and now – 3 years later – there is another film, shown on 02 June 2026, also in Geneva:
Ten years after the murder of Honduran human rights defender Berta Cáceres, ISHR and PBI Switzerland invite you to a special film screening and discussion featuring an edited version of the film “Water for Life “, followed by a discussion with Roxanna Altholz, Camilo Bermúdez (COPINH) and director Will Parrinello. Free admission upon registration.
As part of a European advocacy tour organised by Peace Brigades International, Roxanna Altholz and Camilo Bermúdez will be stopping off in Switzerland to discuss the fight for truth and justice in the Berta Cáceres case.
The screening will be followed by a discussion with:
Roxanna Altholz, a human rights lawyer, associate director of the Human Rights Clinic at Berkeley Law and co-author of the independent report on the murder of Berta Cáceres
Camilo Bermúdez, a human rights defender and legal adviser to COPINH, a Honduran organisation founded by Berta Cáceres and supported by PBI in Honduras
Will Parrinello, director and producer of the film Water for Life.
The discussion will be moderated by Txell Bonet, a Catalan journalist.
2 June 2026 7:30 PM – 9:30 PM. Address: Fonction cinéma Maison des Arts du Grütli Rue du Général-Dufour 16 1204 Genève Event language(s) French/Spanish RSVP Needed: yes
Today was the funeral of one my best friends and, more importantly, one of the most significant architects of the international human rights system as it developed in the last 50 years. Theo (Theodoor Cornelis) van Boven, was born in Voorburg on 26 mei 1934 and died peacefully in Maastricht on 9 mei 2026.
I have had the honor to work with him for many years [our lives intertwined over a long period of time and on different locations] and wrote about him several times. Most recently “Courageous Leaders and NGO Initiatives” in Ramcharan and others (ed), The Protection Roles of Human Rights NGOs, Essays in honour of Adrien-Claude Zoller, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, 2023 (ISBN 978-90-04-51677-9), pp 614-636.
So, here a large part of the section on this great man: This section is about a man who was crucial in getting the United Nations and NGO partners to deal with human rights protection. Much has been written about his work and the enormous contribution Theo van Boven made to the UN human rights machinery as we now know it. .. Nowadays the United Nations has an elaborate machinery to deal with human rights violations. The system is far from perfect and still too often subject to political pressures and selectivity but there are now a great many thematic and country mandates, emergency sessions and there is an International Criminal Court against impunity. Wind back 40 years and none of this existed. The violations were there for all to see but not for the United Nations, which preferred to consider this part of the ‘internal affairs of sovereign states’. The man who would make it his life’s mission to change this, Theo van Boven, got in 1977 the position from where to do it: Director of Human Rights in the UN.
His teenage years were eaten up by the second world war. His memories of that period, his strict protestant background and his law studies in Leiden led him to enter an area that was not so obvious at the time: international human rights. He studied in the USA, wrote there a thesis on freedom of religion and soon afterwards, around 1960, he found himself as a young diplomat shaping the human rights policy of the Netherlands. A decade later the protest against the Vietnam war, the violations by the Greek colonels, the coup d’état in Chile and President Carter’s new policy on human rights pushed human rights suddenly higher on the political agenda. Theo had become an expert member of the UN Sub-commission on Human Rights and was one of the engineers of the first UN effort to investigate large-scale human rights violations, namely Chile. I myself met him when he was still a young professor lecturing on human rights in Amsterdam. Then – in the summer of 1977, the same month I started at the ICJ – he was appointed Director of the small human rights secretariat of the UN in Geneva. Here he started his work to bring dictators to accountability and to give the UN a capacity to deal with gross and systematic violations of human rights. Something that is now taken for granted but it would cost Theo his job.
Unlike his predecessors, Theo van Boven did not put all his faith in quiet diplomacy and he regularly talked about the need for the UN to address gross and systematic violations, about the mobilisation of shame and stated that the UN should care about victims. He also started to receive the victims – and the NGOs who represent them – in his office. This led to an incident that would be comic if it was not for the consequences. J. Matarollo was an Argentinean exile lobbying against the generals in his homeland who were killing left-wing opponents by the thousands. Theo agreed to hear him and told his secretary (inherited from his predecessor) to call Matarollo to give him an appointment in the early of hours of the next day. She faithfully called the Argentinean embassy assuming that he was a diplomat as these were the kind of people that normally met with the Director. The next day there was no Matarollo but an angry Note Verbale from Argentinean Ambassador Martinez accusing Theo of meeting with terrorists.
