On 30 July 2026 UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk denounced the crackdown on dissent in Uganda, alongside a gradual erosion of the rule of law, increased military involvement in civilian institutions, and shrinking civic space – all of which are creating a climate of fear throughout the country.
“I am appalled that the authorities are increasingly targeting any form of dissent, and deepening restrictions on the fundamental freedoms of all those living in Uganda,” said Türk. “Those who dare to speak out are silenced.”
Since the general elections on 15 January 2026, repression has increased against all those perceived to oppose the Government. According to information received by the UN Human Rights Office, since the elections, at least 50 opposition leaders and supporters, five human rights defenders and five journalists have been subjected to human rights violations. These include instances of enforced disappearance, torture and ill-treatment, and arbitrary arrest or detention based on legal provisions which do not comply with international human rights law.
In addition, 10 leading civil society organisations have been suspended since January 2026, while others have been closely scrutinised and, at times, subjected to harassment.
The Office has also received information about increased military involvement in functions ordinarily carried out by civilian institutions. Some media outlets have been forced to close temporarily.
In May 2026, the Protection of Sovereignty Act was enacted, imposing extensive restrictions on international funding and foreign engagement with civil society organisations. The legislation includes severe penalties, including prison sentences of up to 10 years for violations.
“The actions of the authorities are creating a climate of fear that is increasing self-censorship, further stifling public debate and deepening polarisation,” said Türk.
“I call on the Government to abide by its obligations under international human rights law, the African Charter and the Ugandan Constitution to ensure a vibrant civil society where everyone can freely express their views and participate in public affairs,” he added.
The UN Human Rights Chief urged the Government to uphold the separation of powers and the rule of law, including by preventing military interference in civil institutions..
On 31 July 2026, Adil Zawahir, Alexandra C Panait and Kulsoom Rizvi published a blog post on their study of how dissidents are stopped from entering or leaving their countries
When we think of state censorship, we often picture prison cells, violent police crackdowns or control of newsrooms. However, our report titled The weaponisation of travel bans to silence speech and dissent published today by Index on Censorship reveals a quieter, less visible tool of state repression that is devastating civil society across the world.
We found that rather than protecting public safety, governments are increasingly manipulating “national security” or “public order” exemptions to trap journalists, fracture families and exile critics. Our research shows that these bans are highly adaptable tools that occur around politically sensitive events such as protests, elections and crackdowns on democratic activity. Their shared, devastating objective is to control narratives, block external scrutiny and create a chilling effect on free expression.
As we researched this topic, we strongly felt that to understand the severity of this crisis, the spotlight must remain entirely on the impacted individuals. The victims of this widespread authoritarian trend pay with their lives and livelihoods being upended by arbitrary and undemocratic measures.
Our analysis highlights that in authoritarian contexts, travel bans act as overt tools of absolute repression. In Saudi Arabia, they function as a form of “quasi-detention”, ensuring that prisoners of conscience remain silenced long after they are physically released from their cells. Take the example of Salma Al-Shehab, a doctoral student at Leeds University, who was imprisoned simply for tweeting in support of women’s rights. Upon her release, she was handed an eight-year travel ban, effectively destroying her academic career by barring her return to the United Kingdom.
Similarly, in Algeria, our research shows how journalists like Mustapha Bendjama find themselves trapped in a bureaucratic nightmare. Extrajudicial travel bans, known as ISTNs, are routinely issued by security agencies without formal judicial oversight, leaving targets in a legal vacuum with no clear avenues for appeal. Bendjama shared with us that this forced isolation acts as a “mental imprisonment” that has dried up his sources and severely compromised his ability to conduct rigorous journalism.
One of our most troubled findings was that the chilling effect of these restrictions extends well beyond authoritarian states, creeping into hybrid democracies. In India, administrative tools like “Look Out Circulars” are deployed to trap critical voices within the country’s borders. Sanna Irshad Mattoo, a Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist, was prevented from travelling to New York to accept her award, sending a clear message that international recognition offers no immunity from state retaliation.
In Georgia, foreign journalists who report critically on the country’s democratic backsliding have been arbitrarily denied re-entry at the border using generic legislative clauses. French journalist Clément Giradot was refused entry after reporting on political demonstrations, a decision that suddenly separated him from his home, his Georgian wife and his young child without any concrete legal justification.
