The urgent human rights issues in the Eastern Europe and Central Asia region are hugely varied and demand creative campaigns that are well-researched, well-planned and well-managed despite the time pressures that surround them.
JOB PURPOSE: To lead the identification, development, implementation and evaluation of Amnesty International’s campaigning and advocacy strategies on human rights violations in the Eastern Europe and Central Asia region, to deliver impact in relation to agreed priorities, utilizing political judgment and analytical, communication and representational skills.
ABOUT YOU
Lead the development and implementation of campaign strategies, ensuring campaigns result in measurable change.
Advise on, coordinate and review the contribution to relevant campaigns by regional colleagues and other programmes.
Coordinate action planning and ensure consistency with campaigning standards and optimal use of resources.
Assess opportunities for action, identifying creative and effective campaigning tactics.
Provide advice to sections and structures and external partners on the development and implementation of campaign strategies.
Responsible for ensuring there is effective communication between relevant IS teams, sections and structures and partners about projects.
Draft, review and advise on campaign materials for internal and external use, ensuring products are coherent within the campaign strategy.
Communicate AI’s concerns, positions and messages to external and internal audiences.
Contribute to planning, execution and evaluation stages of campaign projects; develop and share campaigning best practice.
SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE
The ability to adapt to fast-changing political situations in, and related to, Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
Experience of leading and implementing campaigns at the national & international level and the ability to lead innovation and creative approaches to campaigning.
Knowledge of working on, and in, the region and a specialist knowledge in relation to specific countries or other geographical areas in the region.
Digitally competent, with experience of digital campaigning and keeping up to date with digital trends and campaigning methodologies.
Experience of working with colleagues and partners based around the world.
Excellent communications skills in English and Russian in a fluent, clear and concise way. Knowledge of another regional language desirable
Experience of leading project teams and the ability to engage and inspire team members.
Experience of managing conflicting demands, meeting deadlines and adjusting priorities
Ability to undertake research to gather information relevant to the development of campaign strategies.
Ability to evaluate campaigns and projects and to report progress against stated objectives; experience of managing budgets and reporting against expenditure.
Amnesty International is committed to creating and sustaining a working environment in which everyone has an equal opportunity to fulfill their potential and we welcome applications from suitably qualified people from all sections of the community. For further information on our benefits, please visit https://www.amnesty.org/en/careers/benefits/
Civil Rights Defenders, in partnership with Innovation Centre Kosovo (ICK) is hosting the first ever regional hackathon to tackle human rights issues – ‘EqualiTECH 2019’ – on 27-29 September 2019.
..there is a clear shortage in the interplay of technological investments around human rights issues, frequently materialising as a roadblock for its advocates. In an effort to reduce this gap, the organisers invite participants with various backgrounds, skill sets, and creative abilities to form multidisciplinary teams and invent unique digital products to hack Human Rights challenges pertaining to 3 thematic areas:
1). Justice and Equality; 2). Freedom of Expression; 3). Access to Information.
This signature event challenges participants to place humanity at the forefront of design thinking and innovation. It aims to fuse the power of technological innovation with the generative capacities of human rights defenders and activists, in building ICT solutions as part of diverse teams, to support human rights work in the Western Balkan countries. Under expert mentoring, the competitors of different backgrounds will have 40 hours to design innovative products that will elevate the work for human rights protection and advocacy. ‘EqualiTech 2019’ kicks off on the 27- 29 September, taking place at ICK’s event hub. All interested candidates can apply here. The deadline for application is 17 September, 11:59 pm.
The challenges
Justice and equality
Design a solution that helps increase justice and equality. Conceptualize and develop a digital product that will help increase justice and equality as well as promote inclusiveness for all. For example, think of tools (i.e. platform) that can connect state bodies responsible for providing free legal aid, private pro-bono lawyers/law firms, legal aid organizations and citizens in need of legal aid and advice; or tools that can help identify public and private places of interest and service providers (bars, restaurants, hotels, parks, etc) that are friendly, inclusive and non-discriminatory, particularly to vulnerable and marginalized communities in the Western Balkans.
Freedom of expression To complete this challenge, you should design a tool that will help facilitate and/or increase freedom of expression and reduce various forms of online harassment. The objective is to invent digital products (i.e. platforms) that can enable citizens, activists and journalists from the Western Balkans to connect with each other; identify and report violations of human rights; enable user-friendly reporting mechanisms that help increase their safety and security, etc.
