On 9 April 2024, Michael Morrison in Human Rights Centre Blog of the University of Essex wrote a post “Standing Strong: Supporting Human Rights Defenders Worldwide” about the work of Prisoners Of Conscience (PoC), a UK-based charity,
In a world where human rights are not universally respected, there are courageous individuals who face persecution, silencing, torture, and forced displacement just for standing up for their beliefs. Prisoners Of Conscience (PoC), our UK-based charity, stands in solidarity with these brave people, offering both financial and practical support to those who defend human rights worldwide.
Prisoners Of Conscience operates on a simple yet powerful belief: no one should be persecuted for protecting or advancing human rights. We recognise that while we enjoy the freedom to express ourselves, many others around the world are not so fortunate. These individuals face unimaginable challenges for their beliefs, often enduring imprisonment, torture, harassment, violence, or being forced to flee their home countries.
Our mission is clear: supporting those who stand for rights. Our charity provides rapid financial assistance through grants; ensuring immediate relief, resettlement, and requalification during a recipient’s time of greatest need. These grants are not just about providing temporary relief; they are a lifeline for those who have sacrificed their freedom for the principles they believe in. Financial assistance includes covering legal fees, medical expenses, and basic living costs for individuals and their families.
Moving towards holistic support, we have developed various programs to empower our beneficiaries beyond financial aid. Our employability panel offers guidance and opportunities for career development, including job placement services and vocational training. Additionally, our web-based forum provides a platform for networking and collaboration, where individuals can connect with like-minded activists and organisations. We also collaborate with other parties to offer signposting to practical support, such as mental health services, legal advice, language classes, and integration support for those seeking asylum.
Yuzana* for example, is a writer, surgeon, and founding member of PEN Myanmar. Yuzana faced a daunting 20-year sentence for her role as a campaigns assistant for the National League of Democracy (NLD) and her unwavering commitment to human rights. Despite enduring almost six years of imprisonment in one of Myanmar’s most notorious prisons, Yuzana’s determination remained unyielding. After being released on humanitarian grounds due to her declining health and international pressure, she continued her advocacy work.
Yuzana
In the wake of the military coup in Myanmar in February 2021, PEN Myanmar continues to monitor and share critical information despite grave risks to their safety. Several members of the organisation have been detained, and tragically, four poets are among the unarmed civilians killed. Yuzana, concerned for her safety, was compelled to leave Myanmar and seek refuge in another country. With the assistance of Prisoners Of Conscience, Yuzana was able to cover her travel expenses and basic living costs while she establishes herself in a new environment.
Our recent research indicates that at any one time there are tens of thousands of prisoners of conscience who are persecuted and in need of our support. The impact of our work is evident in the numbers: in the past year alone, Prisoners of Conscience awarded 130 grants to over 420 individuals from 28 countries. This vital support reached a total of 424 individuals, offering crucial assistance during times of adversity. We are profoundly grateful for the generosity of our donors, whose unwavering support enables us to continue our mission of empowering those who defend human rights.
The challenges of the past year, compounded by the pandemic, have prompted us to adapt and innovate, and right now, April is all about #RightsRealityCheck.
Not everyone has access to even the most basic of human freedoms, so we launched the #RightsRealityCheck campaign. This April, human rights champions are undertaking a series of challenges to raise awareness of the rights that many take for granted – basic rights and freedoms which prisoners of conscience risk their life to uphold and protect. Whether it’s reading 5 books throughout the month, writing a blog post each week, or walking in public each day without wearing a head covering, our kind-hearted fundraisers are standing in solidarity with those who face persecution for these simple acts. If you would like to join others who have taken on this commitment to an everyday right, you will not only be standing with prisoners of conscience, but also raising crucial funds to help keep those who defend human rights, and their voices, alive. It’s easy to get started: Simply download our fundraising pack by signing up here (it’s packed with tips and resources to make your challenge a success). Then, share your challenge with friends, family, and colleagues to gather sponsorship. Every pound raised goes directly to supporting human rights defenders and prisoners of conscience around the world. Or alternatively, see what we’re up to and support someone on their challenge by heading to the link here: #RightsRealityCheck Challenge – JustGiving. Let’s turn our everyday actions into a powerful force for change. Together, we can make a difference in the lives of those who need it most.
In a landmark ruling for fundamental freedoms in Colombia, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that for over two decades the state government harassed, surveilled, and persecuted members of a lawyer’s group that defends human rights defenders, activists, and indigenous people, putting the attorneys’ lives at risk.
The ruling is a major victory for civil rights in Colombia, which has a long history of abuse and violence against human rights defenders, including murders and death threats. The case involved the unlawful and arbitrary surveillance of members of the Jose Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective (CAJAR), a Colombian human rights organization defending victims of political persecution and community activists for over 40 years.
The court found that since at least 1999, Colombian authorities carried out a constant campaign of pervasive secret surveillance of CAJAR members and their families. That state violated their rights to life, personal integrity, private life, freedom of expression and association, and more, the Court said. It noted the particular impact experienced by women defenders and those who had to leave the country amid threat, attacks, and harassment for representing victims.
The decision is the first by the Inter-American Court to find a State responsible for violating the right to defend human rights. The court is a human rights tribunal that interprets and applies the American Convention on Human Rights, an international treaty ratified by over 20 states in Latin America and the Caribbean.
