On April 22, 2026 United Nations special rapporteurs raised serious concerns about Turkey’s use of counterterrorism laws to judicially harass and criminalize human rights defenders and lawyers, including what they described as the misuse of the terrorism financing law, the Stockholm Center for Freedom reported.
In a letter sent to the Turkish government on February 23, 2026, but published only recently, the rapporteurs said authorities were pursuing charges including membership in a terrorist organization and terrorism financing against rights defenders and lawyers, singling out the Human Rights Association (İHD) as a particular target.
The rapporteurs pointed to the case of İHD member Hatice Onaran, who was convicted in 2024 of “violating the law on financing terrorism” after sending small amounts of money to poor and sick prisoners. They also cited the cases of four other members —Osman Süzen, Suna Bilgin, Tuğba Kahraman and Mehmet Acettin — who were charged with membership in a terrorist organization. Süzen was subsequently acquitted at a January 2026 hearing.
A fifth İHD member, İsmail Boyraz, was investigated on accusations of participating in an unlawful assembly after taking part in a teachers’ union protest. The rapporteurs also cited the case of lawyer Sabri Güngen, who was allegedly assaulted by police while meeting with a client.
The rapporteurs expressed concern over what they described as Turkey’s “apparent misuse” of terrorism financing laws in Onaran’s case, noting that providing small sums of money to support the basic needs of ill and financially disadvantaged prisoners, in line with prison regulations and under prison administration supervision does not constitute terrorism financing under international law. Onaran, who is undergoing cancer treatment, was released in February 2025 after his sentence was suspended for six months on health grounds.
They also warned that physical assault and intimidation reportedly faced by lawyers Bilgin, Süzen and Güngen while carrying out their professional duties may have been acts of retaliation for their human rights work.
The rapporteurs raised the same concern in a following statement on March 31, which warned that Turkey’s counterterrorism legislation is being used to criminalize legitimate rights advocacy and restrict fundamental freedoms.
The letter was signed by Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders; Gina Romero, the special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Tlaleng Mofokeng, the special rapporteur on physical and mental health; Margaret Satterthwaite, the special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; and Ben Saul, the special rapporteur on protection of rights and freedoms while countering terrorism.
In a letter οf 27 April 2026, addressed to leaders of the European Parliament, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) within the framework of the Observatory, as part of the Human Rights and Democracy Network (HRDN), call for the establishment of a European Union (EU) directive aiming at protecting human rights defenders within the EU.
The Human Rights and Democracy Network welcomes the European Commission’s renewed commitment, as part of the EU Civil Society Strategy, to scale up its support to ensure an enabling environment for civil society and human rights defenders across the world. In this context, HRDN urges the European Commission to take a decisive step toward establishing a Directive on the Protection and Mobility of Human Rights Defenders (HRDs), creating a coherent and predictable framework for their protection within the European Union.
Across the world, human rights defenders, including journalists, lawyers, environmental activists, women’s rights leaders, and LGBTIQ+ advocates, face increasing risks as a direct consequence of their work. They expose abuses, challenge corruption, and defend communities. Their courage upholds human rights, democracy and the rule of law both within and outside Europe’s borders.
While the EU and its Member States have established valuable relocation and protection mechanisms, these remain fragmented, short-term, unavailable to those most at risk and inconsistent as reports and studies have shown HRDs at risk are currently left with only two main pathways: temporary relocation programmes, often led by civil society or a few Member States, or the asylum system, which is designed for those unable to return home. Between these two options lies a wide and growing gap. Many defenders require temporary protection and mobility to continue their work, but face bureaucratic barriers, inflexible visa systems with indirect discriminatory impacts, and a lack of harmonised procedures.
A Directive on the Protection and Mobility of Human Rights Defenders (providing equal measures to a Temporary Protection Directive, as recommended in the study requested by the DROI Subcommittee of the European Parliament and called for by civil society) would bridge this gap by creating an EU-wide framework for safe entry, residence, and participation. It would introduce fast and flexible visa procedures, temporary but renewable residence permits, and the right to work, study, and continue advocacy while in safety. Such a Directive would also ensure fair responsibility sharing among Member States and foster cooperation with civil society organisations that host and support defenders.