It became clear to us that these are not isolated administrative errors. We believe they are part of a coordinated assault on international human rights. Whether it is Nicaragua arbitrarily revoking citizenship to render critics stateless, Belarus forcing exiled dissidents into jeopardy by refusing to renew passports abroad or the United States deploying visa revocations and social media screenings against lawfully present critics, the goal appears to be one: to enforce widespread self-censorship and fear.
The international community can no longer treat these administrative traps as routine border control measures. We urgently recommend taking action. States must do away with these opaque directives, end the use of secondary travel bans as a form of collective punishment against families and align their domestic laws with international human rights standards. Furthermore, democratic host nations must step in to provide secure legal status and alternative travel documents for exiled dissidents while applying sustained diplomatic pressure to demand the lifting of these arbitrary restrictions globally.
Respecting and protecting freedom of speech should not know any ideological boundaries or state borders. With this report, we express our solidarity with the brave ones who raised their voices and with many more who were silenced and never known. While researching and interviewing participants at the front lines of this injustice, we were reminded of the importance of academia’s role as both a sanctuary for freedom of expression and a service to society at large.
Khurram Parvez, coordinator of the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) and Chair of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD), has spent decades documenting human rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir, including enforced disappearances, torture and extrajudicial killings. Irfan Mehraj, a journalist and human rights defender associated with JKCCS, has similarly contributed to documenting and reporting on human rights concerns in the region.
Both human rights defenders have faced prosecution under spurious allegations related to terrorism and secessionism that human rights organisations have consistently characterised as politically motivated and unsupported by credible evidence. The charges against both defenders remain in place, and the conditions attached to Khurram Parvez’s release continue to impose severe restrictions on his rights and freedoms. The international community, including the UN human rights system, must remain closely engaged until all charges are dropped and any restrictions on their work and freedom come to an end.
22 July 2022: The case in which Khurram Parvez, a prominent Kashmiri human rights defender, and Irfan Mehraj, a Kashmiri journalist and human rights defender – both associated with the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) – have been granted bail involves trumped-up charges of “funding terror activities” and “propagation of secessionist agenda” in retaliation for their widely respected and recognised human rights documentation and accountability work through JKCCS. On 18 July 2026, a New Delhi District Court held the bail hearing in this case.
In June 2023, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD), in its Opinion No. 8/2023, determined that Khurram Parvez’s detention was arbitrary and called on the Indian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release him.
Although the conditional release of the two defenders comes as a relief, after a prolonged period of arbitrary pre-trial detention, the harassment through legal means against them continues, in a context of longstanding and ongoing grave violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Observatory calls on the Indian authorities to drop all charges against Khurram and Irfan, as they are part of politically motivated proceedings aimed at discrediting their legitimate work and the JKCCS.
An old friend, professor Bert Lockwood and his daughter Meredith, run a podcast series “Human Rights: Conversations Across Generations”. With great pleasure did one as it is true that much of the recent NGO history on human rights remains unrecorded so it will serve a purpose one day. It is now officially live. Listening Links:
On 17 July 2026 UN experts expressed concern over the arrest and detention of five Indigenous human rights defenders in Assam, warning that the charges against them could undermine the legitimate work of those defending Indigenous Peoples’ rights in the context of business activities.
“We are deeply concerned by reports that Indigenous human rights defenders have been deprived of their liberty in connection with their peaceful advocacy on behalf of Indigenous communities’ lands and rights,” the experts said. “Such arrests and prosecutions can have a chilling effect on civic space and discourage others from speaking out against abuses.”
Assam Police reportedly arrested Pranab Doley, Rajib Pegu, Brijit Kutum, Amit Nag and Bhaskar Saikia in connection with protests on 29 June 2026 concerning the planned construction of a luxury tourism project in Inglay Pathar, near Kaziranga National Park. The project is reportedly linked to an agreement between the Assam Government and Juniper Hotels, and associated with the Hyatt group.
In its recent report, the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights noted that threats, arrests, surveillance, retaliation and legal harassment can undermine the safety and ability of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous human rights defenders to participate freely in processes concerning business activities.
“States must ensure human rights defenders are able to exercise their right to protect, defend and promote human rights and carry out their work safely and without fear of intimidation, reprisals or criminalisation,” the experts said.
They expressed concern regarding reports that the local police responsible for these arrests have previously been associated with allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, and urged authorities to ensure that all detained human rights defenders are treated with dignity and that their rights are fully protected.
The experts called for the immediate release of the detained defenders if their detention is linked solely to the peaceful exercise of their rights, urged authorities to ensure any criminal proceedings fully comply with international human rights standards, and called on authorities to suspend any land acquisition or development until affected Indigenous communities have been meaningfully consulted and their free, prior and informed consent has been obtained.
