Posts Tagged ‘Human Rights Defenders’

Norway’s Efforts to Support Human Rights Defenders in word and image

October 23, 2012

In June 2012, the NGO Protection International met with Ms Claire Hubert, First Secretary of the Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva, during the round table on National Policies for the Protection on HRDs.

The event was organized by PI in cooperation with the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders Margareth Sekaggya.

English: This is the logo of Protection Intern...

Photo credit: Wikipedia

In a short video message on VIMEO (http://vimeo.com/51596610) Claire Hubert, explains how protecting human rights defenders is a priority in Norway’s human rights policy.

She encourages defenders to reach out to diplomats, so that the latter know the defenders and adequately assist them whenever they need protection. The English version of Norway policy paper can be found on:
regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/Menneskerettigheter/Menneskerettighetsforkjaempere/VeiledningMRforkjengelskFIN.pdf

There Are Absolutely No Political Executions in Iran ………..

October 23, 2012

In this excellent blog post, R0ya Boroumand shows the statement by Sadeq Larijani – Head of the Judiciary and Iran official spokesperson on human rights – to be nonsense. Even more she reflects how the death of her own father (stabbed to death in Paris in 1991) has motivated her to continue documenting human rights violations in Iran. And she draws the conclusion that it must have helped:

Perhaps Larijani’s denial of political executions is not meant for the Iranian people or the human rights community, but rather for a poorly informed and supportive constituency outside Iran that is too willing to accept the Islamic Republic’s habit of blaming others for its shortcomings. But we should appreciate Larijani’s unease, even if it is expressed in the form of a blatant lie. The fact that the number of reported executions in Iran has been trending downward — from 817 in 2010 and 652 in 2011 to 385 so far in 2012 — may well have to do with the active presence and reporting of the UN special rapporteurs and others who are focused on safeguarding human rights.

Through my work toward documenting the stories of all the Islamic Republic’s victims, I have found the best answers I can to the questions that obsessed in 1991. I have also found some relief from the consuming anguish and frustration that decades of untold stories and anonymous suffering by thousands of victims and victims’ loved ones have brought in their train.

The painstaking task of documenting thousands of executions to which my colleagues and I have devoted our lives for the past ten years, added to the efforts of other human rights organizations, has helped to protect people who dare to speak up. Perhaps, and in spite of the limited means at our disposal, we have made the regime worry that if it kills them they will not be forgotten, and so stayed the executioner’s hand. Larijani’s absurd claim that “there are absolutely no political executions in Iran” did not make me smile, but it did reinforce my conviction that truth telling is the most effective tool we have to make tyrants uneasy and slower to unleash their violence.”

Roya Boroumand: There Are Absolutely No Political Executions in Iran — A Statement by the Head of Irans Judiciary That Should Not Go Unnoticed.

How bad is it in the Gambia? Freedom Radio has some disturbing quotes

October 19, 2012

I just read the following piece (“A Vote of No Confidence on President Jammeh’s Appalling Human Rights Record”) by Alagi Yorro Jallow, who is a journalist and founding managing editor of the banned Independent newspaper in Gambia. He lives in the United States.He is a Nieman fellow at Harvard University. I copy it in full but draw especially attention to the underlined parts re HRDs. Would anybody really say this aloud? IF he stated this, how come there is so little reaction?

The Gambia today is neither complete dictatorship nor democracy, neither paradise nor complete hell; we are at a crossroad between “sembocracy” and “massala.” Under the leadership of President Yahya Jammeh and his APRC, the Gambia has descended into chaos. Its citizens live in fear of reprisal and harassment by government lackeys, its economy is in tatters, its media have been muzzled, and the social fabric of this once peaceful land is in danger of disintegration.