This initiative aligns closely with the objectives of the EU Civil Society Strategy and the European Democracy Action Plan, translating policy commitments into a tangible protection mechanism. It would also complement the Human Rights Defenders Mechanism (ProtectDefenders.eu) by ensuring that the EU provides not only emergency support but also structured mobility pathways that allow defenders to rebuild, reconnect, and continue their work in safety inside the EU.
Every day, human rights defenders risk their lives to safeguard the freedoms we often take for granted. They face threats, violence, and relentless pressure simply because they choose to stand on the side of justice. Every year, different NGOs monitor the situation for human rights defenders globally and publish evidence of the attacks they are facing. Yet behind the headlines and statistics are real people – exhausted, targeted, and often left without adequate protection. For many, a safe space to take a break is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. It is the difference between burnout and resilience, between silencing and survival.
Human rights defenders work under constant pressure, facing political hostility, economic hardship, and systemic threats. The risks are severe and growing. Globally, Front Line Defenders reported at least 324 killings across 32 countries in 2024. These are not merely numbers; they reveal great risks and ongoing rights violations. Such realities underscore the urgent need for temporary relocation programs to offer defenders safety and space to continue their work.
Beyond the physical risks, defenders also face severe burnout and psychological strain. The emotional toll of their work is immense: constant exposure to threats and stories of violence can lead to secondary trauma, chronic exhaustion, and deep isolation, especially for those working without strong support systems. Temporary relocation programs help address these often‑invisible harms by offering a protected space for rest, reflection, and psychological support. As one participant from the Oslo as a Breathing Space City (Oslo Breathing Space City) program explained,
“The learnings related to well-being, stress management, and sustainable engagement have influenced how I interact with colleagues and community members. I have helped normalise conversations around mental health and burnout within my professional circles”Naghma Iqtidar, Pakistani human rights defender and Oslo Breathing Space City guest during Spring 2023.
This is precisely where temporary relocation initiatives play a crucial role. Similar to other rest and respite temporary relocation programmes, Oslo Breathing Space City offer defenders a three‑month stay in Oslo tailored to their individual needs. These initiatives provide psychosocial support, opportunities to connect with other organisations, and a safer environment in which defenders can continue their activism. Importantly, they take a holistic approach to protection, addressing not only immediate security needs but also the emotional, psychological, and relational dimensions of a defender’s wellbeing in the long term. Because of this broader focus, they can create different forms of impact, which are complementary to more traditional protection tools. They not only offer safety but also create the conditions for sustainable, long‑term resilience...
Finally, the impacts of supporting individual human rights defenders with a holistic and long-term approach can have great benefits for their organisations, movements and communities at home, as the learnings and networks on an individual level can lead to concrete initiatives that are positive for many people or be passed on to colleagues and ultimately impact the organisational or community resilience. Some examples have been shared by previous participants of Breathing Space City:
Why are temporary relocation programs for human rights defenders essential?
They serve as an essential fallback when other protections fall short, giving defenders the space to step away from immediate danger, regain perspective, and gather the clarity and energy they need to continue their work more effectively once they return home.
They help prevent burnout and psychological harm, allowing them to sustain their activism with greater resilience over the long term.
They strengthen global networks and solidarity, creating long-term impact beyond the relocation period.
They contribute to stable and resilient human rights communities in regions where defenders face systemic violence and persecution.
Expanding relocation support as a lifeline for human rights defenders
Supporting them through relocation programs is not just an act of solidarity; it is a lifeline that enables them to continue their vital work with even more impact, resilience and sustainability.
There are currently numerous temporary relocation programmes worldwide, each with its own focus and reach. They need continuous funding and political support to be able to keep hosting human rights defenders. While programmes in safe countries of the Global South should be expanded, so that defenders facing stricter visa barriers can also access temporary protection, there is also a strong need to sustain programmes in the Global North. These locations often offer unique added value to guests, including access to international networks, advocacy spaces, and specialised resources. In addition, locations like Oslo support rest by providing security, easy access to nature, and a welcoming environment.
According to the latest report from ProtectDefenders.eu, about 30% of protection investment now goes to temporary relocation programs, showing that donors see relocation as a key mechanism within human rights defender protection efforts. While overall public funding for defenders remains very low relative to need, around 0.10% of total Official Development Assistance, the portion dedicated to protection, including relocation, has grown noticeably. This suggests donors recognise the urgency of investing in safety as a priority, even as broader funding remains constrained. Nonetheless, as the need is growing, more funding efforts are necessary to maintain and develop existing and new programmes. The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights recommends broadening relocation programs, increasing awareness about defenders’ work and risks, providing more adequate support during stays, and revising legal instruments to address their specific needs.