Since 2003, The Carter Center has hosted the Human Rights Defenders Forum, bringing together activists from around the world. In 2026, for the first time, participants gathered outside the United States to learn from each other and find inspiration.
Claudia Fuentes Julio has been appointed Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights at the United Nations. She shares her vision, priorities and personal journey into the field of human rights.
A former diplomat from Chile with more than two decades of experience in international relations, multilateral diplomacy and human rights, Fuentes Julio brings to the position a deep commitment to advancing human rights and strengthening cooperation among States, civil society and other actors to this end.
The Assistant Secretary-General is the head of the UN Human Rights Office in New York, advising and representing the UN High Commissioner Volker Türk at the UN Headquarters. As such, strengthening the cooperation between the UN Human Rights Office and the wider UN system is also one of her top priorities.
Fuentes Julio succeeds Ilze Brands Kehris of Latvia.
We, the undersigned organisations and partners from around the world, reaffirm our unwavering solidarity with human rights defenders (HRDs) who continue to face judicial harassment, arbitrary detention, and persecution for their peaceful human rights work. We call for the release of all unjustly imprisoned activists and demand an end to attacks against HRDs.
On the sixth anniversary of the Stand As My Witness (SAMW) campaign, 15 July 2026, we stand together to highlight the ongoing unlawful targeting of defenders and to renew our collective commitment to their protection and release.
Launched in July 2020, the Stand As My Witness campaign was created to shine a light on the misuse of repressive national laws to silence human rights defenders and to mobilise international solidarity in response. Since its inception, the campaign has worked to raise awareness of emblematic cases, coordinate joint advocacy actions, and challenge the growing criminalisation of human rights activism.
At its launch, the campaign issued a call urging civil society organisations and allies worldwide to stand in solidarity with detained and persecuted defenders. This call was endorsed by more than 190 organisations, helping to draw international attention to the misuse of judicial systems to suppress dissent and civic freedoms, and harm those who fight for justice.
Over the past six years, sustained advocacy, international pressure, and collective action have contributed to the release of more than 31 human rights defenders, demonstrating the tangible impact of global solidarity.
Despite these achievements, many activists remain unfairly jailed. We remain deeply concerned that attacks against human rights defenders continue to intensify across all regions. Governments are increasingly resorting to restrictive laws, politicised judicial systems, surveillance, digital repression, and arbitrary detention to target activists, journalists, environmental defenders, women human rights defenders, Indigenous leaders, and others working to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The CIVICUS 2025 People Power Under Attack Report states that civic freedoms are being curtailed in a record number of countries. Civil society is under severe attack in 122 of 198 countries and territories with detention of protesters, journalists and human rights defenders as among the top violations globally.
Through this joint statement, we call on governments worldwide to:
Immediately and unconditionally release all arbitrarily detained human rights defenders;
End the misuse of laws and judicial systems to criminalise peaceful activism and repeal laws seeking to silence dissent;
Guarantee the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly;
Cease propagating false information and anti-rights narratives, and use of digital platforms against civil society and human rights defenders; and
Ensure the protection and safety of all human rights defenders in accordance with international human rights law.
We emphasise that human rights defenders are not criminals and terrorists, but courageous and concerned individuals who work to advance justice, dignity, accountability, and freedom for all.
The Inter-American Court’s climate Opinion requires States across Latin America and the Caribbean to apply the standards of the Escazú Agreement—even if they have not yet ratified the treaty.
In a Blog Post Published on 2 july, 2026Luisa Gómez, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, explains that one year after the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency, the debate is no longer whether countries across Latin America and the Caribbean must protect environmental defenders. That question has already been answered. The Court confirmed that all Member States of the Organization of American States (OAS)—to which the Advisory Opinion directly applies—must implement the highest standards of protection for those defending the environment.
To define those standards, the Court drew extensively on the Escazú Agreement, the first legally binding regional treaty promoting environmental democracy. In doing so, it reinforced the treaty’s significance, even in countries that have not yet ratified it, including Peru, Guatemala, and Costa Rica. The implication is clear: these States can no longer treat Escazú’s standards as external, optional, or irrelevant.….
The incorporation of Escazú’s standards into the Inter-American corpus juris marks an important step toward strengthening access rights and protections for environmental defenders in the context of the climate crisis.
