Zaira Navas, woman human rights defender from El Salvador.
In recent years, civic space has significantly reduced in El Salvador, under a state of exception, a state of emergency that suspended several constitutional rights. Human rights defenders have faced increasing threats and criminalisation, forcing many into silence or exile. Zaira Navas is a lawyer and human rights defender at Cristosal, partner of OMCT and the SOS-Torture Network. She is also a member of OMCT’s Latin America litigators’ group, part of four regional litigators’ groups that bring together lawyers and human rights defenders working at the front lines of the fight against torture and ill-treatment. Last year, Zaira Navas was pushed to flee El Salvador, after her colleague, Ruth López, prominent Salvadoran activist, was arrested. In Geneva to attend the Human Rights Council, she tells us about her experience being a woman human rights defender in exile, and where she still finds hope in her work.
What was it like to make the decision to leave El Salvador?
I am currently in exile due to repression under the state of exception in El Salvador imposed by President Nayib Bukele, which intensified in 2025. In May, my colleague Ruth López was detained on absurd corruption charges. That same week, I learned I could also be arrested. Our organisation, Cristosal, asked us to protect ourselves. There was no time to think about it. We left the country believing we would return in 15 days, but I have now been outside El Salvador for nine months.
How has exile affected you, as a woman and as a human rights defender?
The first months were filled with uncertainty. Violence and aggression against defenders increased, and our organisation was forced to close its operations in the country. There was no turning back.
There was a period when I felt depressed. Not only for being away from my country, but because I thought I could not continue my work. I am now separated from my family, but I am working, and that is a very important source of encouragement….
What actions should the international community take to ensure a safe environment for defending human rights in El Salvador?
The international community must closely monitor human rights violations in El Salvador and must pay close attention to what is happening in our country, questioning the anti-democratic methods and internal policies. International cooperation allows us to keep working. It is important that organisations that support human rights groups look for new ways to cooperate so that the work can continue from outside the country.
A woman holds up a blank sheet of paper during a demonstration against China’s strict COVID-19 lockdown measures following the deadly apartment fire in Urumqi, Xinjiang. (Photo by Frederic J. BROWN / AFP via Getty Images)
Democracy activists often face arrest, exile, harassment, or retaliation against their families. This essay explains why NED protects sensitive information about grantees, how that duty of care supports the people advancing freedom, and how NED balances discretion with accountability.
Imagine living in a place where a knock at the door in the middle of the night could mean imprisonment, or worse. This is the daily reality for countless democracy and human rights activists around the world. Their bravery makes their work not only meaningful, but also deeply consequential.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) supports those working to strengthen fundamental freedoms in transitional and fragile democracies, as well as those bravely advancing freedom in closed societies. Our grantmaking focuses on the building blocks of democratic life—free elections, independent media, and the freedoms of association, speech, and belief. Just as important, however, is our responsibility to protect the individuals who make that work possible.
This primer offers an overview of why NED carefully manages information about its grantees, including what is shared publicly, what is provided to Congressional oversight bodies, and how discretion underpins the safety and viability of those we support. Activists face vastly different risks depending on their location, visibility, and the tactics of the regimes they confront. Supporting democracy means protecting those who fight for it, including respecting their choices about public visibility to ensure their safety.
Why Public Exposure Can Be Dangerous
Speaking out in many parts of the world can mean risking arrest, exile, or death. According to Freedom House, only about one in five countries around the world is rated “free,” while The Economist’s Intelligence Unit has found that only 25 countries today qualify as full democracies. For the vast majority living under authoritarian or hybrid regimes, even symbolic acts of dissent, like holding up a blank piece of paper, can lead to life-disrupting consequences.
Authoritarian regimes understand the power of dissent and the threat posed by those who dare to speak. That’s why they’ve developed increasingly sophisticated methods to target activists, journalists, human rights lawyers, and civil society leaders, both inside their borders and abroad. Their reach extends across continents, threatening those in exile through transnational repression and those at home through direct prosecution.
The following stories from grantees illustrate why NED’s approach to protection must adapt to the risks posed by both transnational repression and direct prosecution.
Rushan Abbas at the 2025 Democracy Awards. (Photo: M.K. Mindful Media)
Case Study: Rushan Abbas and the CCP’s Hostage Diplomacy
Rushan Abbas, founder of Campaign for Uyghurs and a NED grantee, gave her first public speech about China’s abuses in Xinjiang in 2018. Her husband’s entire family had already vanished in the 2017 crackdown. Just six days after her speech, her sister, Dr. Gulshan Abbas, a retired medical doctor with no political ties, also disappeared.
“She was being targeted because of my advocacy,” Abbas said. “Every day I wake up with her eyes in my mind. Of course, I feel guilty. Speaking out in the United States as an American citizen cost my sister her freedom.”