On 23 April 2026 Anamaría Martinez and Elizabeth Moses for WRI explain how environmental defenders help prevent deforestation and protect ecosystems critical to climate stability. Yet many face severe and sometimes lethal threats while remaining underrecognized in climate policies that often depend on their work but fail to protect them.
Image by VaLife/Shutterstock
Benitha Bompendju grew up in Tshuapa province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, surrounded by the dense rainforests of the Congo Basin. The world’s second-largest tropical forest, it plays a critical role in regulating the global climate, conserving biodiversity and sustaining local communities like Benitha’s. Yet when she was growing up, industrial logging was constant.
Concessionaires licensed by the government to harvest timber promised to bring benefits like schools and health centers. But these projects often did not materialize, and local authorities rarely got involved. Instead, companies stripped trees from the land and left local communities — who have long stewarded and relied on the rainforest — with little in return.
“As children, we watched the concessionaires leave with the wood and our parents received nothing,” Benitha recalls. “That was injustice.” This experience shaped Benitha’s future work. In 2016, she began monitoring forest-use contracts and documenting violations, working with partner organizations and government agencies to hold violators accountable. Since then, these joint efforts have helped curb illegal logging, enforce environmental regulations and deliver promised investments to communities.
Yet this critical work can be dangerous — lethally so. Benitha and other environmental defenders like her are often caught in the crosshairs of commercial interests and corruption. Many face threats, intimidation, physical assault, kidnapping and deadly violence. Global Witness documented 146 defenders killed or missing in 2024. The total number killed or missing from 2012 to 2024 is over 2,200 — and because many cases go unreported, the true toll is likely higher.
Research consistently shows that forests managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities have lower deforestation rates and greater carbon sequestration than those managed under other regimes, making their contribution a measurable climate outcome. But without necessary protections — from access to climate justice to the systems and law enforcement needed to prevent threats and tragic loss of life — environmental defenders can’t safeguard vital ecosystems. And such protections can’t materialize or become institutionalized if environmental defenders aren’t accurately recognized and reflected in climate and nature policies.
The UN defines environmental human rights defenders as “individuals and groups who, in their personal or professional capacity and in a peaceful manner, strive to protect and promote human rights relating to the environment, including water, air, land, flora and fauna.” This includes those who defend the collective right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as well as traditional lands and livelihoods, through actions ranging from community organizing and legal advocacy to protesting, public campaigning and journalism. Many come from Indigenous and tribal groups with deep ancestral ties to the land.
Our research focuses specifically on frontline environmental defenders — those who live in, and defend, resource-rich areas experiencing what the UN Environment Programme describes as “abuse of environmental rights which affects a growing number of people in many parts of the world.”
To understand how defenders are represented in the gray (unpublished) and peer-reviewed literature on climate change under the UNFCCC, we examined 170 peer-reviewed documents from 2015 to 2025, including journal articles, books and reports, to map how defenders’ actions and contributions are reflected. The literature we surveyed both reflects trends in policymaking and serves as a source decision-makers might draw on to develop global and national climate and nature policies. Download
We found that groups such as Indigenous Peoples, women, local communities and youth are increasingly acknowledged as “agents of change” with decision-making capacity, rather than portrayed as victims or passive recipients of project benefits.
However, only 5% of the literature explicitly identifies members of these groups as “defenders” working to protect ecosystems and resources. This represents a crucial gap. Climate literature (and wider climate governance frameworks) tends to recognize who these people are — such as Indigenous Peoples, women-led organizations and youth activists — but without recognizing what they do, such as monitor deforestation and challenge extractive industries, or the risks they face as a result.
This difference may seem subtle, but is crucial. Recognizing someone’s identity alone doesn’t necessarily translate into protection or funding for the stewardship and advocacy these groups engage in. Not all identity groups (for example, Indigenous Peoples) are environmental defenders, and not all defenders belong to these groups, even if there is often an overlap. Recognizing defenders’ on the ground contributions, on the other hand, is important because it highlights their role in delivering concrete climate actions — and the need for institutional support and protection, not just their inclusion as stakeholders.
Protection can include early-warning and rapid-response systems that trigger protective action when defenders report threats or surveillance. It also means access to legal aid and judicial remedies, such as fast-track investigations, special counsel and public defenders trained in environmental and land-rights cases.