Access to information is increasingly limited in the Western Balkans. Proliferation of unprofessional media, increasing number of fake and manipulative information, limits citizens abilities to make informed decisions. Conceptualize and design a digital product that will help increase access to reliable and useful information sources. This product (i.e. platform) should support citizens, progressive media outlets and independent journalists, fact-checking and other issues relating to ‘fake news’.
(Please note that this is not an exhaustive list.
Competition eligibility criteria?
To participate, you must meet the following eligibility criteria:
All individuals must be between 18-35 years of age.
Must work (HR activists or advocates) or have an interest (tech candidates) in combating discrimination, upholding human rights for minorities and underrepresented groups, and ensuring freedom of expression.
Tech candidates must be skilled in using programming language or tools and/or graphic design software.
All candidates must be able to collaborate within a team.
Must have a passion for problem-solving and analytical thinking.
Preference will be given to individuals with proven experience or passion in combating human rights violations.
Awards for the winning products
We will award three cash prizes, each in the amount of 1000 euros for the winning product prototypes in the respective challenge category.
As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights turns 70 – is it time for a new approach? asks Barbara von Ow-Freytag, Journalist, political scientist and adviser, Prague Civil Society Centre, in the World Economic Forum.This piece is certainly worth reading as a whole. It is close to my heart in that it stresses the need to have a hard look at how young human rights defenders focus their energy where they can achieve real, concrete change within their own communities. Their campaigns are grassroots-led and use local languages and issues their communities understand. They often use technology and creative formats, with a heavy dose of visual and artistic elements. Where the international scene seems to stagnate and even backpedal, better use of communication skills and tools (such as images) are certainly part of the answer:
As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights turns 70, a new generation of human rights defenders are reinventing themselves to fight for old rights amid a new world order. Based not on declarations, charters and international bodies, but on the values which underpin them – justice, fairness, equality – they shun the language of their predecessors while embracing the same struggle…However, in the new realities of the 21st century, the mechanisms to promote human rights that grew out of the Universal Declaration are showing their age. Authoritarianism is on the rise across the world, with popular leaders cracking down on human rights defenders.
Freedom House found 2018 was the 12th consecutive year that the world became less free. Civicus, which specifically monitors the conditions for civil society activists and human rights defenders, found civil society was “under attack” in more countries than it wasn’t, with all post-Soviet countries (except Georgia) ranging between “obstructed” and “closed”.
Image: Freedom House
Troublingly, both the willingness and the ability of Western bastions of human rights are also on the wane. Inside the EU, talk of illiberal democracy gains traction, and internal crises divert attention away from the global stage. Perhaps unsurprisingly, throughout Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, younger activists and civil society are giving up on western governments and international organizations to advocate on their behalf. Pavel Chikov, director of the Agora group, said recently that, “Russian human rights groups no longer have a role model,” calling the liberal human rights agenda “obsolete”.
Growing disillusionment has led many rights groups to shift away from appealing to outsiders for support. Younger campaigners no longer frame their work in the traditional language of human rights, and many do not even consider themselves human rights defenders. Instead of referring to international agreements violated, they focus on solving practical problems, or creating their own opportunities to advance values of equality, justice and fairness.
Formats too have changed. Throughout the region, tools used by civil society to raise social consciousness are becoming diverse, dynamic and smart. Instead of one-person legal tour de forces, genuinely grassroots, tech-powered, peer-to-peer or horizontal networks are proving effective. Media, music, art, film, innovative street protests, urbanism and online initiatives focused on local communities are coming to replace petitions and international advocacy.
Team 29, an association of Russian human rights lawyers and journalists, is among the most successful of this new generation. It has repositioned itself as part-legal aid provider, part-media outlet. Its website offers a new mix of news on ongoing trials, animated online handbooks for protesters, videos on torture and a new interactive game telling young people how to behave if they are detained by police.
What may look like PR-friendly add-ons are actually core to their operation. Anastasia Andreeva, the team’s media expert, says: “Before, we consulted some 30 clients, now we reach tens of thousands of people.”
Azerbaijani activist Emin Milli also embodies this journey of wider civil society – turning away from the international towards local solutions. In the early 2000s, he was a traditional human rights defender, successfully using international mechanisms, such as the Council of Europe to assist political prisoners.