To this day, Dr. Gulshan Abbas remains missing in China’s vast detention system—her only ”crime” being related to someone who exposed the CCP’s abuses. This brutal form of hostage diplomacy forces exiled activists into an impossible choice: stay silent or risk their loved ones’ safety.
Case Study: Natalia Arno and the Kremlin’s Transnational Reach
Natalia Arno (Photo by THOMAS SAMSON/AFP via Getty Images)
Natalia Arno, president of the Free Russia Foundation and a longtime NED partner, was forced into exile from Russia in 2012. Since then, she’s been a leading voice in exile activism, advocating for political prisoners, supporting democratic leaders, and coordinating programs to hold the Putin regime accountable.
But in May 2023, after a private event in Prague, she returned to her hotel to find the door ajar and a strange scent inside the room. Hours later, she experienced numbness, pain, and blurred vision. Doctors in Washington, D.C. confirmed exposure to nerve toxins.
“I never could have believed the scale and brazenness and how long the Kremlin tentacles are into the West,” she said. Despite years of surveillance and intimidation, Arno continues her work. “You could lose your life,” she said, listing examples of poisoned, tortured, and murdered activists. “I have been in this game for 20 years, and I can write a book about all the kinds of attacks against me in Russia.”
Activism in Exile and Under Authoritarian Rule
Authoritarian regimes target democracy advocates in two primary ways. Activists working inside authoritarian states face direct repression: denial of employment, education or housing to surveillance, interrogation, imprisonment, or death. Activists living in exile, such as members of the diaspora, confront transnational repression: intimidation, harassment, cyberattacks, and retaliation against relatives still living under dictatorship.
While both forms of courage are vital to the cause of freedom, they require different kinds of protection. For activists in exile like Abbas and Arno, visibility can be both a tool and a vulnerability—they use their public platforms to build international support while enduring harassment and threats from afar. For those working quietly inside repressive states, even the faintest association with democracy support can result in severe consequences. NED’s Duty of Care and Do-Not-Disclose policies reflect this spectrum of risk, providing flexible protections appropriate to different contexts, roles, and levels of exposure.
Visibility and Risk in Democracy Activism
Activists face difficult decisions about how visible they can afford to be. For some who live in exile, like Abbas and Arno, activism is essential to raising awareness and building international support. As public figures in free societies, they can testify before lawmakers, engage journalists, and speak on behalf of silenced communities. But even in freedom, visibility comes with the danger of transnational repression.
Abbas has faced smear campaigns, online harassment, and death threats requiring FBI involvement. Her family in China has been targeted. “Those kinds of things actually became so normal because we face this almost weekly or monthly,” she said. “And we just laugh at it and take it as the impact of our work.”
Arno’s risks didn’t end after fleeing Russia. “Being in NATO or EU countries doesn’t save us from this huge Kremlin machine,” she said. “Surveillance is still huge, cyberattacks are huge, but also physical attacks.”
These cases illustrate the first front of transnational repression: authoritarian regimes projecting power beyond their borders to intimidate, threaten, or attack critics abroad.
Iran has become one of the clearest examples of how far authoritarian regimes are willing to go to silence dissent beyond their borders. Iranian democracy activists, journalists, and human rights defenders living in exile have faced kidnapping plots, assassination attempts, surveillance, and harassment across Europe and North America. Multiple Western governments have linked Iranian intelligence services to plots targeting exiled dissidents, leading to disrupted operations, criminal prosecutions, and sanctions. Iran’s efforts to pursue critics abroad underscore the growing reality of transnational repression and the need for democracy organizations to extend duty-of-care protections even to partners living in open societies.
At the same time, this external pressure is inseparable from the repression activists face at home. For those still inside authoritarian states, the threat is direct and unrelenting. These activists continue their work at great personal risk, operating under surveillance, harassment, and the constant threat of arrest or imprisonment while pushing for democratic change.
In response to these dangers, many activists adopt a lower profile. How public they are in their work is an intentional choice to protect themselves, their families, and their networks from retaliation. While the steps they take to remain safe in authoritarian environments may mean their activism lacks the visibility of public campaigns, it is no less vital. Activists in authoritarian environments take great risks to build the infrastructure of democracy movements—documenting abuses, organizing communities, and informing international action.
In China, the Chinese government has systematically stigmatized international democracy funding. Even tenuous connections to external support and collaboration can carry severe consequences. As one activist working with international human rights and democracy organizations explained, “Me, myself, my family members, were interrogated by police officers in China.” Others have been detained and prosecuted for similar work. The Chinese government has also targeted the family members of human rights defenders in an effort to deter continued activism.
As a result, discretion is essential. “We prefer NED to not mention our names publicly,” the activist said, “in order to protect staff members and board members and even former colleagues, former members, and our families.”
Public activism draws global attention and builds coalitions, but it also brings heightened risk. Regimes often target public figures to intimidate or silence them—and to send a warning to others.