Meanwhile, governments are missing out on more effective and equitable climate solutions. Defenders bring unique perspectives, knowledge and lived experience — from agroforestry practices rooted in local traditions to stronger data collection and monitoring for more accurate NDC reporting — and help ensure policies are carried out more effectively. Yet threats to defenders weaken both national and global climate action by deterring those who risk their lives to safeguard ecosystems and enforce laws and policies.
What Would It Take to Support Environmental Defenders?
Frameworks like the Paris Agreement and the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP) under the UNFCCC already aim to integrate rights-based climate action into national and global goals. But they lack clear definitions and guidance on how defenders should be recognized and supported. To truly support environmental defenders, they must be incorporated into climate policy, reporting and finance.
Here are three ways this can happen:
1) Defining ‘Defenders’
The first step is defining what defenders are — not by identities, but by the concrete actions they take for climate protection and community resilience. Many don’t self-identify as “defenders.” They are individuals and communities that contribute to climate action and environmental protection. This would capture these de facto roles.
Adopting a practice-based definition in national and multilateral policymaking, alongside indicators that track defenders’ contributions to climate action, would allow policymakers to systematically recognize the people protecting ecosystems on the ground. Indicators could include community monitoring results, forest protection metrics or the number of co-designed adaptation plans.
This formalization would have three practical implications: First, recognizing defenders as a group would allow implementation of protection measures by identifying and addressing the risks they take. Second, it could enable governments to allocate budget to support defender-led initiatives. Third, it could strengthen their participation in decision-making at national and international levels by giving them space to share their knowledge on climate action and local ecosystems.
2) Protecting Defenders
Without safety guarantees, defenders cannot participate or contribute effectively. Protection requires two key elements: physical safety and legal resources.
Physical safety includes strengthening safeguards to reduce social and environmental risks and exploitation, for example, when concessionaires undertake projects in resource-rich areas. One way this can be supported is by creating early warning systems that allow defenders to report threats to the authorities and receive support, ensuring formal grievance mechanisms exist to ensure defender safety (with international backing, if needed). Another is by integrating defender protection requirements into climate funding, including zero-tolerance policies for violent reprisals.
Legal protection includes access to resources and courts. However, many defenders lack access due to prohibitive costs, limited connections and a poor understanding of the system. Where corruption is entrenched and governance weak, domestic legal systems can be used against defenders, leading to their criminalization as a way to silence them and stop their work. International accountability mechanisms — including UN human rights bodies, transnational legal networks and climate finance conditions tied to defender safety — can create external pressure where national systems fail. But they can only function if defenders are formally recognized. Without this, accountability is nearly impossible to demand.
Some progress has been made in different parts of the world. The Aarhus Convention, adopted in 1998, requires parties to “ensure that individuals exercising their rights to environmental information, participation and justice are not penalized, persecuted or harassed.” And Article 9 of the Escazú Agreement, adopted in 2018, calls for “a safe and enabling environment for persons, groups and organizations that promote and defend human rights in environmental matters.”
At the national level, climate justice laws and policies in Colombia, Mexico, Indonesia and the Philippines enshrine protection mechanisms that cover defenders and their work, while aiming to provide access to legal support.
Environmental defenders can include anyone that protects human rights related to the environment, including rights to a safe, clean and sustainable environment. They often face threats to their well-being and lack access to legal systems that could help support them. Photo by Eric Isselee/Shutterstock
However, significant implementation gaps remain.
Colombia’s law has stalled due to limited accessibility, the absence of a clear definition of who constitutes a human rights defender and a reshuffling of funds during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Mexico, a backlog caused in part by insufficient staffing prevents cases from being addressed in a timely manner, and protection measures are not always adequately implemented.
Indonesia recognizes defenders explicitly, but in practice, continued criminalization and intimidation prevent them from accessing the legal protection the mechanism provides. In the Philippines, financial and cultural barriers to filing cases, limited legal knowledge among defenders and slow processing times hinder the widespread implementation of legal framework protecting them.
Yet when defenders can access justice, legal action can drive accountability and tangible outcomes. In 2018, 25 Colombian youth aged seven to 26 years old filed a lawsuit against the government, alleging that climate change and failure to reduce deforestation threatened their fundamental rights. While a lower court initially ruled against them, Colombia’s Supreme Court overturned the decision and ordered the government to devise and implement action plans to address deforestation in the Amazon.