The key to Meydan’s success is its accessibility. Milli says: “We do stories about ordinary people. Real Azeris who have everyday problems.” Through its smart coverage, investigating and highlighting how injustice affects these ordinary people, and not referring to UN-enshrined rights and responsibilities, Meydan is “giving a voice to people who fight for women’s rights, people who fight for political rights, for civil liberties, and everybody who feels they are voiceless”.
Music, too, is increasingly being used as a vehicle to realize human rights. Though he might shun the label, Azeri rapper Jamal Ali is perhaps one of the country’s most well-known “human rights defenders”. His songs about injustice and corruption regularly go viral, raising national and international awareness in the same way a statement at the UN General Assembly might have done three decades ago.
In a 2017 hit, he highlighted how two young men had been tortured by police and faced 10 years in prison for spraying graffiti on a statue of former president Heydar Aliyev. In response, the regime arrested Ali’s mother, demanding that he remove the video from YouTube, only to ensure that Ali’s song went even more viral among Azeri youngsters.
Gender equality and women’s rights is also being advanced through unexpected new champions. In Kyrgyzstan, 20-year-old singer Zere Asylbek sparked a feminist shockwave earlier this year with her video Kyz (“Girl”). “Don’t tell me what to wear, don’t tell me how to behave,” she sings, bearing her top to reveal her bra. Seen by millions, the Kyrgyz-language feminist anthem has set off a new #MeToo debate in the Central Asian country, where many young women are still abducted, raped and forced to marry.
In the wake of the video, a first “feminist bar” is about to open in Bishkek. Other feminist videos have been used to directly address the issue of bride-kidnapping, with animated cartoons being used as part of local campaigns to change mindsets in a conservative society.
Perhaps most excitingly, an all-female team of 18 to 20-year-olds is building the country’s first micro-satellite. “Girls taking us into space is the best message against sexism,” says Bektour Iskender, whose news site Kloop initiated the project. He says the girls’ project has a deep social mission, promoting national pride and the country’s return to advanced technological development.
These examples – and countless more – show that civic groups see no value in lobbying an increasingly disinterested West and sluggish international organizations. Instead they focus their energy where they can achieve real, concrete change within their own communities. Their campaigns are grassroots-led and use local languages and issues their communities understand. They target specific audiences, often using technology and creative formats, with a heavy dose of visual and artistic elements.
Addressing discrimination, environmental protection, corruption, health issues, women’s rights, they speak not about the failure of their states to abide by international accords, but about common dignity and life opportunities, addressing people on a direct human level.
Clearly, the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are still valid, but their approach and the packaging have changed. “We all want to change the world,” says Sergey Karpov of the Russian online media and philanthropic platform Takie Dela. “Today communications are the best way”.
On 17 May 2018 Michael Igoepublished a long, interesting article entitled “The Open Society Foundations — and their enemies“. It is very much linked to the anti-Soros drive earlier reported [https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2018/05/09/urgently-seeking-professors-to-stop-the-anti-soros-bill-in-hungary/] but digs deeper and looks at the various dilemmas facing the Open Society Fund and similar donors in authoritarian/populist settings. The relocation of the Budapest office provides a timely backdrop.
Here some interesting quotes but the whole article is worth reading:
“The risk that Open Society weighs is not the potential for its activities to create controversy, but for that controversy to prevent the foundation from being able to carry out its activities. “We don’t exist to defend ourselves. We exist to make change out there,” .. “If we only existed to protect ourselves, then that would be their victory….That is a classical philanthropic reaction — let’s not go anywhere near that, because that’s controversial. If you do that, if you allow controversy … to stop you from doing things, then an authoritarian government or a reactionary player in society … have a very easy task.” — Jordi Vaquer, Open Society Foundations’ regional director for Europe
..Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban is not alone in flinging those accusations — Soros is a favorite boogeyman for pro-Brexit voters in the United Kingdom, populists across Eastern Europe, and even Republicans in the United States. But in Hungary, the anti-Soros campaign has moved to the very center of political life. Orban’s party and supporters invoke Soros’ name and image to paint an apocalyptic vision of what might happen if the Hungarian-American financier, his foundation, and the NGOs they support are allowed to carry out their alleged “globalist” agenda.
Devex spoke to Gabor Gyulai, director of the Refugee Programme at the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, and another NGO Power of Humanity.
