Human Rights activist Henry Tiphagne at the press meetInstagram/peopleswatch
On 25 June 2025 Azeefa Fathima wrote how – at the release of the Global Index on Torture in Geneva, human rights defender Henri Tiphagne of India’s People’s Watch slammed India for failing to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and for allowing systemic impunity in custodial deaths.
India’s human rights record on custodial torture came under sharp international criticism at the launch of the Global Index on Torture in Geneva on Tuesday, June 25, with prominent rights advocate Henri Tiphagne accusing the country of “zero accountability” in cases of police brutality and deaths in custody.
Drawing attention to the fifth anniversary of the custodial deaths of Jeyaraj and Benix in Tamil Nadu, Henri said, “The father and son were tortured and died in judicial custody. They were produced before a judicial magistrate after medical examination, having already changed clothes three times due to bleeding. The trial has gone on for five years, across 262 hearings, and is still ongoing, while the family continues to face reprisals.”
Henri, who is the Executive Director of People’s Watch, criticised India for being among eight countries listed in the Global Index for ongoing torture and reprisals against victims and human rights defenders. “We are yet to ratify the Convention Against Torture, despite over 41 countries having recommended it. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has existed for 32 years and has not prosecuted even one police officer responsible for extrajudicial killings or torture,” he said…
He said that India must “bow down in shame” for its continued failure to ratify the UN convention and for its “zero accountability” in cases of custodial torture and deaths.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), established 32 years ago, has never successfully prosecuted a single police officer involved in torture or extrajudicial killings, Henri noted, and said, “We are the only country with so many human rights institutions, and yet they are not functioning. The NHRC has even been downgraded in Geneva, and this speaks volumes”.
On 27 May 2025, the Oversight Board overturned Meta’s decision to leave up content targeting one of Peru’s leading human rights defenders:
Summary
The Oversight Board overturns Meta’s decision to leave up content targeting one of Peru’s leading human rights defenders. Restrictions on fundamental freedoms, such as the right to assembly and association, are increasing in Peru, with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) among those impacted. Containing an image of the defender that has been altered, likely with AI, to show blood dripping down her face, the post was shared by a member of La Resistencia. This group targets journalists, NGOs, human rights activists and institutions in Peru with disinformation, intimidation and violence. Taken in its whole context, this post qualifies as a “veiled threat” under the Violence and Incitement policy. As this case reveals potential underenforcement of veiled or coded threats on Meta’s platforms, the Board makes two related recommendations.
……
The Oversight Board’s Decision
The Oversight Board overturns Meta’s decision to leave up the content. The Board also recommends that Meta:
Clarify that “coded statements where the method of violence is not clearly articulated” are prohibited in written, visual and verbal form, under the Violence and Incitement Community Standard.
Produce an annual accuracy assessment on potential veiled threats, including a specific focus on content containing threats against human rights defenders that incorrectly remains up on the platform and instances of political speech incorrectly being taken down.
On 10 June 2025 The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) condemned the arrest and detention of prominent Kaliningrad lawyer and human rights defender Maria Bontsler and called on the Russian authorities to release her immediately.
The ICJ is concerned that the charges against Maria are spurious and likely to be related to Bontsler’s legitimate activities. Proceedings against her have been undertaken in a shroud of secrecy and the ICJ calls on the authorities to immediately clarify their legal and factual basis for the charges against her.
Maria Bontsler was arrested on 28 May 2025 under Article 275.1 of the Russian Criminal Code, which provides for criminal liability for “confidential cooperation with a foreign State” aimed at “undermining the security of the Russian Federation”.
Available information indicates that a court hearing concerning Maria Bontsler’s detention or the filing of charges was held behind closed doors, at the Prosecutor’s request, on grounds of State secrecy. However, no official justification has been provided to demonstrate that the secrecy of the proceedings was necessary and proportionate as required under international human rights law. The ICJ is concerned that this lack of transparency undermines Bontsler’s right to a fair hearing.
“This prosecution reflects a broader campaign of retaliation against lawyers in Russia who engage in what the authorities see as politically sensitive cases. Such actions serve to intimidate and discourage other lawyers from vigorously defending their clients,” Temur Shakirov, Director (ad interim) of ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme said.
Maria Bontsler has a long record of defending politically persecuted individuals, including critics of Russia’s unlawful military intervention in Ukraine.
Irrespective of any charges, the ICJ stresses that it is inappropriate to keep Maria Bontsler in pre-trial detention.