In the UN he did not conform to the image of the traditional diplomat, e.g. by pinning an anti-apartheid button on his suit, but even more so by publicly stating that NGO reports about dead bodies floating down a river in Guatemala were true, or by denouncing disappearances in Chile and Argentina. When in 1980 the government in the USA changed and Ronald Reagan and his team decided to play down violations by right-wing regimes, especially in Latin America, Theo did not flinch and openly criticised their support to these dictatorships. “Naming and shaming” by a UN official was unusual and not easily accepted by the diplomatic community. The Latin American regimes – led by Argentina and silently encouraged by the US – started a campaign to oust Van Boven as Director of Human Rights.
To complicate matters for van Boven, the new UN Secretary-General must have felt little sympathy for this particular Director, as J. Perez de Cuellar had earlier, in 1980, been appointed as Special Representative by the previous Secretary General to go to Uruguay and look into the human rights situation. His report was such a whitewash that it was heavily criticized in the Commission on Human Rights. How correct this reaction had been was shown when the famous pianist Estrella – whom de Cuellar claimed to have visited in the Libertad prison – came to Geneva and told the I.C.J and others that there had been no such visit.
In the meantime in 1980 Theo had put great energy – together with some key NGOs in creating a Working Group on Enforced Disappearances. As a mechanism focusing only on Argentina was politically not feasible, the new idea was to create a thematic mandate on the phenomenon of disappearances in the knowledge that Argentina was going to be the main target. At the decisive session the tension was enormous as the outcome of the vote was very uncertain. The Jordanian Chairman of that session had to deal with endless procedural issues, many of them proposed by Uruguay (egged on by Argentina which was only an observer). Finally, late at night the Chair felt that the resolution creating the mandate could be passed without a vote and moved to do so, but the Uruguayan Ambassador again started to put up his name plate as a sign that he wanted the floor. The Chairman quite unusually interrupting, looked directly at the Uruguayan Ambassador and said: “I URGE my brother from Uruguay NOT to do this..” The name plate slowly turned downwards again and the Chair immediately declared the resolution adopted. The NGOs and tens of Mothers and Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo in the public galleries started a spontaneous applause and quite a tear was shed. ..
In early 1982 the issue of Theo van Boven’s tenure as Director came to the fore. His contract had to be renewed which normally was a routine matter, but not this time. The issue came to an explosion when Theo’s opening speech to the Human Rights Commission was sent on a Friday evening to the UN Secretariat in NY for information and at the same time given to the UN Office of Information in Geneva for distribution at the time of delivery the next Monday morning. The UN Office of Information decided to make the statement available to the media that very Friday evening (with the usual proviso: “check against delivery”). The Representative of Guatemala in Geneva obtained a copy of the statement and vehemently objected to the statement. The SG’s office demanded that Theo should refrain from mentioning countries by name – which Theo refused not only out of principle but also because the press would notice the difference on Monday and assume that there had been pressure to remove the names.
As a family friend bringing the kids back from a ski outing, I happened to overhear Theo on the phone to New York agreeing to a ‘compromise’: he would mention at the beginning of his speech that certain passages were done in his ‘personal capacity’. A few days later Theo was suddenly informed that his contract would anyway not be prolonged. His announcement at a dramatic session of the Human Rights Commission grew quickly into an international diplomatic incident.
As I was on the verge of leaving the ICJ, I had some time on my hands. So I got the idea – warmly supported by Niall McDermot – to publish a book with a selection of Theo’s major speeches from the last five years. One of his Special assistants, Bertie Ramcharan, who had written a good part of them, was very helpful and we managed to get a book out within only 6 weeks. The first copy was flown in to Geneva by the publisher and presented to Theo at a public farewell which the ICJ had organised for him. NGOs, some UN staff and students showed up in such large numbers at the university hall that the fire brigade had to refuse access to late comers. Speech after speech – including by Saddrudin Aga Khan – cantered on Theo role in getting the UN machinery on human rights to deal with violations more concretely and on his support for human rights NGOs…
With Ian Guest and many others, I remain convinced that Theo’s dismissal from the UN was the result of pressure by Latin American dictatorships with support from the Reagan administration. As stated in People Matter, he was “hired and fired for the same reason: his deep commitment to human rights”.