“In countries where millions of people are actively working in solidarity with refugees, or with LGBTI people, or with victims of domestic violence, civil society organizations have something they can build on to shape a message that will attract broader support. In a society where the vast majority believes that what you are standing up for is not a valid cause, there is much less to build on, said Gyulai, an expert on refugee issues who is also working with the United Nations to build a global network of open access courses on asylum law. The problem gets even more difficult when the state is actively working to prevent that kind of coalition from forming.” Less than a week after Devex met with him, Gyulai’s name appeared on the list of “Soros mercenaries.”
…..
The risk that Open Society weighs is not the potential for its activities to create controversy, but for that controversy to prevent the foundation from being able to carry out its activities. “We don’t exist to defend ourselves. We exist to make change out there,” Vaquer said. “If we only existed to protect ourselves, then that would be their victory….That is a classical philanthropic reaction — let’s not go anywhere near that, because that’s controversial. If you do that, if you allow controversy … to stop you from doing things, then an authoritarian government or a reactionary player in society … have a very easy task.” — Jordi Vaquer, Open Society Foundations’ regional director for Europe
….
Zoltan Mester (left) and Vilja Arato, employees of the With the Power of Humanity Foundation. Michael Igoe/Devex
Among With the Power of Humanity’s staff, the debate over what is and is not an encroachment into party politics plays out constantly, Mester said. “Every day it’s a big fight … because especially in this time and especially in Hungary, everybody thinks that political is something bad … In Hungary if you say ‘political,’ you think about … party politicians.”…
“George Soros could have done many other things with his fortune, but that was the vision from the start — that those two were going to be the pillars of the ways in which he would then seek to define open society,” Vaquer said. “If you look at our budget 30 years later, that’s still what we are doing overwhelmingly. We’re still supporting civil society organizations and individuals. We haven’t changed that.”
The Open Society Foundations office in Budapest, Hungary. Devex/Michael Igoe
Faced with a constant barrage of accusations that they are part of George Soros’ secret plan to meddle in national politics, some of Open Society’s grantees find themselves responding to the obligatory questions that follow…..In accusing the foundation of orchestrating a global campaign to transform Europe and erode countries’ national sovereignty, OSF’s enemies ascribe much more power and reach to the organization than its employees and grantees would ever claim to have. It is tempting to do the same thing when asking if Open Society has been successful in achieving its goals. The declines in democratic freedom currently underway in many countries where Open Society operates might raise questions about whether the foundation and its benefactor have been operating with the right theory of change.
….
With the erosion of the values and norms it promotes, Open Society is not necessarily thinking differently about how the foundation measures its impact, but its leaders are coming to terms with a more realistic view of what is possible. “I think it has made us extremely aware of the limitations of what can be achieved with cross-border philanthropic activity,” Vaquer said. “It was perhaps a product of the exceptional time that was the 1990s that OSF had such a disproportionate impact on some places, in terms of being part of their political transformation, but that was probably exceptional.”
[Michael Igoe is a Senior Reporter with Devex, based in Washington, D.C. He covers U.S. foreign aid, global health, climate change, and development finance. Prior to joining Devex, Michael researched water management and climate change adaptation in post-Soviet Central Asia, where he also wrote for EurasiaNet. Michael earned his bachelor’s degree from Bowdoin College, where he majored in Russian, and his master’s degree from the University of Montana, where he studied international conservation and development.]
During an electoral campaign dominated by anti-migrant rhetoric, a Hungarian court has upheld a shocking verdict of terrorism against a Syrian citizen (Ahmed H.) and the symbolism is lost on no one [https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2018/02/28/un-high-commissioner-for-human-rights-in-last-council-statement-does-not-mince-words/]. On 19 March 2018, Maxim Edwards (a journalist writing on Central and Eastern Europe and the post-Soviet space – currently assistant editor at OCCRP in Sarajevo) published a fascinating insight into how ill-defined terrorism laws and anti-immigrant hype (in Hungary in this case) can lead to upholding a verdict of terrorism against a Syrian refugee.
Ahmed H. in the courtroom during the second-instance trial. Photo courtesy of Amnesty International / Anna Viktória Pál.
“For Hungary to achieve anything in the next four years, we must not let in a single migrant” began Viktor Orbán in a speech earlier this month. ..