The sooner the African Commission gets out of the Gambia and dispenses with the inconveniences of history of how the Banjul Charter was developed, the better for practical human rights advocacy on the continent. The relocation of the African Commission would be a vote of no confidence in Jammeh’s administration of bad governance and human rights violation—one that I have long supported. Jammeh’s continued human rights abuses and poor governance portray that he feels that the Gambia and Gambians belong to him, and the presence of the Commission may seem to him and to some others as a supposed kernel of human rights promotion and protection in the Gambia. During the 64th session of the UN general assembly in New York, Jammeh explicitly threatened to kill human rights workers in the Gambia, including those visiting from elsewhere and people who cooperate with them. In a televised address, he stated:

“I will kill anyone who wants to destabilize this country. If you think that you can collaborate with so-called human rights defenders, and yet get away with it, you must be living in a dream world. I will kill you, and nothing will come out of it. We are not going to condone people, posing as human rights defenders to the detriment of the country. If you are affiliated with any human rights group, rest assured that your security and personal safety would not be guaranteed by my government. We are ready to kill saboteurs.”

The Gambia had previously recognized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is a member of the African Union, whose charter adopts universally accepted human rights including the rights to life and personal integrity, as well as freedom from cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment. The African Union created the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, with headquarters in Banjul, as the institution to promote and protect the human rights of individual and collective rights of peoples throughout Africa.

Unlike at the United Nations general assembly in America where America’s sworn enemies can fly in and challenge the United States on its shores, discussing the Gambia’s human rights record during meetings of the African Commission is strictly taboo.Thus, prominent human rights activists have been declared personae non grata for daring to shine a light on the Gambia’s poor human rights record. Many activists will simply not go to Gambia for fear of committing the ignominious sin of self-censorship, lest they risk being deported, when the voiceless suffer under the might of the powerful. Because of these human rights breaches, the continued presence of the headquarters of the African Commission in the Gambia is tantamount to condoning and even bankrolling a dictatorship.

Jammeh’s government look forward to the tourism revenue that the African Commission’s jamboree brings each year, which is used to finance flamboyant lifestyles and shield Gambians from worse repressions. In this way, the African Commission’s presence in Gambia legitimizes Jammeh’s acts of insanity.

Jammeh’s views have always been extreme, ever since he began to strive for power in Gambia, and recently they have only gotten worse. Below is an early statement made by Jammeh towards human rights defenders and journalists, where he accused some journalists and newspapers of printing half-truths and falsehoods which could create confusion and cause dissension in the society. He warned that the military would not tolerate instigation and innuendo calculated to create confusion for the Gambian people. In a show of his true feelings toward press freedom, even back then, he described journalists as the “illegitimate sons of Africa.” Below are the exact words of then Chairman of AFPRC Yahya  Jammeh in a public rally in 1994:

“The enemies of African progress, the illegitimate sons of this country disguise themselves in the form of journalists, in the form of freedom fighters, in the form of human rights activists BUT they are all illegitimate sons of Africa. Get rid of them. The so called journalists, they are very vulnerable. You can send them into the streets begging when you don’t buy their newspapers; they won’t function; they depend on you. Don’t allow the mosquito to suck your blood, father tell you no lie. One day I was looking at a something you call newspaper, and I saw a big headline: DETAINEES STILL DETAINED HERE. When I looked at the headline I said, Yeah, they are still detained here; what can you do about it? They talk about Human Rights, an issue they don’t even understand. And I will tell you what Human Rights stand for: it is an illusion, a fallacy that is non existent anywhere in this world; it is a western machination to manipulate Africa, and I will tell you each letter of Human Rights what it stands for. The H stands for Hoodwink. You all know what hoodwink is, to blindfold people! The U stands for the Universe. M stands for Manipulate! A stands for Africa, and N stands for African Nations! They hoodwink the universe, manipulate the African nations. The R stands for to rip you off; they rip you off of your gold. After hoodwinking the universe and manipulating African nations, they rip you off of ideals, so that Africans will have no ideals but will follow their exported ideology that is meant to create wars in Africa, famine and starvation. We will never accept that, to turn some Africans into stooges so that they can always continue to manipulate us. We the AFPRC are saying that we will die but we will never let them suck our blood again. Tell me any country where there is so called human rights and people are not executed; tell me in most of the so-called western types of human rights, those who uphold the so-called principle of democracy, when you go to their jails, Africans form the majority of all the inmates. What types of rights are they talking about? So you see the fallacy in human rights? We will never accept it. I told you I will not talk about traitors because they continue to hang themselves. They will run but they will never hide. Their days are numbered and they know about it. Anybody under the AFPRC who steals even a single dime, you can go to wherever you think you can be free, you will never sleep, and you will come home either dead or alive, but you will never enjoy this world and in the next world you will burn. And I will tell you, this is what the so-called champions of human rights, of course they are champions of human rights, because they are enemies of Africa. But I will tell you what your rights are: Your rights are to live in peace, equality and prosperity. Anything that belongs to the nation, belongs to all of us. We have a right to development As far as we are concerned, you are free as long as your freedom does not encroach upon the rights of others. If you encroach upon the rights of others, you can never be free and we can never respect you. The law is to deal with you. We are running a state. We are not running a financial company We are not running a cowboy camp. We are not running a hippy camp. What we are running is a nation of human beings, where people are equal. If you think that you are going to use outside ideology to disturb us, what you are going to face will be worse than death. Gambians, this is a warning to all Gambians. We are Africans, we are Gambians, we are soldiers. Any patriotic Gambian is a soldier because you defend this country against injustice. We have passed the stage of appealing to people. If you want to be a donkey, we will treat you like a double donkey. If you want to be a human being, we will treat you like a human being. There is no compromise, and no nation outside The Gambia can do anything about it. If you want to be free, don’t steal. If you want to be free, don’t be a crook. If you want to be a free man don’t advocate for violence. Because when violence comes your bones would be in the air. People think they can use pressure to force us into elections? We can tell you, if we don’t want election in the next thousand years there will be no election. And those who want election, we will makesure that you go six feet deep, and there is nothing anybody can do about it!”