Defenders need legal support and safe, inclusive access to the processes behind these laws and regulations. Rights-based climate cases and stronger rule of law systems provide essential recourse when other accountability channels fail.
3) Integrating Defenders into Climate Plans
Protecting Defenders Is Essential for Climate Action
Protecting environmental defenders is a question of safeguarding human rights and life, ensuring climate justice and strengthening climate action.
People like Benitha, who put their lives on the line to defend the forests and other ecosystems that sustain them and the world, should not face these high-stake risks alone. Governments, multilateral institutions and finance bodies share the responsibility of formally recognizing and protecting environmental defenders within climate, nature and other policies.
Doing so is a matter of equity — and a climate imperative. When defenders are safe and supported, forests stay standing, emissions stay out of the atmosphere and frontline communities can continue building resilience for their own futures and the world’s.
On 27 April 2026, Halya Coynash reported on the case of Crimean Tatar human rights defender Lutfiye Zudiyeva.
Russia’s Second cassation court of general jurisdiction cases has rejected Lutfiye Zudiyeva’s cassation appeal against her inclusion by the Russian justice ministry in its notorious register of so-called ‘foreign agents’. Russia is deploying all weapons to silence the courageous Crimean Tatar human rights defender and journalist, and it cannot be said that any other outcome was seriously expected. The lawlessness was, however, even more extreme than usual with Lutfiye’s lawyer arriving for the hearing only to be told that it had been held earlier than scheduled, behind closed doors, with the justice ministry’s decision upheld.
The ‘hearing’ took place on 19 March however it was only a month later, and on the lawyer’s second attempt and she and Lutfiye were able to receive a copy of the ruling. Lutfiye’s application to take part by video link had been rejected, with the court claiming that no object grounds had been given for why the human rights defender and mother of four should come from occupied Crimea to Moscow. The court also pointed out that her presence was not mandatory but failed to warn her that it would also speed up the hearing, thus preventing her lawyer from taking part. Quite the contrary, with the ruling claiming that neither Lutfiye Zudiyeva nor her lawyer had “appeared”. The one hearing, which was over before its scheduled commencement at 10.30 a.m., took place behind closed doors, before presiding ‘judge’ Yelena Regina and two colleagues, Yury Denisov and Yelena Karpacheva.
As reported, the Russian justice ministry announced that Lutfiye Zudiyeva had been added to its ever-increasing register of alleged ‘foreign agents’ on 16 May 2025. It claimed that the renowned human rights defender and Graty journalist had “circulated false information about decisions taken by the public authorities of the Russian Federation and the policies they carry out”; that she was “under foreign influence” and “involved in political activities.”
An appeal was lodged immediately, with this rejected on 11 August 2025 by ‘judge’ Iryna Kozlova from the Zamoskvoretsky district court in Moscow. On that occasion, Lutfiye’s application to participate by video link from Dzhankoi, in occupied Crimea, “got held up” in the Russian postal system, however her legal representative was able to take part, and present Lutfiye’s written objections. These were, predictably, ignored, as they were in the cassation court’s secretive hearing on 19 March 2026.
The claims that have now been upheld by two Russian ‘courts’ were that there was proof of Lutfiye Zudiyeva being ‘under foreign influence’ in her publications in the independent Ukrainian publication Graty, in her commentary to the media and international organizations, as well as her supposed ‘membership’ of Frontline Defenders. There would be nothing at all illegal about such membership, but it is a figment of some Russian ministry official’s imagination. Frontline Defenders have spoken out in Lutfiye’s defence, but so have many other human rights organizations, diplomats and journalists. [https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/profile/lutfiye-zudiyeva]
Another bizarre claim which none of the ‘judges’ found the courage to question was that Lutfiye Zudiyeva had received money from foreign sources. To justify this totally false claim, reference was made to money for day-to-day needs which Lutfiye’s husband had transferred to her account. He in turn is involved in selling agricultural goods and, according to the FSB, received money between February and August 2024, from three ‘foreign nationals’ (from Ukraine, Germany and Vietnam). In her written statement for the appeal, Lutfiye explained that in each of those cases, the person had had dual citizenship, with this something her husband could scarcely have known, as he had no right to demand a passport from buyers. She also disputed the Russian ministry’s claim that her human rights work and journalism were ‘political activities’.