For Budapest, migration means terrorism — a commonsensical link reinforced daily by pro-government media and initiatives such as the state’s Public Consultation on Immigration and Terrorism. Leaflets for the May 2015 referendum on acceptance of refugees featured maps of “no go areas” across western Europe and shocking statistics about “murder by migrant.”
And now, the government has its very own case study. Last Wednesday, a Hungarian court upheld a verdict against a Syrian citizen accused of a terrorist act carried out at the Serbian border in 2015. After already spending two and a half years behind bars, Ahmed H. has been sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and a ten year ban on entering Hungary.
.
……
This was due to the elastic definition of terrorist acts in the Hungarian criminal code. Article 314A defines terrorism as, among other things, “coercing a government agency, state, or international body to do or not to do something”. Consequently, Ahmed’s alleged demand by megaphone that the Hungarian border police open the gates was enough to convict him of an act of terrorism.
(Ahmed was also charged with illegal entry into Hungary as part of a mass riot, an administrative violation which carries a minimum sentence of five years. He did not contest the charge that he threw objects at the police, which alone cannot constitute a terrorist threat even in the most elastic of interpretations.)
…. In a final twist to this story, Ahmed’s other relatives made it to an EU country, where they now live in safety. Ahmed H. himself, probably one of the only people in the crowd at Röszke who could legally enter Hungary, had succeeded in his errand — at the cost of over ten years of his life.
On 4 April 2017 Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, wrote about “The Shrinking Space for Human Rights Organisations“. The new EU ‘alert site I referred to yesterday [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2017/04/03/protectdefenders-eu-launches-new-alert-website-but-no-single-stop-yet/] showed in 2016 some 86 reported violations in the European (and Central Asian) region, mostly detention and judicial harassment. Also the recent CIVICUS findings of the narrowing space for civil society points in this direction. An example could be Hungary as illustrated by reports of Human Rights Watch (2016), Human Rights First (2017) and Amnesty International (2016/17); the issue of academic freedom is not directly related but part of the restrictive trend [see links below].
The Diplomat wrote under the title “OSCE Manages to Irritate Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Human Rights Advocates, Too” a good piece summarizing the situation at the latest annual human rights conference (officially the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting), taking place from 19-30 September 2016, in Warsaw.
Most attention should go to the recurring reprisals against HRDs and in particular (when they are out of reach through exile) against their family: Read the rest of this entry »
Who will be the next secretary-general? The field is still wide open but thanks in part to the 1 for 7 Billion campaign, campaigning for the job is – for the first time in UN history – mostly public, even if the decision is ultimately made by General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. There are strong arguments in favor of a woman (first time ever, see link below) and someone from Eastern Europe (‘their turn’ in the informally agreed regional rotation). Of the nine candidates currently in the running, UN insiders and others close to the process see UNESCO head Irina Bokova, UNDP Administrator Helen Clark, former High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres and former Slovenian President Danilo Türk as the frontrunners (if the bookmakers are right).
On 23 February 2015 Radio Prague reported that a new centre designed to promote civic engagement in post-Soviet countries has formally begun operating in Prague. The Prague Civil Society Centreseeks to cultivate values such as openness and human rights in countries such as Belarus, Russia, Armenia, Georgia and Ukraine. Download MP3 for the full interview by Dominik Jun with Rostislav Valvoda, head of the new centre.
If there was any doubt on where civil society stands on the issue of reprisals and repression of NGO activity in Russia, the letter below and the enormous number and variety of organizations having signed it should put the doubt to rest: [see also: https://plus.google.com/+HansThoolen/posts/2nWSsUBuCJw]
“Dear President,
We, the undersigned non-governmental organizations, are writing to urge you to stop the clampdown on the right to freedom of association and end reprisals against independent non- governmental organizations (NGOs) in Russia.
We are deeply concerned that under the legislation on “foreign agents”, hundreds of NGOs have been subjected to unannounced inspections by government officials which have interrupted and obstructed their legitimate work with dozens currently embroiled in lengthy court hearings. Several NGOs and their leaders have had to pay prohibitive fines, and some were forced to close down because they refused to brand themselves as “foreign agents” – an expression akin to spying. Recent legislative changes now give the Ministry of Justice powers to register organizations as “foreign agents” without their consent and without a prior court decision. More than a dozen of leading Russian rights groups have already been branded by the Ministry. These NGOs are not foreign spies or “agents”, and have worked in the interest of the people of Russia. Many more face the same fate.