Activism that seeks to engage in quieter and less confrontational forms of engagement, by contrast, can provide greater security and sustainability, particularly in repressive settings. “While of course it’s much more dangerous for those activists who are inside Russia to speak out,” one Russian activist explained, “it’s much safer for those working in exile and most continue their work quietly.”
Human rights work in authoritarian environments demands different operational and political strategies. While the work often seeks to expose gross human rights abuses and expose corrupt networks, the ability to gather and verify the information requires close cooperation between groups that are in exile and networks that are in country.
In Tibet, NED-supported partners have documented China’s campaign to erase Tibetan identity through colonial-style boarding schools. In Venezuela and Cuba, investigative journalists have exposed corruption and human rights violations while keeping low profiles to stay safe. While international and exile organizations are often the face of the work, the networks on the ground are equally essential to what they achieve.
As Arno put it, “People are our biggest value, our biggest treasure. When activists are facing such dangerous things like imprisonment, torture, murder, we have to protect them with all possible measures.”
Supporting Activists Safely and Effectively
Since its founding in 1983, NED has supported democracy activists and citizen leaders—whether operating in exile or inside closed societies—to advance human rights and democratic values in some of the world’s most repressive contexts. NED’s Founding Statement of Principles and Objectives notes that in “societies where even [these] independent institutions are prohibited or severely restricted, the immediate objective is to enlarge whatever possibilities exist for independent thought, expression, and cultural activity. … [The Endowment] will not neglect those who keep alive the flame of freedom in closed societies.”
As a congressionally mandated independent nonprofit, NED was designed to provide support to its partners in a way that is impactful, secure, and accountable. Few donors are structured to do this work with the same level of care and discretion, which is why frontline democracy advocates consistently place their trust in NED.
Key to NED’s approach is the principle of protection through discretion. As NED’s Board of Directors approve grantmaking strategy and individual projects, the identifying details of grantees are made available to them. However, we avoid public disclosures that could expose partners to government reprisal. This is not only an ethical commitment—it is a key operating principle rooted in NED’s Duty of Care and Public Disclosure Policies, which obligates the organization to do no harm.
Without this policy of protection, many activists could not safely engage with international support. “It’s very difficult to build reputation and trust” one democracy activist said. “How you treat your grantees, with special care and understanding of the particularities of each region, should be the gold standard that all donors take as an example.”
NED’s Approach to Public Disclosure of Grantees
NED publishes listings of its current grantees twice a year on its website and includes a comprehensive listing of grantees in its annual report, complete with grant descriptions, grant amounts, and grant durations, organized by country and region. However, we do not publicly disclose personally identifiable information in these listings to avoid placing individuals at risk, now or in the future.
Some have asked why NED does not publish the personally identifying details of its grantees on its website. The reason is simple: in many cases, doing so would put a target on the backs of those we support and compromise their ability to do their work.
NED’s Duty of Care and Public Disclosure policies seek to balance the ability of our partners to operate as freely and securely as possible with our transparency requirements. At the same time, our relationship with our grantees is fully transparent. Organizations must take the initiative themselves to seek support from the Endowment. They know who we are, where our funds come from, and the values that guide our support. Activists seek out NED’s assistance precisely because it is open, accountable, and trusted.
NED respects the agency of its grantees to decide whether it is safe to publicly disclose their relationship with NED. Organizations regularly and proudly share their partnership with NED as a mark of credibility and support. Others, particularly those operating in hostile environments, often request confidentiality to safeguard their security and effectiveness. In all cases, NED ensures our partners are aware of our policies and procedures so that they can make informed decisions about their own public posture.
This approach is an ethical obligation as much as it is a matter of organizational policy. We know about the persecution of Uyghurs and underground Christians in China, the protests in Cuba and Iran, the continued repression in Belarus and Nicaragua, and human rights abuses in Burma and North Korea because courageous individuals risk their lives to report them. Supporting democracy means more than funding programs or issuing statements—it means protecting the people behind the work.
With that responsibility comes a duty: to minimize risk, not add to it through careless exposure. In a world where authoritarian regimes are increasingly sophisticated, coordinated, and ruthless in targeting dissent, discretion becomes an essential safeguard.
Transparency and Accountability
Even as NED protects grantee confidentiality in public settings, it maintains rigorous transparency and accountability to the NED Board, Congress, and U.S. oversight bodies. The NED Board reviews and approves both grantmaking strategy and individual grants. As outlined in our Duty of Care, we submit comprehensive annual plans and updates to congressional committees that outline our strategy and grantmaking priorities. We maintain active communication with Members and their staff, respond promptly to official requests for information, and create opportunities for elected officials to engage directly with our grantees—both in Washington and abroad—to better understand the real-world impact of NED-supported efforts. We likewise provide an annual report to the executive branch as a formal accounting of our work, priorities, and impact. NED consults regularly with representatives of the legislative and executive branches on our work, both in Washington and in the field, and responds to Freedom of Information Act information requests.
