the implementation of the civil and human rights based on China’s laws and constitution. They were both detained amid a crackdown on human rights activists and lawyers following an informal gathering in southern Fujian province in December 2019.
Ding Jiaxi is also a Beijing lawyer who has provided support to many of the most marginalized and underprivileged groups in China, including education rights for the children of migrant workers and grassroots petitioners appealing to central government officials as a last resort to address wrongdoing by local officials. Xu Zhiyong was also a prominent lawyer who was an instrumental figure in pushing through legal reforms defending the rights of China’s internal migrant population. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2020/03/24/un-experts-alarmed-over-chinas-missing-human-rights-lawyers-victims-of-rsdl/]
In a pre-written statement released before his sentencing, Ding Jiaxiconnected his work to his belief in the possibility of China’s “peaceful, rational, and non-violent” transition from an authoritarian state. He wrote: “No matter the many who have doubted me or the difficulties and setbacks I’ve encountered, including physical torture that I’ve suffered, I will not part from my steadfast convictions.”
In his own statement, Xu Zhiyong described his hopes for a liberal democratic China with free elections, equal access to education and job opportunities, and social support for even the poorest to have “enough to live a dignified life.” He said he had simply “called on Chinese people to become real citizens,” and explained the urgency of doing so, saying “we cannot saddle the next generation with this duty.” [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2014/01/24/xu-zhiyongs-closing-statement-to-the-court-a-remarkable-document/]
Both Ding Jiaxi and Xu Zhiyong should be immediately and unconditionally released per the recommendation of UN human rights experts, who have found that the two have been arbitrarilydetained in violation of international law. UN human rights experts have further characterized the crime of “subversion of state authority” as being so broadly worded that charges under the crime fail to provide adequate due process to the extent that they are in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“The heavy sentencing of Ding Jiaxi and Xu Zhiyong is a travesty of justice. At every step, Chinese authorities have taken the wrong turn: from detaining them in secret, torturing them, falsifying witness testimony, putting them on trial in secret, and now this heavy sentence,” said William Nee, Research and Advocacy Coordinator for CHRD.
“Democracies and international organizations around the world must stop paying only lip service to human rights. They must take concrete and credible measures to gain the release of Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi, as well as the thousands of prisoners of conscience in China, in the Tibetan and Xinjiang regions and Hong Kong,” said Renee Xia, CHRD executive director.
NOGs (such as Human Rights Watch and the Human Rights Foundation) have condemned the arrest of Cardinal Joseph Zen, as well as the lawyer Joseph Zen, the singer Denise Ho and the scholar Hui Po-Keung, for having maintained contacts with foreign forces in Hong Kong.
HRW Senior China researcher Maya Wang, said that “the arrest of a 90-year-old cardinal is the latest example of the city’s human rights freefall in recent years.”
The four, along with former lawmaker Cyd Ho, who is already in jail, were part of the 612 Humanitarian Aid Fund, which provided medical, legal and psychological help to protesters arrested during the 2019 pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. Kong.
Denise Ho, Margaret Ng, and others affiliated with Stand News, an independent pro-democracy online publication, were previously arrested by national security police in December 2021 under allegations of publishing “seditious” and “inflammatory” materials. Denise Ho formerly served on the board of Stand News, but stepped down in November 2021. Meanwhile, the 612 Humanitarian Support Fund ceased operations in October 2021 after national security police and Chinese state-backed media requested information on its beneficiaries and donors.
Maya Wang has specified that Hong Kong has “long been a regional leader in openness and respect for the rule of law, but now competes for the first places in Asia for repression and political prisoners.”
“The people of Hong Kong have been unequivocal in their demand for human rights, and governments around the world should be unequivocal in their response to that call,” concluded the HRW researcher.
On 8 March 2022 the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), requests an urgent intervention in the Philippines.
The Observatory has been informed by Karapatan Alliance Philippines (Karapatan) about the arbitrary detention and judicial harassment of Dr. Maria Natividad Marian “Naty” Castro, a public health practitioner and human rights defender. Ms. Castro has worked in the poorest and most marginalised areas in the Philippines as a community-based health worker. She has also worked for the defence of community rights of the indigenous Lumad and is a former National Council member of Karapatan.
In February 18, 2022, officials of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Philippine Army (PA) arbitrarily arrested Ms. Castro at her residence in San Juan City, Manila. The members of the PNP and PA presented an arrest warrant issued by the Regional Trial Court Branch 7 of Bayugan City, Agusan del Sur, in January 2020, on charges of “kidnapping” and “serious illegal detention” (Criminal Case No. 6527), filed by public prosecutor Genesis Efren in March 2019. Ms. Castro, together with 540 other individuals, is being accused of kidnapping and detaining an unknown individual in Barangay Kolambungan, Sibagat, Agusan del Sur Province, on December 29, 2018.
Following her arrest, Ms. Castro was taken to the San Juan City Police Station and then moved to the Quirino Memorial Medical Center in Quezon City to undergo medical examination. She was subsequently brought to the PNP’s headquarters in Camp Crame. However, neither her family members nor legal counsels were allowed to have contact with her, and their requests to bring her medicine for hypertension and diabetes were dismissed.
On the same day in the afternoon, Ms. Castro was flown to the island of Mindanao without her family or legal representatives being informed. On February 19, 2022, the authorities held Ms. Castro incommunicado. Only after multiple calls from her family and legal representatives, the PNP disclosed that Ms. Castro was being held at the Bayugan City Police Station in Agusan del Sur Province.
On the afternoon of February 20, 2022, Ms. Castro’s family and legal counsel were able to visit her and bring her medicines. On February 22, 2022, the Regional Trial Court Branch 7 of Bayugan City ordered her transfer to the Agusan del Sur Provincial Jail, where she was still being detained pending trial at the time of publication of this Urgent Appeal.
Ms. Castro’s lawyers filed a petition for bail and a motion to dismiss the charges against her. Both requests were pending before the court at the time of publication of this Urgent Appeal.
The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders notes that since November of 2020, Ms. Castro has been a victim of red-tagging. Her name and picture have been circulated on social media platforms in Lianga, Surigao del Sur Province, falsely accusing her of being a “communist”, a “terrorist”, and a member of the New People’s Army (NPA).
Human rights defenders in the Philippines have been subjected to trumped-up charges and lengthy pre-trial arbitrary detention. Karapatan members have been subject to frequent harassment, criminalisation, and attacks, including the killing of Ms. Zara Alvarez and the arbitrary detention of Teresita Naul, Alexander Philip Abinguna, Nimfa Lanzas, and Renayn Tejero. Ms. Naul was released on October 28, 2021, after 18 months of arbitrary detention. Mr. Abinguna and Mses. Lanzas and Tejero remain detained. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/05/27/william-zabel-human-rights-award-2021-to-philippines-ngo-karapatan/
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 