After his dismissal Theo and his family returned to the Netherlands where many were very disappointed that there was no real interest in giving him an equivalent position in the foreign affairs department and he ‘ended up’ in the new University of Maastricht as professor of international law, where together with others such as Cees Flinterman he bent the research programme into his favourite direction: human rights. He continued his involvement in international activism in a variety of functions: with NGOs (e.g. European Human Rights Foundation, IMADR, International Alert), and with the UN (e,g. the Sub-commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Compensation 1990 -1993, Special Rapporteur on Torture 2001-2005, first Registrar of the UN Yugoslavia Tribunal). In 1998 he became the Head of the Dutch Delegation to the Rome Conference which created the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In 1985 he was called to Buenos Aires as a witness to testify against the nine military leaders (including Videla) for their human rights violations in the period 1976 en 1983. The UN had advised him not to go but he felt that he should do anything to end the impunity of these perpetrators. Theo’s testimony – he was called already on the 2nd day – was seen as crucial in establishing that the leaders of the Junta must have known about the massive violations. Theo took the same position with regard to the father of princess Maxima Zorreguieta (the wife of the king of the Netherlands). As Minister of Agriculture Jorge Zorreguieta must have known about the atrocities and should at least have taken distance instead of denying any knowledge. A position which Theo took in 2001 and was still heard defending in 2012.
In the light of Theo van Boven’s recurring clashes with Argentina it must have given him great moral satisfaction when on 26 November 2009 he received a degree honoris causa from the University of Buenos Aires as well as the highest decoration from the Government.
ICTJ stated: “Van Boven’s commitment to the pursuit of justice was relentless. He spoke up about impunity and accountability in contexts of repression such as the military dictatorships in Argentina and Chile, where he also championed the cause of the disappeared, even when political pressure limited others from doing so. Today, ICTJ honors his voice, his perspective, and his deep-rooted legacy. Inspired by his resolve, we will continue our commitment to uphold human dignity above all else in the pursuit of justice and lasting peace all over the world, however long it takes.“
On 18 May 2026 UN experts and Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International expressed serious concern about the yearlong pre-trial detention of lawyer and woman human rights defender Ruth Eleonora López Alfaro in El Salvador.
“As time passes without the trial beginning, the presumption that detention is necessary is weakened,” the experts said.
López has been held in pre-trial detention for a year, officially authorised since 4 June 2025. During this time, she has been denied regular visits, despite precautionary measures ordered on 22 September 2025 by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. “This increases Ms. López’s vulnerability and puts her physical and psychological integrity at risk,” the experts said.
In maintaining judicial secrecy, the public is prevented access to hearings and the defence’s access to the criminal file is limited, thereby threatening the principle of equality of arms and the right to an adequate defence. The right to legal assistance of a lawyer of one’s choice is a cornerstone of the right to defence as established in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“The circumstances of detention and the irregularities in the proceedings, point towards López being subject to reprisals because of her legitimate activities as a human rights defender and lawyer,” they said.
The experts underscored that there are elements suggesting that the criminalisation and prolonged pre-trial detention of Ruth López not only stem from her work exposing corruption and human rights violations, but also appear to reinforce patterns of social control designed to silence women leaders in the public sphere, while also seriously undermining the work of their organisations.
The experts urged the State to release Ruth López Alfaro immediately and consider alternative measures instead of keeping her in custody. They also called for the removal of the judicial secrecy imposed in the criminal proceedings, the cessation of all acts of harassment against her, and guarantees that she may carry out her human rights work without fear of reprisals. The experts are in contact with the Government of El Salvador on this matter.
On 15 October 2025, Fariba Nawa wrote about Mahshid Nazemi, Iranian human rights defender.
Mahshid Nazemi, an Iranian human rights activist, left her home one day in the fall of 2022 to walk to the corner store to buy yogurt for dinner. The sun had set in the valley in Isparta, a city in southwestern Turkey, and the air was crisp. Nazemi pulled the hat of her coat over her head. The streets were empty. She was tired and hungry. Suddenly, she saw two cars turn on their lights. A dated, navy-colored sedan with tinted windows drove behind her slowly as she walked. Nazemi became suspicious and stopped. The car braked and a pudgy, bearded man with a khaki shirt exited, cursing at her, calling her a prostitute. “Shut your mouth or we’ll send you to Iran in a suitcase,” Nazemi recounted the man saying. “Your sister is on death row. You want to go to Iran in a suitcase?”
A year later, she stood at the exact spot in Isparta, known for its roses and lavenders, as she retold her ordeal.
Nazemi’s case underscores a broader pattern of Iranian activists abroad facing intimidation and pressure from Tehran, despite the regime’s public denials of involvement.
For Nazemi, she says her plight began long ago as a woman in Iran, where women don’t have equal rights, and the situation has been likened to gender apartheid. Women can’t sing in public, their supreme leader has said riding a bike is shameful — though some women defy the taboo and ride bikes — their testimony is considered half of a man’s in court and their right to inheritance is less than men. Nazemi has survived a lot — imprisonment, sexual harassment, death threats and a deportation camp.