NED upholds strict due diligence and financial oversight procedures to ensure that resources are used responsibly and for their intended purpose. Our grantmaking is governed by the standards of all federal spending, with clear agreements, financial reporting requirements, and independent audits to ensure funds are used for their intended purpose.
In addition, the Endowment is subject to comprehensive oversight, including Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigations, State Department Inspector General reviews, and annual independent audits.
By combining discretion abroad with transparency at home, NED fulfills its dual responsibility: protecting those who advance freedom in repressive environments while remaining transparent and accountable. As authoritarian threats grow more complex and far-reaching, we will continue strengthening our Duty of Care so those who defend democracy can pursue their work safely, effectively, and with confidence in the support behind them.
The Right Livelihood Foundation and partners have gone into the problems faced by Human Rights Defenders in exile:
Leaving your country means more than crossing a border. It means stepping into uncertainty, a place where language falters, futures blur and belonging must be rebuilt. But exile can also open doors. It can broaden perspectives, forge new alliances and inspire people to rebuild on their own terms.
Through the project “Reconceptualising exile”, Right Livelihood together with theGlobal Campus of Human Rights, work with a group of 14 fellows living in exile to rebuild life, regain identity and purpose while the ground they left behind remains too dangerous to return to. This visual story challenges what you think exile means. It invites you to see how it feels and how people rebuild from fragments, carrying language, memory and conviction across borders.
What forces someone into exile? Behind those numbers are real people punished for what they believe in:
For Natallia Satsunkevich, a human rights defender from Belarus, it was fighting for democracy in the face of the dictatorship.
For Viacheslav (Slava) Samonov, a Russian lawyer and LGBTQ+ activist, the dissolution of his NGO amid the post-invasion crackdown and the rapidly escalating repression against LGBTQ+ people.
For Askold Kurov, a Russian documentary filmmaker, it was promoting free media and LGBTQ+ rights.
For Helen Mack Chang, it was challenging the rampant corruption in Guatemala.
For Abdul Rahman Yasa, it was standing up for human rights, women’s issues and youth advocacy under the Taliban.
Transnational repression (TNR), the cross-border targeting, intimidation, and harassment of journalists and human rights defenders, is increasingly undermining press freedom and human rights in Europe and beyond. Journalists in exile often remain subjects of sustained threats, surveillance, cyber-attacks, psychological pressure, and harassment long after reaching presumed safety. These tactics are used by authoritarian states to silence dissent, extend their reach beyond borders, and weaken the role of independent media globally. This is demonstrrated in the 18 December 2025 Position Paper written by Katrin Schatz, Journalists-in-Exile Programme Manager,
The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) stands firmly against any form of repression that endangers journalists in exile and undermines fundamental freedoms. As a Europe-focused organisation, our mandate centres on strengthening press freedom across the continent. Much of our documented experience with transnational repression comes from our support work in Germany, particularly through the Journalists in Exile (JiE) programme, which gives us direct insight into how these threats continue even after relocation. Our analysis, monitoring and advocacy consistently show that current policy frameworks are insufficiently equipped to address the reality of transnational repression.
Transnational Repression targets journalists in exile
Many Journalists in exile remain at risk. ECPMF’s research on transnational repression in Germany from 2025 finds that journalists who fled authoritarian contexts continue to experience threats, intimidation, surveillance and psychological pressure in their host countries. These tactics are part of a broader strategy by autocratising states to control dissent.
ECPMF’s Mapping Media Freedom (MapMF) platform shows exactly this – through the recently initiated category documenting threats against journalists in exile, ongoing surveillance, digital harassment and family members being targeted are reported. However, cases of transnational repression are rarely documented, not because they don’t exist, but because of the extreme sensitivity of the issue: publicity can endanger journalists’ families at home, expose those in exile to additional targeting, and many affected journalists choose or are advised to remain discreet for safety reasons.
Transnational repression threatens press freedom and democratic space
Transnational repression is not only an attack on individual journalists, it is a direct assault on press freedom and democratic spaces globally. However, acknowledging the personal strains of those affected is essential: many journalists in exile face isolation, trauma, financial precarity, and the constant fear that reprisals could reach them or their families, friends, and colleagues.
TNR tactics take place across multiple contexts: through digital harassment, spyware, coordinated smear campaigns, threats to family members, diplomatic pressure, misuse of international legal instruments, or using diaspora networks to intimidate critics abroad. Together, they form a pattern: a systematic effort by authoritarian and autocratising states to suppress independent journalism far beyond their borders. Coupled with the EU’s lack of reaction, this perpetuates cycles of violence and silencing.
By creating a climate of fear among critical voices and disrupting professional and personal safety TNR systematically undermines freedom of expression, independent journalism and the safety of journalists. Journalists in exile play an indispensable role in informing the public through international reporting, providing independent coverage from authoritarian contexts where local journalism is heavily restricted or impossible.