Last year, Jammeh’s pseudo-electoral process, which confirmed him for his fourth consecutive term in office, was dismissed by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) as not free and fair because of the high level of “intimidation, unacceptable level of control of the electronic media by his ruling party, the lack of neutrality of state and parastatal institutions, and an opposition and electorate cowed by repression and intimidation.” One of the sad things about the Gambia is that there is little room for alternative views and leadership to emerge as long as this dictatorial regime continues to lead the country. Ironically, in the Gambia the topic of human rights is discussed only when there is an African Commission on Human Rights in the Gambia but not if it were on the rest of the continent. The Gambia government does not give a damn about the commission and it has been reported that the Gambia government has not submitted its State party report for the past six years, even though it’s a basic treaty obligation. Again, though not respecting its obligation on human rights procedures, Gambia government has always been happy to offer the commission a traditional welcome banquet as part of its good will in hosting the body.

Before the military takeover by Jammeh, the Gambia was known as the “smiling coast,” a place of sunshine, hospitality and generosity. It was the custodian of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, where the country’s position as an advocate for human rights was on display. Soon afterward, the government brazenly contradicted its position through extrajudicial executions in a tragic betrayal of the Gambia’s obligations to freedom and human rights. Despite its many challenges and critics, the significance of the role played by the commission in the protection of human rights particularly through its interpretation and enforcement of the African Charter cannot be denied. It also remains indisputable as the main and most relevant human rights oversight body on the continent and the only one that provides direct access to an individual after he or she has exhausted all local remedies.

At the time, the African Commission was hosted in Gambia not only because the African Charter had been adopted in Banjul and headquartered there but because the Gambia’s adherence to international political and human rights norms was seen at the time as exemplary. It was thought that this commitment to human rights would ensure the Gambia as a good place to serve as headquarters to both the charter and commission.

In accepting the invitation to host the African Commission, the Gambian government agreed to guarantee the conditions and sustain an environment that would enable the norms and values of human rights and democracy to flourish. However, they have not kept this pledge.

Consequently, there have recently been more and more voices for the relocation of the commission’s headquarters from Banjul to a more suitable place, since many are again questioning the wisdom of keeping the commission in Gambia given the country’s appalling human rights record (including the recent executions and the government’s defiance of the commission’s recommendations).

President Jammeh is Africa’s forgotten dictator, and since he took power illegally in 1994 he has never considered giving it back. Although the Gambia has been relatively stable under Jammeh’s iron-fisted rule, poverty and human rights abuses remain high. According to 2010 World Bank figures, the Gambia’s gross national income per capita was only $450.

The real question is, how and for how long can the Gambian people continue to live under Jammeh’s “Tangal Cheeb” administration? Because as of yet we have no answer to this question, and because there is no immediate hope for the improvement of Gambian human rights in sight, relocation of the African Commission would be best not only for the country (because of the pressure it might put on the Gambian government to stop impeding human rights) but for the African continent as a whole.