In a broader context of interference with the legal profession, searches were also carried out at the homes of her colleagues, Roman Morozov and Ekaterina Selizarova, with electronic devices and legal documents seized. According to available reports, Morozov was questioned in relation to his alleged connections to the human rights organisation Memorial.
The ICJ stresses that under international law and standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, lawyers must be able to perform their professional activities without hindrance, including the collection and dissemination of information essential to protecting effectively their clients’ rights.
Maria Bontsler is a well-known human rights lawyer who represents individuals in politically charged cases and has been recognized by the Moscow Helsinki Group for her human rights defence work. Her clients include critics of the Russian Federation’s unlawful military intervention in Ukraine.
….Previously, Maria Bontsler was fined under administrative proceedings for courtroom statements made in defence of her clients, part of a systematic harassment faced by lawyers handling “political” cases in Russia
ISHR, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), request your urgent intervention in the following situation in Venezuela.
The Observatory has been informed of the disappearance of Mr. Eduardo Torres, a labour lawyer who has been a member for over five years of the Venezuelan Education-Action Program on Human Rights (PROVEA), an FIDH member organisation.
According to witnesses, Eduardo Torres was last seen on Friday, 9 May 2025 at 4:00 p.m. in Parque Central in Caracas, after attending a meeting. At that moment, Mr. Torres contacted his family and informed them he was heading home, near Av. Fuerzas Armadas in Caracas, but he never arrived.
Seeking information about Eduardo Torres’ whereabouts, his wife, Ms. Emiselys Nuñez, accompanied by PROVEA members, have visited various detention centres in Caracas, including the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN) at El Helicoide, several National Bolivarian Police (PNB) stations in Maripérez, Boleíta and Petare, as well as the General Directorate of Military Counterintelligence (DGCIM) in Boleíta. As of the publication of this urgent appeal, his whereabouts remain unknown.
On 11 May 2025, Ms. Emiselys Nuñez and PROVEA’s legal team went to the Palace of Justice to submit a “Habeas Corpus” petition before the Judge of First Instance in Control Functions of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, Specialised in protection matters, to request information on whether Eduardo Torres had been detained by the Venezuelan State. However, after more than seven hours of waiting, they were not “authorised” to receive the document, without providing details, and in clear violation of Article 27 of the National Constitution and Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Organic Law of Personal Liberty and Security.
The Observatory highlights that Mr. Torres has been repeatedly been subjected to threats and acts of harassment by Venezuelan police officers. Like the rest of the PROVEA team, he is a beneficiary of precautionary protection measures granted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) due to repeated threats, criminalisation, and harassment in connection with his human rights work in Venezuela.
The Observatory expresses its deepest concern due to the high probability that Mr. Eduardo Torres is in a condition of arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance, due to his work as a human rights defender and given the constant threats against him. If confirmed, these acts would increase the risk of torture and ill-treatment against him.
The Observatory underlines that this disappearance occurs two weeks before the national and regional elections scheduled for 25 May 2025, again highlighting the risks against human rights defenders in Venezuela and exemplifying a systematic attempt to silence all critical voices committed to human rights and democracy in the country.
The Observatory urges the Venezuelan authorities to guarantee the physical and psychological security of Mr. Eduardo Torres, to disclose his whereabouts and to proceed to his immediate and unconditional release, in case he is indeed detained by State actors.
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.
On 23 April 2025 Front Line Defenders expressed its serious concern for Syrian woman human right defender Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajji, as well as her family and the ‘Equity and Empowerment’ organisation, who are being targeted by a defamation campaign on Facebook which seeks to incite violence against them. The online campaign, initiated both by individuals known to support the new government and unknown users, has targeted Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajii for a Facebook post she made on 20 April 2025, in which she advocated against forced marriages. This bombardment of defamatory messages has included calls for violence, including death threats, constituting a clear case of harassment.
Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajji is a Syrian feminist and woman human rights defender. She is the CEO of the Equity and Empowerment organisation and the Chairperson of the Board of Directors in Shan network for peace building. Equity and Empowerment is a women-led organisation which works on gender equality, focusing on digital security, economic and political empowerment. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/08/10/syrian-woman-human-rights-defender-hiba-ezzideen-al-hajji-threatened/]
Since 20 April 2025, Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajii’s Facebook account, through which she posted about women’s rights, has been used to start a defamation campaign and incite violence against her, as well as her family and the Equity and Empowerment organisation, both based in Idlib, Syria. The online campaign has led to Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajii receiving numerous death threats on the social media platform, both through private messages and through a flood of posts on her own account, as well as on Equity and Empowerment’s page. The online mob, formed by unknown users, have urged followers to post defamatory content against her online and called for physical violence, inciting people to burn down the center of Equity and Empowerment in Idlib, with the objective of killing Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajii and harming her family. They have distorted the meaning of an old video, in which she stated that it is unnecessary to use the veil in the centers of Equity and Empowerment where there are only women, to falsely accuse her of insulting the Hijab and Islam. The online mob have also attempted to distort her Facebook post in which she urged authorities to investigate cases of women’s abduction, in order to allow for accountability.