Gaps in policy and protection in the EU
Increasingly restrictive migration and return policies
The EU’s use of “safe country of origin/ third country” frameworks and streamlined return mechanisms risk exposing journalists to environments where they continue facing repression. Recent decisions by the European Council, endorsed by 39 MEPs , including the designation of countries with documented human rights violations, including press freedom violations as “safe” contradicts the very essence of protection that asylum and refugee policies are meant to provide.
The EU-wide list of safe countries will include: Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, Kosovo, India, Morocco and Tunisia. ECPMF is highly concerned about the dangerous implications of this policy for journalists and human rights defenders.
Lack of comprehensive frameworks
Current EU instruments still do not provide a systemic approach to TNR. There is no binding definition, no integrated action plan, and no framework that aligns migration policies, human rights obligations, digital safety, and cross-border policing responses to transnational repression. Existing mechanisms remain fragmented, leaving journalists without coherent pathways to protection.
Fragmented national responses
At the EU member state level, responses to TNR are inconsistent. Few governments started to formally acknowledge the threat and explore legal or policy measures, while others lack official recognition and structured responses. Even when awareness exists, protection mechanisms remain fragmented, under-resourced, or inaccessible. Journalists, just as any other person seeking refuge, also face racial discrimination within domestic systems, which can influence how their cases are treated.
Civil society has often stepped in where states have not taken responsibility. In Germany, the Coalition Against Transnational Repression has emerged as a key actor, bringing together human rights and diaspora organisations to push for stronger national policies. At the same time, many institutions and law enforcement bodies lack sufficient knowledge or training to identify transnational repression patterns, assess cross-border threats, or understand the jurisdictional complexities involved. Limited cooperation between migration authorities, police, prosecutors, and security services further weakens effective responses. As a result, national responses remain predominantly reactive rather than preventive, leaving journalists in exile exposed to ongoing risks.
ECPMF’s position and demands
Transnational repression is pervasive and increasingly dangerous. Journalists who have fled oppression continue to face coordinated pressure, digital harassment, legal threats, and physical intimidation across borders. As seen through the experiences of fellows in ECPMF’s Journalists-in-Exile programme, exile does not guarantee safety. Threats often follow them into Europe, leaving them vulnerable even in countries that are supposed to offer protection.
Current human rights and migration policies fall short of addressing the lived realities of journalists in exile and, in some cases, may even increase the risks they face. EU migration policies could force journalists back into the very environments from which they fled, thereby further jeopardizing their safety. This reflects the wider gap in the protection of journalists, where national and EU responses to transnational repression remain inconsistent, under-resourced, and fragmented.
ECPMF calls on the European Union, its member states and international bodies to take the following actions to better protect journalists in exile and combat transnational repression:
Develop and implement comprehensive legal frameworks that recognise the specific cross-border threats faced by journalists in exile, including digital harassment, surveillance, physical attacks, and threats to family members.
Ensure the protection of journalists within migration systems, with clear safeguards against forced returns to countries where they face repression, in line with the international principles of non-refoulement.
Develop and support national and EU-level mechanisms to monitor and respond to transnational repression, including dedicated hotlines, coordinated support services, and legal aid for affected journalists.
Include transnational repression in the EU’s strategic documents and policies for safeguarding democracies and combating disinformation and malicious interference, including the European Democracy Shield and similar documents, to ensure that the protection of those fighting repression is part of a comprehensive approach to preserving our democracies.
Incorporate transnational repression explicitly into EU foreign policy, ensuring that the EU’s human rights policies hold countries accountable for using repressive tactics against journalists in exile, as well as creating a system of sanctions and diplomatic pressure to address perpetrators.
Strengthen cooperation between member states, creating a coherent and coordinated EU response to transnational repression, with particular attention to the intersectional risks faced by journalists, including race, gender, and migration status.
Engage civil society and human rights organisations in the design and implementation of policies related to journalists in exile, ensuring that those who are most affected have a direct role in shaping the response.
This position paper was written by Katrin Schatz, Journalists-in-Exile Programme Manager, with contributions by Basma Mostafa, Journalists-in-Exile Fellow, Edith Bohl, Journalists-in-Exile Programme Officer, and Ena Bavčić, Senior Advocacy and Policy Advisor.
“Art was my existence, my life. Without it, maybe I wouldn’t have survived,” said Kheder Abdulkarim, a Kurdish-Syrian artist based in Germany and former political prisoner, whose work is inspired by his experience of persecution and erasure. He received an honourable mention at the 4th edition of the International Contest for Minority Artists.
The Contest is an initiative organized jointly by UN Human Rights, Freemuse, Minority Rights Group and the City of Geneva. Since 2024, the contest is also supported by the Centre des Arts of the International School of Geneva, the Loterie Romande, as well as by other donors who prefer to remain anonymous.