 

Observatory for HRDs makes statement to 52nd session of African Commission on Human Rights

October 18, 2012

In a recent document (18 October 2012) the FIDH and the OMCT, in the framework of their joint Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, express their renewed concern about the situation of human rights defenders in Africa.

Since the last session of the African Commission in May 2012, the Observatory has not recorded any improvement of their situation on the continent. Quite on the contrary, human rights violations against defenders have continued, in particular judicial harassment, threats, intimidations, arbitrary detentions and unjustified condemnations. The situation of human rights defenders has even become alarming in situations of internal conflicts, such as for instance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. For the full statement see:

The Observatory: Contribution to the 52nd ordinary session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights / October 18, 2012 / Statements / Human rights defenders / OMCT.

Judicial crackdown on human rights defenders continues in Bahrain

October 18, 2012

The situation in Bahrain continues to deteriorate and judicial harassment goes on unabated:

On 16 October 2012, human rights defender and president of the Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights Mohamed Al-Masktai has been summoned for interrogation at Al-Naem police station. On 17 Oct 2012 he was released. Human rights defender Mohamed Al-Masktai has been active in documenting and reporting the violations committed by the Bahraini authorities in recent months. In September 2012 he has been subjected to intimidation campaign as he received more than a dozen anonymous phone calls threatening his life and the safety of his family, which followed an oral intervention he delivered at the Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva, during a panel discussion focused on intimidations and reprisals, where he informed the (HRC) about the massive intimidation campaign against him.

On 16 October 2012, human rights defender Nader Abdulemam was summoned for interrogation at the public prosecution office. At the time of writing this appeal (17 Oct) Nader Abdulemam has not  appeared at the public prosecution office as yet.

In addition to her previous 13 plus lawsuits, activist and human rights defender Zainab Al-Khawaja was summoned again for a new case that includes the charge of “insulting a police officer”. The case goes back to 6 May 2012, however it has been activated just now and a trial was scheduled on 17 October 2012, but postponed to 2 November 2012 in order to summon Al-Khawaja. Al-Khawaja was recently released on 3 October 2012 after she spent two months imprisonment sentence on the charge of “ripping photo of king of Bahrain”. She is expecting verdicts on several cases in the coming weeks.

On 16 October 2012, the court refused to release leading human rights defender Nabeel Rajab; during a session of his appeal trial against 3 year imprisonment sentence which has he received on charges of “participating in illegal gatherings” and “calling for gatherings over social media”.

In addition, the court refused to provide assistance to allow foreigner witnesses to enter Bahrain and testify on behalf of Rajab. On 15 October 2012, Stephanie David, a representative from FIDH has been denied entry to Bahrain to testify for Rajab, as she was required to provide an authorization from the court.

Bahrain: Judicial crackdown continues on human rights defenders and activists.

Editorial “Waiting for Lefty” regrets absence of human rights concern in debate

October 18, 2012

In an editorial “Waiting for Lefty”, William Fisher (former government official – http://billfisher.blogspot.com) muses about the final debate between Obama and Romney and concludes that there was a glaring lack of reference to the human rights issues that dominated the first election campaign. The relevant part reads:

Obama started out in 2010 with the electoral wind at his back. On his first day in office he vowed to close the military prison at Guantnamo Bay, where detainees slated to have been released months — years — ago are still there, exactly where they started and no closer to freedom for the innocent. Scary because they weren’t released. Except the ones who committed suicide. They’re back home now.

When the electoral air was all filled with “hope and change” and “yes, we can, “Was Obama simply pandering to the Left — whose votes were a big help in getting him elected? After all, if he threw them all under a bus at this stage, where could they go? Vote for Romney? No way. Not vote at all? A possibility.

More disenchanted bodies widening the enthusiasm gap — and that could cost the president his job in a close election. And if he beats Romney, he will have to contend, in his second term, with a large and growing gaggle of organizations that have only one overarching interest — the restoration of human rights and the return to the rule of law.

But in a second Obama term, I would not expect hundreds of groups like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and Human Rights First — and thousands of individual human rights defenders –– to be quite so patient and seemingly understand as their first-term counterparts.