The night she was followed and harassed in the street would be a prelude to a series of dubious events terrorizing her life as a dissident in exile.
At that time, Nazemi was in Turkey, which has become an opposition haven for many Iranians. She was speaking out about political prisoners and crackdowns on protesters, while also helping dissidents in Turkey get legal aid and financial support. She’s been a dogged activist on behalf of women in her native Iran. Nazemi wasn’t doing that work alone. Her oldest sister Pouran Nazemi was at the forefront of the movement in Tehran. The renowned human rights defender has been in and out of Iranian prisons throughout her life. Nazemi said it was Pouran’s sacrifices that encouraged her to become an activist, too.
A selfie of Pouran (left) and Mahshid Nazemi nine years ago in Iran. The sisters haven’t seen each other in-person for a decade.Courtesy of Mahshid Nazemi
The sisters participated in previous uprisings in Iran, demanding democratic rights for women and minorities. They were both arrested in 2016, but Mahshid Nazemi was released. Her family told her to flee, so she went to neighboring Turkey and applied for asylum to a third country. When Pouran was also released from jail, she remained in Iran. But the sisters worked as a team online across the border. They talked to the opposition media, like Voice of America Farsi, making a case for regime change and a revolution.
Instead, the hardline clerical government arrested 22,000 protesters, including Pouran once again in 2022. The government also killed about 550 people inside Iran, calling them traitors and agitators. Then the regime came for those in the diaspora.
“Iran continues to target women human rights defenders abroad, and among the typical and easy-to-use methods are digital threats, such as phishing and hacking attempts, smear and defamation campaigns, as well as threats against family members in Iran,” said Michael Michaelsen, who studies Iran and transnational repression at the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto.
Nazemi has been the victim of all these tactics but she said the regime went a step further in sending their thugs to threaten her in person that evening in 2022. She reported the incident to the Turkish police, but they didn’t believe her until they found CCTV footage of the incident. A few days later, a Turkish immigration agent called and asked her to come to their office. She thought she might be getting asylum to a third country, somewhere safer than Turkey. But instead, the agent accused her of making a fake ID card, which Nazemi denied. It’s a scene she remembers vividly.
“I didn’t make a fake card. I’m not going to admit to something I didn’t do. If you want to deport me, do so,” Nazemi told the agent. Nazemi was detained and moved into a deportation camp. “The Islamic Republic must have informants in Turkish immigration offices. Otherwise, how would I have ended up in a deportation camp, right after reporting what happened about that night,” she said.
In the camp, Nazemi said the guards beat her, pulling out half of her hair. Another Iranian migrant, who was also detained, accused her of being transgender and threw soup in her face. Nazemi said she had to disrobe in front of the other detainees to prove she was a biological woman to prevent more abuse. She said the camp almost broke her. She had medication with her and one day she took a lot of pills at once. “I didn’t take them to die, actually, but to prove something, how badly they treated us that it got me to this point,” Nazemi said. Nazemi was hospitalized outside the camp, doctors pumped her stomach and she recovered. Police released her and she returned to Isparta and appealed the deportation. Turkey denied the appeal again, but by this time Nazemi’s story was out in the Western press.
The World shared her story, along with press coverage she received in the French newspaper Le Monde — that attention helped her get a visa to France after eight years of being stuck in the Turkish asylum system. She resettled in a French village in December 2023, and continued her activism — Nazemi has expanded her cause to advocate for Afghan migrants as well.
She still gets death threats on social media. Many of the senders say they are the “soldiers of the Islamic Republic.” The direct messages in her inbox on Instagram threaten her with execution, drowning, even rape. Nazemi is under French police protection and reports all the threats.
Cyrille Traoré Ndembi, 61, is the President of the Vindoulou Residents’ Collective, a neighbourhood on the outskirts of Pointe-Noire in the Republic of Congo. This retired community development specialist has been fighting to defend the residents’ right to a healthy environment since he moved there in 2019.
His house is located just ten metres from the Metssa Congo plant run by a subsidiary of the India-based Metssa Group. This recycling plant produced lead bars for export from 2013 to 2024, 50 metres from a school and in the middle of a residential area. Cyrille noticed severe health problems in his family including respiratory and digestive disorders. Blood tests on some residents showed lead levels far above the alert level set by the WHO.
Following Cyrille’s campaigning, and with the help of Amnesty International, the authorities ordered the plant’s closure in December 2024. Cyrille continues to fight for justice for his community.