On 27 July 2023, Zudiyeva and another journalist were illegally detained, together with 12 other Crimean Tatars for trying to attend a purportedly open court hearing into the appeal against the appalling sentences passed on Crimean Tatar Mejlis leader, journalist and human rights defender Nariman Dzhelyal and two cousins, Asan and Aziz Akhtemov. She was fined on a preposterous charge of having taken part in an unauthorized mass event, with the occupation ‘judge’, like the Russian-controlled ‘police’, ignoring the fact that she had been there as a journalist…
“I cannot calmly sit and watch as the multiple searches which take place all the time in Crimea result in children being deprived of their fathers; in elderly parents being left without their children, without care, and in women remaining without their husbands. I believe that it is my right to have the possibility of speaking publicly about this. And this is the least I can do as a member of society.”
Mette Meyknecht on 21 April, 2026, makes us meet up Zuzanna Nowicka Lawyer (Freedom of Expression Programme) at the Polish Helsinki Foundation For Human Rights.
Meet Our Members is a series where Liberties introduces you to our network of human rights defenders. We hear the stories of the people behind the organisations and why they do the work they do. Liberties is an umbrella network which coordinates campaigns with its expanding network of national civil liberties NGOs in 18 EU Member States.
Zuzanna speaks about her work with quiet defiance. No grand declarations or sweeping ideals, but with persistence in the daily decision, to keep going. “I just think it’s important,” she says simply. “I couldn’t imagine doing something that is not for the public good.”
Zuzanna is a lawyer at the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Poland, where she focuses on freedom of expression and strategic litigation. But her path into human rights law wasn’t linear. After studying law and working in various law firms, she realised something wasn’t quite right. “I was simply not feeling it,” she recalls. “I did not find myself comfortable working in those conditions.”
Despite early exposure to human rights work through internships, NGO roles, and advocacy campaigns, it took time to fully embrace it as a career. A formative moment came after graduating, when, uncertain about her next steps, a position at the Helsinki Foundation appeared unexpectedly. Her interview, she admits with a laugh, did not go well. “The internet connection was really bad… I couldn’t hear half of the things,” she says. “But for some reason, they trusted me, and I got hired.”
That was four years ago. She has been there ever since.
Zuzanna’s work today, defending freedom of expression, is deeply personal. She grew up surrounded by journalists: her parents, grandparents, and extended family all worked in the media. She explains that, from an early age, “I was a direct witness of the worsening situation in the media.” Although she initially wanted to study journalism, her parents encouraged her to pursue law instead. Today, her work spans litigation before national courts and the European Court of Human Rights, legal advocacy, training, and public engagement. She drafts opinions on legislation, contributes to coalitions, and even hosts a podcast discussing pressing issues in Poland. It’s everything,” she says of her role. “Litigation, advocacy, writing, training – all of it.”
When asked about her proudest achievement, Zuzanna does not point to a specific case. Instead, she speaks about endurance. “I think what I’m most proud of is the persistence,” she says. “I just keep going.” It is a job that demands constant adaptation, from juggling multiple areas of law, responding to rapidly changing political developments, and managing a heavy workload. At any given time, she may be handling around 20 ongoing cases, alongside urgent advocacy work.
Several organisations came out with annual reports, including
Predatory attacks on multilateralism, international law and civil society marked 2025
The alternative on offer is a racist, patriarchal, unequal and anti-rights world order
Protesters, activists and global bodies are working to resist, disrupt and transform
The world is on the brink of a perilous new era Amnesty International warned on 21 April 2026 with the launch of its annual report, The State of the World’s Human Rights. The organisation called on governments, including Australia, to reject the politics of appeasement and collectively resist attacks on multilateralism, international law and civil society, before this emerging order takes hold.
In its assessment of the human rights situation across 144 countries, the report documents widespread violations by governments and other actors throughout 2025, alongside persistent failures of accountability, with only limited areas of progress. Many of these patterns have continued into 2026, as the international rules-based order faces sustained and coordinated pressure.
“We are confronting the most challenging moment of our age. Humanity is under attack from transnational anti-rights movements and predatory governments determined to assert their dominance through unlawful wars and brazen economic blackmail,” said Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International.
“World leaders have been far too submissive in the face of attacks on international law and the multilateral system. Their silence and inaction are inexcusable.”Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International
“The vast majority of states have been unwilling or unable to consistently denounce predatory acts by the USA, Russia, Israel or China, or to chisel out diplomatic solutions.