Each year, the Contest celebrates minority artists whose work bears witness to struggles for dignity, justice and visibility, forming a cornerstone of UN Human Rights’ efforts to uplift artists as human rights defenders.
The 2025 theme — Belonging, Place and Loss — resonated profoundly with artists around the world whose identities have been shaped by displacement, environmental devastation, structural racism, and generational trauma, generating more than 240 submissions this year.
At the award ceremony, UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, Nada Al-Nashif, reminded the audience of what minority artists reveal to societies.
“Tonight, we celebrate eight minority artists honoured in this edition, the power of art and the vital contribution that minority artists make as they shine a light on human rights struggles across the globe, stories and images that unite and anchor us in a shared humanity,” she said.
Art can be a human rights language, and a catalyst for positive change in societies which may seek to silence minority voices. Claude Cahn, human rights officer at UN Human Rights’ Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section
For many laureates, art is the only archive that survives war, the only place where memory can remain intact.
Alia Al-Saadi is a Palestinian Syrian dancer and choreographer born a third-generation refugee in Yarmouk Camp, and one of the laureates of the contest’s 4th edition.
Her performances turn the body into an “archive of destruction,” she said, and “a state of psychological numbness, where prolonged exposure to violence renders shock ineffective.”
Abubakar Moaz, a Sudanese visual artist based in Kenya, won honourable mention and said his visual language emerged from conflict in the Blue Nile and exile in Nairobi.
Abdulkarim, imprisoned for nearly six years in the infamous Saydnaya Prison in Damascus, began sculpting there with scraps of vegetable crates. “I lost seven years of my life,” he said. “But I try to produce something from those years, to rebuild them and more.”
Emanoel Saravá, an Afro-Indigenous Brazilian visual and photo-performance artist, winner of an honourable mention, treats water as an archive of Black and peripheral suffering through their project Águas Marginais.
“The waters carry the memory of Black and peripheral communities, but they also bear the scars of environmental racism, climate change and neglect,” Saravá said.
Sead Kazanxhiu, a Roma political artist from Albania and laureate of the 4th edition, rejects narratives that reduce Roma communities to victimhood.
Panelists discussing the need for stronger protection for human rights defenders in exile. Warsaw, 16 October 2025 (OSCE/Piotr Dziubak) Photo details
As civil society space shrinks and attacks against activists increase in many places, a growing number of human rights defenders are being forced into exile as they seek a safe environment to continue their work freely and securely. This was the focus of an event organized by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), Araminta, and the World Organisation Against Torture at the Warsaw Human Dimension Conference on 16 October 2025.
“Human rights defenders face inherent risks in their work, and relocating does not address all their needs. Adopting robust safeguarding mechanisms is essential to ensure minimum standards for mobility and a safe environment for defenders in exile,“ said Jennifer Gaspar, Araminta Managing Director.
While defenders in exile play a crucial role in promoting human rights, they face serious challenges, from urgent personal and legal issues to long-term barriers such as legal insecurity, restricted mobility and limited opportunities to continue their work. Participants discussed the need to establish minimum standards to protect human rights defenders in exile in the OSCE region, as well as EU legislation to ensure stronger legal and practical safeguards for them, participants discussed.
The discussion drew on both institutional perspectives and the lived experiences of exiled defenders, highlighting the need for coordinated action and policy tools to address these gaps. Participants emphasized that ensuring human rights defenders can continue their work in safety is vital to protect human rights and promote democratic values across the OSCE region and beyond.
On 3 July 2025, the undersigned 22 organizations, expressed their deep concern over the increasing use of criminal law without due process guarantees, the harassment, the stigmatization, and the persecution by Salvadoran authorities against human rights defenders, community leaders, environmental activists, university professors, lawyers, journalists, and other voices critical of the government.
Prominent journalists, activists, and lawyers, such as former prosecutor and defenderRuth López and professor and constitutional lawyerEnrique Anaya, have been arbitrarily detained in retaliation for their work documenting and denouncing corruption, human rights violations, and attacks on the rule of law in El Salvador. Both are in prolonged pretrial detention and face spurious and unfounded charges of embezzlement and money laundering, respectively. These detentions send an intimidating message to the rest of civil society and further erode public confidence in the impartiality and independence of the Salvadoran judicial system.
The Salvadoran state has intensified its attacks on civil society and the independent press through coordinated strategies in the legal, institutional, and media spheres to silence their work. It is extremely alarming that they are being persecuted under a prolonged state of exception that suspends fundamental rights and freedoms, a measure whose objective is to control organized crime gangs.
In a context of high concentration of power, the Foreign Agents Law was enacted, imposing severe restrictions on non-governmental organizations, including onerous registration requirements, a 30 percent tax on foreign funding, and broad powers to suspend their activities based on vague allegations of political activity. Together with the hostile rhetoric from senior officials led by President Bukele, these measures aim to delegitimize independent voices and restrict the legitimate activities of civil society organizations.