“When I arrived in Vindoulou, I quickly realized the danger we were in. The air was unbreathable!
Black dust and fumes were spreading and invading our homes. Sometimes, when we went out, we couldn’t even see our nearest neighbour. The plant staff discharged oil and wastewater in front of our houses. Metal debris from the plant’s chimney fell onto our roofs. Once, I went to walk along the wall of the plant and debris fell on me like hail.
Right from the start, I had doubts about the legality of this activity in the middle of a populated area. I couldn’t understand how a substance as dangerous as lead could be recycled using processes that were, in my view, contrary to the standards and regulations in force.
‘My whole family was ill’
We arrived in Vindoulou in August 2019 and by January 2020 my whole family was ill. Our children were found to have the beginnings of pneumonia, bronchitis and bronchopneumonia. We also had diarrhoea and abdominal pains.
Across the neighbourhood, people had the same problems. I was told that the children who had moved away from Vindoulou no longer suffered from those symptoms.
The residents believed that nothing could make this company leave. For the community, it was David against Goliath. Some even called me King David.
I went door-to-door to convince people that something serious was going on. Everywhere I went, I reminded people of article 41 of our Constitution: every citizen has the right to live in a healthy environment.
I explained to people the benefits of getting organized together and taking up the fight. Today, our collective has over a hundred members.
From survivor to human rights defender
We tried to meet the directors of Metssa Congo. We met the plant’s manager, who said he was not authorized to comment on the subject. He promised us an audience with the CEO, but it never took place. They wouldn’t talk to us, simply saying that they had authorization to operate. We couldn’t even consult their environmental impact report, which is a document that we were entitled to access under the current legislation. After calling in a bailiff, I was finally able to consult another type of document, their environmental audit report produced after they had already begun operations.
In 2022, I went to meet Amnesty International’s representatives to alert them. From 2023 onwards, Amnesty investigated and provided funds to carry out blood tests on a sample of the population. We then had proof that people tested had high levels of lead in their blood.
At the time, the workers were against what I was doing. Now, most of them have joined us in our fight.Cyrille Traoré Ndembi
I took two blood tests, in March and September 2023. They showed blood lead levels above 400 µg/L. For the 17 other people tested, the levels were alarming. When the ministry carried out other tests in 2024, some ex-workers had levels of 1,000 µg/L – that’s enormous!
My youngest daughter just turned four. Of the nine children tested, she had the highest lead level, above 530 µg/L. I’m worried about her. She’s running fevers even though she has no infection.
Amnesty also helped us take legal action in 2023, to publicize our situation and, in the face of the administration’s inaction, to make a plea to the authorities. As a result, the minister [of Environment] came here and spoke to the population in December 2024. We as a collective did not have a formal audience with the minister. The authorities received Metssa Congo’s managers for an audience in Brazzaville [the Republic of Congo’s capital] several times, but never our collective! I’m not being heard. Ideally, we should be able to talk directly to the authorities.
I’ve been under pressure. Metssa filed a complaint against me alleging defamation in May 2024. I went to court, but Metssa didn’t show up. They were bolstered by the decision of the Supreme Court’s public prosecutor that allowed them to resume their activities after a suspension ordered by an administrative judge in April 2024.
One night, some young people came and threatened me. It was stressful, but I didn’t back down. At the time, the workers were against what I was doing. Now, most of them have joined us in our fight.
When the company’s operations were suspended again in June 2024 by the Ministry of Environment, we continued to fight because the word suspension meant nothing to us. We wanted to hear the word closure. When the decision was taken on 11 December 2024 to close and dismantle the plant, we were relieved, but the fight was far from over.
In a Q&A on 16 April 2026 with Abdulhakim Idris, head of the Center for Uyghur Studies, Freedom Housediscusses his work exposing the Chinese Communist Party’s repression and how Chinese authorities have menaced him and his family in an attempt to prevent him from speaking out. Here some excerpts:
Abdulhakim Idris (Photo Credit: Center for Uyghur Studies)
The People’s Republic of China conducts the world’s most sophisticated and comprehensive campaign of transnational repression, targeting human rights defenders, journalists, students, artists, and members of religious and ethnic minorities. Uyghurs, an ethnic group from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, have fled repression in China for decades. Abroad, many members of the group face the threat of transnational repression via detention, unlawful deportation, rendition, coercion by proxy, surveillance, and digital harassment. Uyghur individuals are involved in over 20 percent of the incidents in Freedom House’s transnational repression database, which catalogues direct, physical cases around the world from 2014 to 2025.