OpEdNews – Article: Waiting for Lefty.

Web application on detained human rights Defenders in Uzbekistan

October 16, 2012

An “Insignificant State” called “Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan” or a highly repressive regime torturing human rights defenders?

Last October(2011), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) launched a new web application to bring attention to human rights defenders still incarcerated in horrific conditions in Uzbek prisons.

US Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain stated on 8 October 2011 “When they ask me who’s the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan, I’m going to say, ’You know, I don’t know. Do you know?” Cain added that it was not a priority to know “the head of one of those small, insignificant states around the world”.

FIDH does want people to know. And to care.

At least 10 Uzbek human rights defenders remain in detention under appalling conditions ; several of them are members of FIDH member organisation, the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan (HRSU).
Nevertheless, Uzbekistan has long been a key US partner, hosting US military bases servicing the Afghan military campaign. Moreover, in 2009 the EU dropped all 2005 sanctions imposed following the Andijan tragedy, despite there being no serious change in Uzbekistan’s human rights record.

On the rare occasions that the international community has sent strong messages on human rights issues these calls have been heard: on the eve of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s last visit to Uzbekistan in December 2010, one human rights defender, Farhad Mukhtarov was released. Again, on 14 October 2011, the member of the HRSU Norboy Kholjigitov was released on parole, after 6 years and 4 months in detention, in advance of Hillary Clinton’s visit to Tashkent on 23 October 2011. I should add that in 2008 the MEA laureate Mutabar Tadjibaeva was released after concerted pressure by EU, US and a large number of NGOs!

Must we wait another 10 years to release all the imprisoned human rights defenders?

Therefore I am repeating the FIDH’s application (in English and Russian) and spread the word about this situation by linking it to my blog. Do the same and go to http://www.fidh.org/2011_UZ

The application details the history of human rights defenders, their wrongful detention, and the general political background influencing their situation.

 

Uzbekistan : New web application on detained human rights … – FIDH.

 

WITNESS Celebrates 20 Years Of Using Video For Human Rights

October 16, 2012

Rock Hill Herald Online, 12 OCTober 2012, reports on the 20 years anniversary of Witness.

Hosted by award winning actor and long-time supporter of LGBT rights Alan Cumming, the evening kicked off with a journey – taking guests back in time 20 years to look at how WITNESS and its partners have used video in human rights campaigns over the years. Music legend and WITNESS co-founder Peter Gabriel performed.

“WITNESS became a vision for me after the Human Rights Now! Tour back in 1988. I traveled with Amnesty International and met brave human rights defenders who suffered grave abuses. I documented their testimonies with my own handheld video camera in the hopes that their stories would not be buried or forgotten,” said Peter Gabriel. “20 years later, WITNESS is now as important as ever, helping people use video to tell their stories and giving them access to strategies and tools to create meaningful change.”

Since 1992, WITNESS has trained more than 4,500 human rights defenders and partnered with over 300 groups in 86 countries to produce campaign videos that have reached more than 260 million people worldwide.

“Tonight we celebrate how much WITNESS has accomplished over the last 20 years, but also look forward to how much more we can continue to accomplish,” said Yvette Alberdingk Thijm, Executive Director of WITNESS. “We are at a critical point in the history of human rights, where anyone with a camera can be not only a witness but also a catalyst for change. In this ‘cameras everywhere’ world, WITNESS is committed to helping grow the ranks of human rights defenders and citizen activists.”

Video clips of interviews and musical performances, plus images from the event can be accessed at witness.org/gala.

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/10/12/4333122/witness-celebrates-20-years-of.html#storylink=cpyNEW YORK, Oct. 12, 2012: WITNESS Celebrates 20 Years Of Using Video For Human Rights At The Focus For Change Benefit | PRNewswire | Rock Hill Herald Online.

 

NEW YORK, Oct. 12, 2012: WITNESS Celebrates 20 Years Of Using Video For Human Rights At The Focus For Change Benefit | PRNewswire | Rock Hill Herald Online.