The persecution of defenders such as Ruth López and Enrique Anaya reflects a broader strategy to dismantle civic oversight and the rule of law, and to criminalize criticism and the defense of human rights. Other examples of criminalization include community leaders from La Floresta and the El Bosque cooperative, among them Fidel Zavala, Alejandro Henríquez, and Ángel Pérez, who have been detained during peaceful protests over land and evictions.
It is important to note that, throughout Nayib Bukele’s administration, dozens of human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, former public officials, members of the political opposition, and businesspeople have been forced into exile outside the country. This trend, which is worrying in itself, has significantly increased in the last month, reflecting a growing climate of repression and persecution that severely restricts civic and democratic space in El Salvador.
The repression of civic space in El Salvador is taking place within a broader context of erosion of democratic institutions and the rule of law. As a result of the state of exception, more than 85,000 people have been detained without respect for basic due process guarantees, including the presumption of innocence and access to a fair and impartial trial, and in inhumane conditions of deprivation of liberty. Local organizations have documented at least 400 deaths of people in custody since the beginning of the exception regime.
We therefore call on the Salvadoran State to:
Immediately release lawyers Ruth López and Enrique Anaya, as well as all human rights defenders and community leaders who have been arbitrarily detained for political reasons; and respect due process guarantees, including the right to a public trial, in any proceedings against them.
Refrain from using pretrial detention as a form of advance punishment against human rights defenders and others detained for political reasons, in clear violation of due process guarantees and international human rights standards.
Protect human rights defenders from reprisals, harassment, torture, and threats, and ensure accountability for abuses committed.
Restore conditions that allow freedom of expression, association, and assembly, and harmonize national laws with El Salvador’s international obligations, including by repealing the Foreign Agents Law.
End the misuse and abuse of emergency measures and, in all cases, guarantee the right to a fair trial.
We also call on the international community, including the Organization of American States and the United Nations, to:
Urge the government of El Salvador to immediately cease the instrumentalization of the criminal justice system against human rights defenders or those who express criticism of the government.
Take urgent action, through diplomatic channels, assistance, and conditional cooperation, among other means, to protect civic space, the rule of law, democracy, and human rights in El Salvador.
Abogadas y Abogados para la Justicia y los Derechos Humanos (México)
Alianza Regional por la Libre Expresión e Información
Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos -APRODEH, Perú
Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS)
Centro de Documentación en Derechos Humanos “Segundo Montes Mozo SJ” (CSMM) / Ecuador
Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional (CEJIL)
Consultora Solidaria (Mexico)
Consultoría para los Derechos Humanos y el Desplazamiento – CODHES (Colombia).
Convergencia por los Derechos Humanos (CDH), Guatemala
Comité de Familiares de Víctimas de los Sucesos de Febrero y Marzo de 1989 (COFAVIC), Venezuela.
Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF)
Equipo de Reflexión, Investigación y Comunicación (ERIC-SJ). Honduras
Global Strategic Litigation Council for Refugee Rights
Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL), Peru
Latin America Working Group (LAWG)
Movimiento Autónomo de Mujeres
Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
Synergía, iniciativas para los derechos humanos
Tejiendo Redes Infancia en América Latina y el Caribe
On June 20 we marked World Refugee Day by honouring the courage, resilience and humanity of those forced to flee their homes in search of safety.
Many of those fleeing conflict and persecution are journalists themselves. Forced into exile, they risk losing not only their homes but their platforms and their purpose. JHR equips these journalists with training and story grants, so they can keep working even in the most challenging circumstances.
In Canada, Soraya Amiri arrived from Afghanistan in 2022. She began her career here through the JHR-Meta Afghan Journalists in Residence Fellowship at The Walrus. Today, she continues as a Contributing Writer. In this essay, she reflects on what it means to reclaim her voice as a journalist in exile. Read her latest stories here. Mostafa Al-A’sar, another fellow originally from Egypt who resettled in Canada in 2024, joined the Contributing Writers Program in May and is already at work on his first article for The Walrus. Through their stories, Canadians gain a deeper understanding of the lives and events unfolding beyond our borders.
In Europe we fund and train exiled Russian and Belarusian journalists now based in the Baltics and Poland. With our support they continue reporting on shrinking civic space and government repression. Brestskaya Gazeta has documented the lives of former political prisoners, making visible the human toll of repression. Two young Belarusian bloggers used their platforms to counter state propaganda and foster dialogue on democratic values. And SOTA Visionreads letters to political prisoners on livestreams, helping ensure that those imprisoned in Russia are not forgotten.
At a moment of global upheaval, when self-interest drowns out solidarity, when aid budgets are slashed and the number of displaced people worldwide has never been higher, it is more urgent than ever to stand with refugees.