Last month, Abdulhakim Idris, head of the Center for Uyghur Studies in Washington, DC, and a leading Uyghur scholar and advocate, was detained for nearly a day and subsequently expelled from Malaysia at the behest of Chinese authorities, preventing him from launching the Malay-language edition of his book about how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) pressures governments in the Islamic world to remain silent about its persecution of Uyghurs. As Idris explains, this act of transnational repression sets a dangerous precedent for every other American advocate, journalist, and researcher operating abroad. Below, Idris describes his work exposing CCP abuses, and how they sought to silence him—in Malaysia and elsewhere.
Freedom House: Could you describe your work as executive director of the Center for Uyghur Studies?
Abdulhakim Idris: As executive director of the Center for Uyghur Studies (CUS), I lead a mission at the intersection of human rights advocacy, academic research, and diplomatic engagement to address the crisis in East Turkistan (known formally as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region). By producing rigorous, evidence-based reports and briefing global lawmakers, I work to expose Chinese Communist Party narratives and ensure the international conversation on its persecution of Uyghurs remains rooted in scholarly data and cultural expertise. My work translates this research into action, raising awareness through media advocacy and high-level briefings to reach the audiences most capable of effectuating change. I also work to engage Muslim-majority countries where Chinese economic pressure often buys silence. By briefing religious leaders and civil society across the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, I demonstrate that the persecution of Uyghurs is an assault on our shared faith and part of China’s war on religious beliefs.
My advocacy is deeply personal: 24 of my family members have been missing since 2017, including my mother, Habibehan Idris; my brother Abdurehim; my sister Buhedichehan; and all of my nieces and nephews. In August 2023, I learned about my father’s passing in Hotan seven months earlier in January 2023.
As a bridge between the diaspora and the international community, I provide the strategic recommendations and testimony needed to transform our personal data into global action.
How long have you been involved in advocacy on behalf of the Uyghur people?
I was born in Hotan, East Turkistan, in 1968. My journey began with a foundation in faith and scholarship; I studied Islamic Sciences and Arabic in underground madrasas in Hotan before leaving in 1986 to study at Al-Azhar University in Egypt. This background gave me a profound understanding of the religious identity that the CCP is currently attempting to erase.
In 1990, I became one of the first Uyghurs to seek asylum in Germany. Settling in Munich, I balanced my studies in Industrial Management with a mission to organize our people. I am one of the founders of the East Turkistan Union in Europe (1991), the very first Uyghur organization on the continent. Over the next two decades, I focused on building the institutional architecture of our struggle. I am proud to be one of the founders of both the World Uyghur Youth Congress (1996), where I served as chairman of the executive committee, and the World Uyghur Congress (2004), where I have held different leadership roles.
Since moving to the United States in 2009, I have continued this work in Washington, DC, serving on the board of the Uyghur American Association. In 2017, my wife, Rushan Abbas, and I cofounded Campaign for Uyghurs (CFU) to bring more urgent awareness to CCP abuses against Uyghurs.
In recent years, the nature of the struggle has changed. As the Chinese government intensified its repression campaign, our response needed to become more robust. This led me to establish the Center for Uyghur Studies, where I have combined advocacy with the intellectual and scholarly dimension necessary to challenge China’s influence, particularly in the Muslim-majority countries.
Why were you traveling to Malaysia? Can you describe what happened when you arrived?
We have been engaging in Uyghur advocacy in Malaysia since 2022, and since then, I have been there several times, including for a meeting with Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
The CCP considers me one of the foremost experts on its influence in Muslim-majority countries. My book is now translated into Turkish, Arabic, Malay, and Bahasa Indonesia. It has been an eye-opener about Chinese infiltration into Muslim-majority countries. Following its publication, both my wife and I were subjected to coordinated death threats and digital harassment. When I traveled to Jakarta for the Indonesian launch of the book, the Chinese embassy mobilized local proxies to stage public protests, including the burning of my picture and copies of my book.
Our Malaysian partner planned this advocacy trip and invited me to join. We were well prepared with reports and planned to launch the Malay-language edition of my book alongside several new reports from the Center for Uyghur Studies. My arrival in Kuala Lumpur was on March 29, 2026, and my departure was scheduled for April 8, 2026.
I arrived in Kuala Lumpur on March 29 at 7:00 am local time. When I came to the immigration hall, a Malaysian immigration officer pulled me aside, took my passport, and brought me to his office. An officer introduced himself as a Royal Malaysia Police officer and said that I would be denied entry and be deported. Five hours into this conversation, they put me in a temporary detention center at the airport. [Note: US citizens are not required to apply for a visa for a business or tourism stay in Malaysia of less than 90 days.]