Several public figures have taken advantage of this defamation campaign in order to falsely accuse the woman rights defender of being an agent to Assad security branches, despite her clear stands against the Assad regime and extensive record of human rights activism against it. Subsequently, on 22 April, the police in Idlib closed down the center of Equity and Empowerment. Furthermore, the governor of Idlib announced via Facebook that he has requested the public prosecutor to file a lawsuit against Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajii for insulting the hijab. The woman human rights defender has expressed a profound concern for her personal safety and well-being. She has reported fearing for her life, as well as the lives of her family and team at Equity and Empowerment.
Front Line Defenders condemns the defamation and online campaign seeking to incite violence, as well as subsequent acts of intimidation against woman human rights defender Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajii, her family and her organisation Equity and Empowerment. Front Line Defenders believes that the defamation campaign and online harassment is directly related to Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajji’s work in the defence of human rights, particularly her work towards the promotion of women’s rights in Syria.
Front Line Defenders also expresses concern with the recurrent use of Facebook as a tool to incite violence against woman human rights defenders in Syria. The organisation urges Meta to immediately take down all Facebook posts against woman human rights defender Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajii and her organisation Equity and Empowerment, suspend any groups, pages and profiles used to defame her or organise attacks and incite violence against her and her organisation, while also storing data that is relevant for future investigations and accountability. Meta must fulfill their responsibility to protect human rights, in accordance with international human rights standards. They must take the necessary steps to guarantee the safety of human rights defenders online, ensuring their platforms do not contribute to violent and dangerous campaigns, or allow users to incite targeted violence against defenders, particularly woman human rights defenders, which puts their lives at serious risk. Front Line Defenders stands ready to assist Meta with identifying the defamatory and violent content in question and the accounts on which they are hosted or shared.
On 4 April, 2025 the Miami Herald reported that Haiti-based human rights lawyer Mario Josep died in a car accident.
In a country where justice is often elusive, Mario Joseph was a fearless crusader who didn’t care whether his opponent was the Haitian government or the international community as he defended political prisoners and poor victims of human rights abuses in his Caribbean homeland. Joseph died Monday night from injuries sustained in a car accident last week as he pulled into his house. His death was confirmed by his longtime friend Brian Concannon and the Boston-based nonprofit Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti. He was 62. Concannon said in a statement. “The global human rights movement has lost an inspirational leader when the notion of human rights itself is under broad attack.”
Since 1996 Joseph had served as the attorney for the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux, or Bureau of International Lawyers, in Port-au-Prince. The organization represented victims of human rights violations, trained Haitian law students and worked with U.S. law schools clinics, while also closely collaborating with the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti. His high-profile cases included championing the rights of 5,000 victims of waterborne-cholera who blamed the United Nations for its introduction into Haiti after the 2010 earthquake.
Among Jospeh’s many accolades over the years was the Judith Lee Stronach Human Rights Award from the Center for Justice & Accountability in San Francisco, the Alexander Human Rights Award from Santa Clara University, and honorary doctorates from the University of San Francisco and Indiana University School of Law. He was also a finalist for the 2013 Martin Ennals Human Rights Defenders Award.
Born in Damascus, Syria, Lina is a filmmaker, journalist, and human rights defender, who in 2011 decided to pick up her camera and start filming, without a plan, but with the knowledge that she has a story to tell. What ensued are five years of conflict, arbitrary arrests, as well as torture and ill-treatment in detention, but also of hope that things would get better, despite a veto. Five Seasons of Revolution was recently screened at the International Film Festival and Forum on Human Rights in Geneva, in an event co-hosted by OMCT, partner of the festival. In this interview, Lina tells us more about her process and the challenges she encountered in the making of the film, as well as her hopes for the future of Syria.
What made you decide to start filming?
We started shooting in the summer of 2011, and a lot was already happening in Syria, but it was not clear how things were going to go. I was optimistic, thinking it would be over in six months, maybe a year, with a release within two years. It took 12 years.