At JHR, we remain committed to supporting journalists in exile and to equipping local reporters with the tools they need to cover refugee rights objectively and accurately.
Emirati authorities have designated as “terrorist” 11 political dissidents and their relatives as well as 8 companies they own, reflecting the country’s indiscriminate use of overbroad counterterrorism laws and contempt for due process, Human Rights Watch said on 22 April 2025.
On January 8, 2025, Emirati authorities announced a cabinet decision unilaterally adding the 11 individuals and 8 companies to its terrorism list for their alleged links to the Muslim Brotherhood, without due process. The authorities did not inform these individuals or entities prior to the designation, nor was there any opportunity to respond to or contest the allegations. The move represents an escalation of the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) transnational repression, targeting not only dissidents but also their family members.
“Throwing nineteen people and companies onto a list of alleged terrorists without any semblance of due process, and with serious ramifications for their livelihoods, makes a mockery of the rule of law,” said Joey Shea, United Arab Emirates researcher at Human Rights Watch…
Human Rights Watch found that all eight companies are solely registered in the United Kingdom and are owned or previously owned by exiled Emirati dissidents or their relatives. At least nine of the eleven designated individuals are political dissidents or their relatives. Only two of the eleven have been convicted or accused of a terrorist offense, though both under questionable circumstances, according to informed sources and the Emirates Detainees Advocacy Center (EDAC), a human rights organization supporting imprisoned human rights defenders in the UAE. One was convicted in absentia as part of the grossly unfair “UAE94” mass trial of political dissidents in 2013. The other was accused in a separate case related to supporting the “UAE94” detainees.
Individuals on the list found out about the designation only after the Emirates News Agency (WAM), the UAE’s official state news agency, published it on its website. It came as “a real shock, it was very difficult,” one of the people named told Human Rights Watch.
Human Rights Watch searched for the individuals and companies on global terror and financial sanctions lists, including the United Nations Global Sanctions list, the European Union Sanctions list, and the Consolidated List of Financial Sanctions Targets in the UK. None of them are included in these internationally recognized lists.
The UAE’s 2014 counterterrorism law uses an overly broad definition of terrorism and allows the executive branch to designate individuals and entities as terrorists without any corresponding legal requirement to demonstrate the objective basis of the claim. It does not set out a clear procedure for how this authority should be exercised, nor does it provide for any oversight.
Designated individuals face immediate asset freezes and property confiscation under the counterterrorism law and Cabinet Decision No. 74/2020. Those in the UAE, including relatives or friends, face a possible sentence of life in prison for communicating with anyone on the list. Human Rights Watch found that the designation has negatively affected individuals’ careers and personal finances, including through lost career opportunities and clients.
Exiled Emirati dissidents said the designations are part of the UAE’s ongoing crackdown on dissent and political opposition. “They want to hurt us as much as possible,” one individual whose name appeared on the list said.
Over the last decade, Emirati authorities have repeatedly targeted the Muslim Brotherhood and its Emirati branch, the Reform and Social Guidance Association (Al-Islah), in a widespread crackdown. Al-Islah is a nonviolent group that engaged in peaceful political debate in the UAE for many years prior to the crackdown and advocated greater adherence to Islamic precepts. Many of the detainees from the grossly unfair “UAE94” mass trial in 2013 are members of Al-Islah. The UAE designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in 2014.
The 2014 counterterrorism law enables the courts to convict peaceful government critics as terrorists and sentence them to death. The law has been repeatedly used against political dissidents. In July 2024, 53 human rights defenders and political dissidents were sentenced to abusively long terms in the country’s second-largest unfair mass trial.
The UN’s first special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights has said that terrorism should be defined as narrowly as possible, warning that “the adoption of overly broad definitions … carries the potential for deliberate misuse of the term … as well as unintended human rights abuses.”
…The UAE appears to be escalating its persecution beyond openly outspoken dissidents to include family members who have not participated in politics nor spoken publicly about the country’s human rights record. “Many people whose names are on the list, they didn’t speak loudly against the government,” one person said.
In 2021, the UAE added 38 individuals and 15 entities to its terrorism list, including 4 prominent exiled Emirati dissidents. Human Rights Watch found that 14 of the 38 individuals and two of the entities are on other international global terror and financial sanctions lists. None of the individuals nor entities added on January 2025 were found on other internationally recognized lists…
On 23 April, 2025 OMCT made public this interview with Armel Niyongere, exiled Burundian lawyer and Secretary General of SOS-Torture Burundi, a member of the World Organization Against Torture (OMCT) SOS-Torture network. He continues to denounce human rights violations in his home country. Despite 10 years of threats and intimidation from the authorities, Mr. Niyongere continues his fight to promote and protect human rights. In this interview he talks about the difficulties of exile, the challenges facing those who defend human rights, and the role of the international community.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 