But no Advisory Opinion changes reality on its own. These decisions generate change when they are used in litigation, legislative reform, public debate, and collective organizing to ensure that human rights standards addressing the climate crisis translate into concrete protections for those defending the environment.
Recently, in the Province of Mendoza, Argentina, a significant development unfolded regarding criminal charges against environmental defenders protesting against mining activities. Public authorities, citing the Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, requested the suspension of the prosecution. They argued that continuing with the charges would be unconstitutional and could criminalize social protest and environmental advocacy.
One year later, the true measure of the Advisory Opinion’s impact will not be found in its pages, but in how judges, legislators, communities, and environmental defenders use it to strengthen protections for both the environment and the people who defend it.
Click here to dive deeper into the practical uses of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion on the climate emergency.
Women human rights and environmental defenders face escalating repression simply because of their gender and need stronger international protections to continue their work, Right Livelihood Laureates warned at a United Nations side event last week.
The event, organised by Right Livelihood as part of the Women Laureates Hub and Exile Project programmes during the 62nd session of the UN Human Rights Council, brought together Laureates and international experts to examine the specific threats and challenges faced by women activists solely because of their gender.
“Gender apartheid” in Afghanistan
“Human rights defenders in general are the core or the most important element of a democratic society,” said Dr Sima Samar, a 2012 Laureate and former Minister for Women’s Affairs of Afghanistan. “Among them, women human rights defenders are the main ingredient of democracy. We cannot say that ‘There’s democracy, but women should be at home,’ like the Taliban does in Afghanistan.” In her country, a total of 160 laws, decrees and orders have been passed to suppress women’s rights. Those include a ban on women working outside the home and on girls receiving an education beyond 6th grade.
“It is a crime against humanity – that is why we call it gender apartheid,” Samar said, calling for the codification of gender apartheid in the Convention on Crimes Against Humanity. She also warned that some European countries are beginning to normalise the Taliban’s restrictions by framing them as cultural or religious practices. “It’s not our religion, it’s not our culture,” Samar said. “Please, do not use the excuse of respecting the culture and religion in Afghanistan.”
Women environmental defenders also face heightened risks compared to their male counterparts, warned Diana Nabiruma, Programmes and Communications Manager at 2022 Laureate organisation Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO).
“In Uganda today, unfortunately, what we see is that laws are used to repress not only environmental and human rights defenders but women in particular,” Nabiruma said. Uganda currently has five laws restricting civic freedoms and activist work, including a recently passed law on foreign funding.
Nabiruma has observed stark differences in how men and women environmental defenders are treated, especially by authorities. “Women do not speak up; women are more repressed than men are,” she said. “When they protest, they are asked, ‘Who will marry you? You’re a terrible person!’ There’s a lot of anti-gender rhetoric, which forces women to become silenced, so they don’t demand their rights to be protected.”
A “problem for democracy,” not just for women
Eva Zillen, Senior Adviser at the Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation, a Swedish organisation that received the 2002 Right Livelihood Award, said that their 2026 report on the situation of women and queer rights activists in conflict-affected countries confirmed many of the trends her fellow Laureates were witnessing on the ground. One striking finding: for the first time since 2008, fewer activists reported feeling threatened. This isn’t progress, the organisation said, just an indication that digital hate speech has become so normalised that it’s no longer recognised as a threat. “A lot of activists are withdrawing: self-silencing has become a form of self-protection, and they are leaving social media,” Zillen said. “This is not a problem for the women’s movement; this is a problem for democracy.”
The report identified governments and state authorities as the leading source of threats against women human rights defenders, alongside traditional and community leaders, religious actors and anti-gender movements. “These four are working together, and they are using the anti-gender narrative,” Zillen said. “It has to do with gaining power or sustaining power, and this is a narrative that has proven to be very successful.”
Olivia Ekobe, Human Rights Officer at the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), said her organisation documented over 60 cases of women human rights defenders facing risks last year alone, underscoring the need for gender-sensitive monitoring.
Ekobe outlined three recommendations: civil society organisations must increase visibility around the criminalisation of women human rights defenders and the protections available to them; states must end this criminalisation and adopt adequate legal frameworks; and donors must increase funding for women-led local organisations. “We have a responsibility to help create an environment where women HRDs can carry out their work without fear,” she added.
The side event was held as the culmination of a week-long workshop in Geneva for women Right Livelihood Laureates and fellows of the Exile Project, a programme in collaboration with the Global Campus of Human Rights.
The recommendations include practical actions that states can take to protect women human rights defenders and provide guidance on how to engage with other states on the matter.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 