Call for Papers for a Special Issue on HRDs in the Journal of Human Rights Practice

October 16, 2012

York University’s Centre for Applied Human Rights (CAHR) issues a Call for Papers

The Journal of Human Rights Practice hosts a special issue on the protection of human rights defenders

As a part of the research CAHR conducts on human rights defenders, a special issue on HRDs will be published in the Journal of Human Rights Practice in November 2013. The editors will accept abstract submissions in English, Arabic cfp-hrds-arabic (PDF  , 565kb), French cfp-hrds-french (PDF  , 73kb), Spanish cfp-hrds-spanish (PDF  , 55kb) and Russian cfp-hrds-russian (PDF  , 66kb). The deadline for abstracts is on 1 November 2012.

For more details, please see the Call for Papers.

Call for Papers for a Special Issue in the Journal of Human Rights Practice – Centre for Applied Human Rights, The University of York.

Nobel Prize is for Peace not necessarily Human Rights

October 12, 2012

As this is post number 300 in my blog, I decided to write a more substantive piece and the news of the EU getting the Nobel Peace Prize is an excellent trigger:

The awarding of the 2012 Noble Peace Prize to the European Union has at least made clear that it is really a peace award and not a human rights award as is often assumed. With hindsight, it would have been more appropriate if Alfred Nobel had died on 21 September instead of 10 December 1896. Much later, the United Nations declared 10 December to be International Human Rights Day and designated 21 September as the International Day of Peace. The curious result is that the Nobel Peace Prize – intended for contributions to ‘peace’, not necessarily ‘human rights’ – is given every year in Oslo on 10 December, International Human Rights Day. On quite a few occasions the Peace Prize has been awarded to individuals who can safely be said to belong to the category of human rights defenders (HRDs), but in other cases it was awarded ‘merely’ because they stopped violating human rights (think of Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, Begin and Arafat or de Klerk) or to encourage leaders to continue their conflict resolution work (Obama and now the EU).

Awards for Human Rights Defenders are a different matter!

At the international diplomatic level human rights may nowadays receive a lot of attention in a myriad of procedures and mechanisms, but when it comes to the actual implementation at the grassroots level it is still the dedication of individual human beings that counts most. Fortunately, there are many such persons: some lobbying discreetly for improvements, others demonstrating loudly. However, some have to take tremendous personal risks when publicly challenging the powers that be. These heroes often have to sacrifice more than their time and energy, too many having been arrested, tortured and even killed.

Without the individual human rights defender, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights law risks to remain a dead letter. It is for this reason that almost all human rights organisations have some degree of mandate to come to the succour of threatened colleague human rights defenders. Many organisations at both the local and international level have some kind of human rights award. However, ten international human rights organisations, including the most influential, have set their differences aside to join in a common award for such courageous individuals: the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders (MEA), which next year exists 20 years.

A pertinent question is whether awards are really effective. To answer that, one has to know in which way human rights awards intend to help human rights defenders. In the first place, almost all awards want to give recognition and encouragement at the moral and psychological level. This goal should not be trivialized, as activists often have to work in environments that are not appreciative of their efforts, and the causes they defend can be unpopular even within their own social circles. Secondly, many awards come with a measure of direct financial support, which can be of great importance as even relatively small amounts go far in cash-strapped organisations, often based in developing countries.

Finally, the most ambitious but also the most elusive goal is to provide protection. The latter is not really possible without a fair degree of publicity. The problem is that much of the publicity generated by human rights awards tends to be in the country where the award is given, while from the protection point of view the most crucial publicity is in the country of the human rights activist in question. The award givers may want to see the name of their organisation or sponsor referred to in the media of their own country (usually in the West), but the recipients of the award are better served by attention and recognition in their own countries, often in the South with a low-level of literacy and limited independent press. Hence the importance of the use of the mass media, in particular radio and television and the internet. The freshly-crowned Nobel laureate, the EU, makes a major contribution to the protection of Human Rights Defenders, including a promise to give every year a reception in honor of the MEA laureate in the country of the winner.

The notoriety of the Nobel Peace Prize gives it great impact and we all would like to emulate it but it does not make it a human rights award. The number of human rights prizes can be  confusing, but individually and collectively they do have the potential to bring human rights defenders ‘from the front line to the front page’. http://www.martinennalsaward.org contains many stories of HRDs and the links to the websites of the 10 NGOs on the Jury give a lot more information.