Under the previous legislation, NGOs in Russia were already accountable to the government and the public, having to report on their activities and finances. It is difficult to avoid concluding that the only purpose of the legislation on “foreign agents” is to publicly discredit and stigmatise them.
We believe that NGOs are essential to the healthy functioning of society. They play an important role in providing much needed services to the public. They help keep officials accountable and improve policies in the interests of the people.
We are calling on you as the President of the Russian Federation and the guarantor of its Constitution and of the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined therein, to take all necessary steps to ensure that the “foreign agents” law is repealed and NGOs in Russia are able to do their work without hindrance, harassment, stigmatisation or reprisals.
• Action des chrétiens pour l’abolition de la torture (ACAT) (France) • Agir ensemble pour les droits de l’homme (AEDH) (France) • Amnesty International • ARTICLE 19 (UK) • Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (Bulgaria) • Bunge la Mwananchi (Kenya) • Centre de recherche et d’information pour le développement (CRID) (France) • Centrum Kształcenia Liderów i Wychowawców im. Pedro Arrupe (Pologne) • CIVICUS • Comité catholique contre la faim et pour le développement – Terre solidaire (CCFD) (France) • Committee on the Administration of Justice Ltd (CAJ) (Northern Ireland, UK) • Cordaid (Pays-Bas) • Danny Sriskandarajah, our Secretary General • English PEN (UK) • European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) (UK) • Emmaüs International (France) • Finnish PEN (Finlande) • Foundation Max van der Stoel (Pays-Bas) • Free Press Unlimited (Pays-Bas) • Front Line Defenders (Irlande) • Fundacja Edukacja dla Demokracji (Pologne) • Fundacja im. Stefana Batorego (Pologne) • Gevalor (France) • Greenpeace Spain (Spain) • Helsińska Fundacja Praw Człowieka (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights) (Pologne) • Hivos (Pays-Bas) • Human Rights Commission (Kenya) • Human Rights House Foundation (Norway) • Human Rights House Foundation HRHF (Switzerland) • Human Rights Watch • Index on Censorship (UK) • INPRIS – Instytut Prawa i Społeczeństwa (Pologne) • Instytut Spraw Publicznych (Pologne) • International Service for Human Rights • Kansalaisjärjestöjen ihmisoikeussäätiö KIOS (Finlande) • Kenya Human Rights Commission (Kenya) • Koalicja Karat (Pologne) • La lliga del drets dels pobles (Spain) • Ligue des droits de l’Homme (France) • Małopolskie Towarzystwo Oświatowe (Pologne) • MEMORIAL Deutschland e.V. (Germany) • Milieudefensie (Pays-Bas) • MONIKA – Naiset liitto ry (Finlande) • Movies that Matter (Pays-Bas) • Naisten Linja Suomessa ry (Finlande) • Netherlands Helsinki Committee (Pays-Bas) • Nederlands Juristen Comité voor de Mensenrechten (NJCM) • Nederlandse Vereniging van Journalisten (NVJ) (Pays-Bas) • NGO Working Group OSCE (Switzerland) • Observatoire pour la protection des défenseurs des droits de l’Homme (joint program FIDH and OMCT) (France/Switzerland) • Pakolaisneuvonta ry (Finlande) • Pat Finucane Centre, (Irlande) • Queer Youth Norway (Norway) • REDRESS (UK) • Reporters sans frontières (RSF) (France) • Russie-Libertés (France) • Sadankomitea (Finlande) • Society for Threatened Peoples (Switzerland) • Stiftung Haus der Demokratie und Menschenrechte (Germany) • Stowarzyszenie Wschodnioeuropejskie Centrum Demokratyczne (Pologne) • The Bellona Foundation (Norvège) • The Norwegian LGBT Association (Norvège) • UNITED for Intercultural Action (Pays-Bas) • XENION Psychsoziale Hilfen für politisch Verfolgte e.V. (Allemagne) • Автономная некоммерческая правозащитная организация «Молодежный центр консультации и тренинга» (Russie) • Автономная некоммерческая организация «Правозащитная организация «МАШР» (Russie) • Благотворительный фонд развития города Тюмени (Russie) • Общественная правозащитная организация «Солдатские матери Санкт-Петербурга» (Russie)”