My US passport was seized, and I was held without justification for 21 hours in detention, given only one small meal and one small bottle of water, before being escorted by four police officers onto a deportation flight.
After approximately 70 hours of continuous travel and detention, I arrived safely back in the United States. Our partner in Kuala Lumpur confirmed to me that my denied entry was the result of pressure directly from Beijing.
This is not an isolated incident but a pattern of Chinese intimidation. Last year, I was similarly denied entry to Indonesia under pressure from the Chinese embassy in Jakarta, but that time, after intervention by the US government, I was able to secure entry. This time, despite the State Department and the US embassy in Kuala Lumpur escalating the matter to Malaysian immigration, Beijing prevailed. The escalation is alarming.
Beijing’s goal is to silence my research before it reaches Malay-speaking communities. My only “crime” is being a dissident from a community persecuted by the Chinese government and exposing China’s broader threats to humanity, freedom, and democracy. China has now successfully used a third country to detain and expel a US citizen. If this stands, it sets a dangerous precedent for every American advocate, journalist, and researcher operating abroad. This is a clear case of Chinese transnational repression, specifically targeting me as a US citizen.
Has anything like this happened before?
Yes. We held an advocacy trip to Indonesia between July 11, 2024, and July 20, 2024. Our partner in Indonesia organized the events and invited me. The trip involved multiple meetings, seminars, and roundtable discussions with key Indonesian stakeholders, including politicians, NGO leaders, and religious figures. In total, we visited and held activities in five cities, including Jakarta, Pontianak, Surabaya, Yogyakarta, and remotely in Medan.
There were several challenges we faced during this trip. The CCP propaganda campaign is now widespread across Indonesia, including among NGOs and social media platforms such as TikTok, X, and Facebook. The Chinese government’s extensive propaganda campaigns, including social media advertisements and influence on local leaders, have created a significant hurdle.
When we held our event in Pontianak, Indonesian immigration officials showed up, checked my visa, and told me I was not allowed to speak at events on a tourist visa and that I would need a C10 visa for that purpose. We then changed our approach: I gave all my presentations to our Indonesian partners, who then proceeded with the seminars. We could adapt because our Indonesian colleagues were trained and experienced on the Uyghur issue after two years of working together.
On a subsequent trip between April 26, 2025, and May 6, 2025 to Indonesia, I traveled on a speaker visa and was detained at the airport for three hours before being allowed to enter the country after the intervention of the US government.
In both cases, as in Malaysia, the pressure traced back to Beijing. The difference is that in Indonesia, I was eventually able to seek clarity and secure entry. In Malaysia, I was not.
Have you ever experienced any other forms of transnational repression, such as threats, harassment, or coercion of your family?
Transnational repression is not an abstract concept for me. It is a painful, daily reality that has fundamentally reshaped my family’s life. The Chinese government frequently uses the safety and freedom of our loved ones back home as leverage to silence our advocacy in the West. Since repression of Uyghurs has intensified deeply since 2017, I have lost all contact with my relatives in Hotan. In Uyghur culture, family is everything. Being severed from one’s roots is a form of psychological warfare.
In August 2023, I received a devastating message from an anonymous source. I was informed that my father, Abdulkarim Zikrullah Idris, had passed away seven months earlier, in January 2023, in our hometown of Hotan. Because the CCP has cut all lines of communication between the diaspora and our families in East Turkistan, I was not able to be with him, speak to him, or even know he was gone when it happened. The last time I heard my father’s voice was in April 2017. Shortly after that phone call, the mass detentions began, and contact was severed entirely. For six years, I lived with the agonizing uncertainty of not knowing if he was safe, if he was in a camp, or if he was even alive.
This is a form of psychological torture that hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs in the diaspora face every day. Because of the total lack of transparency in the region, the exact circumstances of his death remain unclear. We do not know if he had access to medical care, or if the stress of the ongoing persecution contributed to his passing. What we do know is that he died in a police-state environment where his children were unable to fulfill their final duties to him.
My family was not the only one targeted. In September 2018, just six days after my wife Rushan Abbas spoke publicly about my families’ disappearance while highlighting the Chinese government’s mass detention of Uyghurs, her sister Dr. Gulshan Abbas was forcibly disappeared from her home in Urumqi. The spokesperson of China’s Foreign Ministry officially confirmed on December 31, 2020, that she had been sentenced to 20 years in prison on baseless charges in connection with terrorism. Dr. Gulshan Abbas was a retired medical doctor who had never been involved in politics. Her imprisonment remains an act of transnational repression, intended to terrorize our family, silence us, and force us to stop advocating for our people.