It took more than five years of filming, and then many more to edit, because the country hadn’t stabilised, and the characters’ decision to participate in the film shifted with every new development, for their own safety. We had to go back, take characters out, then put them back in, and make amendments to the storyline. But it wasn’t all negative. During this time, deepfake technology improved and gave us a solution for the anonymity issue of some of the characters who chose to stay in Syria in a way that is safe and does not interfere with the visual narrative.
What was the most challenging part about the filming process?
Not knowing where it’s heading. As a filmmaker, you have, even in documentaries, a rough script, or an idea of where you are heading, but we couldn’t. It was like surfing, we just had to keep up with weird twists and turns. At some point, there were so many arrests in the group that I was filming, the characters just kept going in and out of jail, and at any given moment, we would lose one of them. I was arrested several times and the rest of the film crew had to come up with plan Bs for ‘what if we lose the director, who also happens to be the camera person and the sole contact to all the other characters, how do we finish the film?’ There was even one editing session that was held in my absence because I was detained, and they didn’t know when I would be released. It was really challenging.
What was the most challenging part about having to change your identity several times throughout filming?
It was very confusing, but it was also very necessary. In order to make it work, you have to internalise it to a certain extent, which was challenging. This confuses your relationships with the people you’re working with, with the people you’re socialising with, with the people that trust you, despite only knowing your fake name. Very strong bonds are formed under extremely difficult conditions and something always felt wrong about not being able to be fully honest with people. it also created these compartments of who I am because different parts of me had different names in different places… and they didn’t always get along. Walking out of it was also a challenge. Normalising being one person and only using one name, only answering to one name. It was quite a journey.
Towards the end of the documentary, you talk about your experience with your arrest. Did what you experienced in custody change your approach to the film, or your activism?
I did not encounter anything during my arrest that I did not previously know exists and happens. What was detrimental was the repetition of detentions because you know you might get away with it once, maybe twice, if you’re lucky three times. But when I was released for the third time, I realised I did not know anybody that survived a fourth arrest. I felt like a cat with seven lives and I was really running out of them. I think this affected not only my decision-making in the film, but decision-making in my life in general, which obviously had consequences.
What are three things you hope people remember after watching your film?
Number one is that simplistic reductionist scenarios of war into black and white, good and bad are never true. Number two is that nobody has a blueprint for what to do in these cases. People improvise, people try to find solutions on the spot under pressure, and these are not always ideal. But also, people can be much braver than they think, because at the end of the day we are survivors, all of us, and there is a lot more to us than we sometimes give ourselves credit for. And number three, friendship is really important.
You are a filmmaker, but also a human rights defender. What are your hopes now for Syria and its people?
I hope people will be able to recover. I hope people will be given a break, given a chance to process everything they went through, given a bit of time to find a way out of this gigantic mess. It will take generations to rebuild the country. I understand that people have endured so much for so long that they cannot take one more day of it, so there is understandably also a lot of emotions. I just hope that we have the ability to open our hearts a bit more, understand each other a bit more and that people will in return give us the chance to process everything….
The prominent Nigerian atheist, who was freed on 8 January 2024 after serving more than four years in prison for blasphemy, is now living in a safe house as his legal team fear his life may be in danger…
In 2024, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) released its opinion that the Nigerian State violated international law by detaining Bala. Concluding that he was wrongfully imprisoned for exercising his right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief and that because of this violation no trial should have taken place.
Humanists International welcomes news of the release of Mubarak Bala, however, it reiterates that he should never have been detained in the first place. The organization once again thanks all those individuals and organizations without whose support this work would not have been possible. The organization hopes that Bala will one day be able to return to his homeland, and resume his work.
Andrew Copson, President of Humanists International stated:
“Today, we celebrate Mubarak Bala’s release – a hard-won victory that fills us with immense joy and relief. This triumph would not have been possible without the unwavering dedication of Humanists International’s staff, the tireless advocacy of Leo Igwe, the expertise of James Ibor and Bala’s legal team, and the invaluable support of our partner organizations. We extend our deepest gratitude to each and every one of them. While we rejoice in Mubarak’s freedom, we remain committed to fighting for the countless others who remain unjustly imprisoned for their beliefs. Their struggle is our struggle, and we will not relent until they too are free.”
Jalal Abukhater works as an advocacy manager for 7amleh, a digital rights and human rights organisation based in Palestine.
He spoke to ISHR about what drove him to take action for the digital rights of his fellow Palestinians and about the responsibility of big technology companies and online platforms in the suppression of Palestinian rights and voices.
‘There is a responsibility for big tech companies to uphold human rights to make sure that they are not complicit in the violation of human rights, especially in the context of genocide.’
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 