“World leaders have been far too submissive in the face of attacks on international law and the multilateral system. Their silence and inaction are inexcusable. It is morally bankrupt and will bring nothing but retreat, defeat and the erasure of decades of hard-fought human rights gains.
“To appease aggressors is to pour fuel on a fire that will burn us all and scorch the future for generations to come,” said Agnès Callamard…
“For the sake of humanity, the time to make history is now.”Agnès Callamard
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) presents its Annual Report 2025, documenting the work it has done in compliance with the mandate to promote and protect human rights in the Americas. The report—showing, over six chapters, the results attained by IACHR mechanisms—is an instrument for institutional transparency and a reference for States, civil society, and regional and international organizations.
In a year that was full of challenges including weaknesses in democratic institutions, violence in various national contexts, the effects of climate change, and issues concerning vulnerable individuals and groups, among others, the IACHR strengthened its mechanisms and each of those mechanisms has achieved concrete results.
Our country is facing a grave threat as those in power leverage bias and disinformation to push rights-restricting legislation through at the state and federal levels. Our communities, schools, libraries, elections, and individual freedoms are being placed at risk by escalating assaults on our rights. In response, Human Rights First launched Democracy Watch in 2025, to track and expose legislative trends that endanger our civil and human rights and undermine democratic processes and institutions. Since its launch, we have tracked a proliferation of authoritarian tactics targeting our states and hurting our communities. This year we saw a wide range of legislative strategies, including rollbacks on reproductive freedom, immigrant and refugee rights, free speech, LGBTQ+ equality, voting rights, and public education.
Presenting his 2025 Annual Activity Report to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe today, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O’Flaherty, warned that Europe, and the rest of the world, is no longer merely in an “era of change” but is experiencing a profound “change of era” that threatens the very foundations of human rights law and practice.
“We are living in a context where our stable cultural framework is being shattered by rapid social and technological advances that surpass our capacity to grasp them,” the Commissioner stated. Highlighting the impact of artificial intelligence, the triple planetary crisis, and worsening inequality, he noted a widespread diminishment of trust between citizens and the state, as well as between generations and an increasing pressure on institutions and civil society across the continent. “Unimaginably, we risk losing our invaluable acquis of human rights law. This is the duty of our generation: to act and ensure these rights survive this transition intact”.
Human Rights Watch said on 9 April 2026 that Cuba‘s recent pardon of more than 2,000 inmates did not include political prisoners, reinforcing earlier concerns raised by other rights groups that the measure would exclude detainees jailed for dissent.
The Cuban government announced during Holy Week that it would pardon 2,010 prisoners, describing the move as a “humanitarian and sovereign gesture” tied to religious observances. Officials said the release would prioritize groups such as young people, older adults, women and foreigners, based on criteria including health conditions and time served, but did not disclose the identities of those freed.
Human Rights Watch’s assessment, reported by Bloomberg, confirmed that none of those released were among the more than 1,200 political prisoners documented on the island. The finding adds weight to reports published days earlier by organizations including the Cuban Observatory for Human Rights, Prisoners Defenders and Cubalex, which had already said they found no evidence that political detainees were included in the pardon.
Those groups had warned that the measure appeared to benefit common prisoners while leaving untouched cases tied to political repression. “It’s a propaganda exercise,” Javier Larrondo, president of Prisoners Defenders, said at the time, arguing that Cuban authorities have historically used releases of common inmates to inflate figures associated with political concessions.
At the inaugural meeting of the Community of Practice (CoP) for the protection of human rights defenders (HRDs) in Europe, held in Brussels on March 25–26, 2025, and co-organized by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN-OHCHR), the Italian “Protection Hub” was cited as an example of innovative practice and excellence within the European landscape.
The Italian experience was recognized as a model for a national protection ecosystem, capable of integrating practical support, advocacy, and monitoring of civic space, with a multi-stakeholder approach rooted locally yet connected to international networks. The “In Difesa Di” initiative was also mentioned among the national reference models.
The CoP serves as a space for strategic coordination to strengthen national hubs, improve coordination between protection and advocacy, and promote joint advocacy on upcoming EU funding cycles—in particular the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the Agora program.
On this occasion, the FRA launched a survey for the 2025 Civic Space Consultation, aimed at civil society organizations active in EU Member States and observer countries (Deadline: May 10, 2026).
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 