The CCP’s tactics of transnational repression have taken other forms as well. After I gave testimony before the Uyghur Tribunal in London in 2021, which concluded that China was committing crimes against humanity against the Uyghur people, Chinese state television broadcast my photograph and denounced me for testifying. This was meant to intimidate me publicly and to warn others of the consequences of speaking the truth. Before the 2024 General Assembly of the World Uyghur Congress in Sarajevo, my wife and I received an online video message containing direct death threats. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) contacted me and confirmed they were aware of the threat.
We have become targets of dehumanization, smear campaigns, character assassination, and threats against our lives. Even outside China, we live under constant fear and intimidation. Through these tactics, the Chinese government seeks not only to punish individuals but to spread fear across entire families and communities.
reminds us that Mr Surendra Gadling is a lawyer specialising in the defence of human rights and marginalised communities, particularly Dalits and indigenous peoples in India. He has been held in detention for nearly eight years in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case. He is now the only defendant still in prison – the other fifteen people prosecuted in this case have been released on bail.
Gadling was arrested in 2018 and is one of a group of human rights defenders prosecuted for their alleged involvement in violence that occurred in Bhima Koregaon. Several organisations believe that these prosecutions are in fact targeting committed activists and denounce the charges as baseless. [see also: https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/case/surendra-gadling-arrested]
Mr Gadling is also being prosecuted in another case linked to a fire at a mining site in Surajgarh. According to several lawyers, inconsistencies have been identified in the complaint (including the absence of evidence linking him directly to the incident).
In both cases, the key evidence used against him is the purported discovery of incriminating documents found on his PC. Independent Cyber forensic analysts have observed that these documents were planted using a Remote Access Trojan unknown to Mr. Gadling. Several lawyers’ organisations have called for his immediate release and condemned the use of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), which is considered particularly repressive. The prolonged detention of Mr Surendra Gadling raises serious concerns regarding respect for the right to liberty and a fair trial. It also raises questions about the protection of lawyers and human rights defenders, particularly when they are involved in sensitive cases.
The Observatory calls on the Indian authorities to ensure that Surendra Gadling’s fundamental rights are respected, in particular his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
France has reversed its earlier decision and granted a national visa to Palestinian human rights activist Shawan Jabarin, following criticism from European lawmakers, a French MP said on Monday. Jabarin, director of the West Bank-based rights group Al-Haq, had previously been denied entry by French authorities despite being invited to attend a session of the European Parliament’s Human Rights Subcommittee in Strasbourg.
“I take note that France has finally reversed its decision by granting a national visa to Shawan Jabarin,” French Green MEP Mounir Satouri said on the US social media company X Satouri called for full transparency over the initial refusal, urging authorities to clarify the reasons behind the blockage and to lift all remaining obstacles to issuing a Schengen visa.
In a joint statement, the groups said the last-minute visa denial prevented Jabarin from attending meetings with the French Parliament, civil society organizations, and the Foreign Ministry, restricting his work as a human rights defender.
Al-Haq had earlier said the rejection undermined efforts to advocate for Palestinian rights and accountability, particularly amid ongoing Israeli attacks in Gaza, warning that restricting access for rights defenders contributes to impunity.
We express our profound disappointment and outrage that the French Ministry of the Interior has once again refused to grant a visa to Mr. Shawan Jabarin, the General Director of Al-Haq. This action directly contravenes Administrative Court of Nantes Order No. 2607793, issued on 30 April 2026.
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.
On 15 April 2026 UN experts deplored the killing of Zweli “Khabazela” Mkhize and urged South Africa to ensure accountability.
“Mkhize’s murder forms part of a sustained pattern of violence and killings targeting human rights defenders within the Abahlali baseMjondolo movement,” the experts said. “Such heinous acts of violence constitute a direct assault on the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms.”
On 20 January 2026, Mkhize was shot and killed by two men in the eNkanini occupation. Prior to his murder, he had been subjected to death threats as a result of his opposition to the illegal sale of local land. “Zweli ‘Khabazela’ Mkhize, a leading member of the Abahlali baseMjondolo movement, was renowned for his dedication to the protection of housing and land rights in South Africa,” the experts said.
They warned that land rights defenders face heightened vulnerability to attacks and threats to their lives in retaliation for their human rights work, stressing that robust measures must be put in place to ensure their effective protection in line with the State’s obligation under international law.
“We urge South Africa to ensure a prompt, effective, impartial and thorough investigation into the killing and to take all necessary measures to hold those responsible accountable,” the experts said.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 