In 2022, EFF, Article 19, Fundación Karisma, and Privacy International, represented by Berkeley Law’s International Human Rights Law Clinic, filed an amicus brief in the case. EFF and partners urged the court to rule that Colombia’s legal framework regulating intelligence activity and the surveillance of CAJAR and their families violated a constellation of human rights and forced them to limit their activities, change homes, and go into exile to avoid violence, threats, and harassment.
Colombia’s intelligence network was behind abusive surveillance practices in violation of the American Convention and did not prevent authorities from unlawfully surveilling, harassing, and attacking CAJAR members, EFF told the court. Even after Colombia enacted a new intelligence law, authorities continued to carry out unlawful communications surveillance against CAJAR members, using an expansive and invasive spying system to target and disrupt the work of not just CAJAR but other human rights defenders and journalists.
In examining Colombia’s intelligence law and surveillance actions, the court elaborated on key Inter-American and other international human rights standards, and advanced significant conclusions for the protection of privacy, freedom of expression, and the right to defend human rights.
The court delved into criteria for intelligence gathering powers, limitations, and controls. It highlighted the need for independent oversight of intelligence activities and effective remedies against arbitrary actions. It also elaborated on standards for the collection, management, and access to personal data held by intelligence agencies, and recognized the protection of informational self-determination by the American Convention.
Iskra Kirova, Advocacy Director, Europe and Central Asia Division of HRW, wrote on 4 April 2024: ‘Foreign Agent’ Laws Spread as EU Dithers to Support Civil Society
Georgia’s ruling party plans to reintroduce highly controversial Russia-style “foreign agent” legislation aimed at incapacitating civil society and independent media. If adopted, the laws, which were withdrawn last year in the face of massive protests, would require foreign-funded nongovernmental organizations and media to register as “agents of foreign influence”. That would make them subject to additional scrutiny and sanctions, including administrative penalties up to 25,000 GEL (about 8,600 Euro). Authorities claim the laws promote “transparency”, but their statements make it clear the laws will be used to stigmatize and punish critical voices.
The day before Georgia’s announcement, Kyrgyzstan’s president signed an abusive “foreign representatives” law. Copied almost entirely from the Russian equivalent, the law would apply the stigmatizing designation of “foreign representative” to any nongovernmental organization that receives foreign funding and engages in vaguely defined “political activity”. The bill had been widely criticized after its initial submission in November 2022, including in a urgency resolution by the European Parliament.
The EU had ample opportunity to press the authorities to reject this bill. Kyrgyzstan benefits from privileged access to the EU internal market tied to respect for international human rights conventions: conventions this law clearly contravenes. The country is poised to sign an enhanced partnership agreement with the EU that centers democracy and fundamental rights. The EU has been silent on whether these deals would be imperiled by the bill’s adoption, despite the fact the European Commission’s own assessment highlighted Kyrgyzstan’s dire environment for civil society and the country’s breach of its obligations.
The latest spate of curbs on civil society comes in the wake of the European Commission’s December 2023 legislative proposal for an EU Directive on “transparency of interest representation” that would create a register of organizations which receive foreign funding. European civil society vehemently opposes the proposal because it risks shrinking space for independent organizations at home and diminishing the EU’s credibility in opposing such laws abroad. Yet the Commission forged ahead. On the same day the proposal was adopted, Hungary’s parliament approved a law that gives a government-controlled body broad powers to target civil society and independent media.
With civil society organizations under threat throughout Europe and Central Asia, we need an EU that in words and actions protects civic space and sets the right standards.
On 1 April 2024, Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA is a human rights organization committed to protecting freedom of expression, press freedom, the right to assemble and protest, and access to information in Turkey. It serves as a vital platform where journalism and legal expertise merge to safeguard these freedoms, particularly for journalists, lawyers, and human rights defenders facing increasing challenges). SEMRA PELEK wrote about Mine Özerden, a human rights defender now detained for 700 days. The detailed statement if woth reading in full:
From Mine Özerden’s standpoint, the Gezi Trial began with an unsubstantiated criminal complaint. Despite efforts, no informant was identified. Tax inspectors investigated the allegations but couldn’t confirm them. The court ruled the phone taps used as evidence were illegal. Nonetheless, Özerden was sentenced to 18 years and has been in prison for nearly two years.
“I’ve said this repeatedly, and I’ll say it again: I still can’t comprehend why I’m here, and there hasn’t been anyone who could logically explain it to me yet.”
With these words, Mine Özerden began her defense during the session of the Gezi Trial held at the Istanbul 13th Heavy Penal Court on October 8, 2021. She posed the same question during her defense at the session held on January 17, 2022. Özerden has been asking the same question at every hearing since the initial session of the Gezi Trial on June 25, 2019. However, in the years that have passed, she has received no answer to her question throughout the entire legal process.
Mine Özerden’s lawyer requested an explanation from the prosecutor through the court regarding this matter. However, the court rejected the request: “The request for a statement from the Public Prosecutor regarding which acts and crimes are being attributed to the defendant Mine Özerden by the defense attorney has been rejected…”
The court failed to provide any justification or further clarification of the rejection. However, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, every defendant has the right to effectively present their defense, and the right to “be informed.” This means that prosecutors and courts are obligated to inform the defendant of the accusations against them to ensure a fair trial. The laws clearly state this right, however, Mine Özerden was not granted this right throughout the entire trial, and the judiciary system did not provide any logical explanation for this.
Let’s ask a question of our own here: Is there no answer to Ozerden’s question in the 657-page indictment written by the prosecution, which led to Osman Kavala’s aggravated life sentence and the 18-year sentences that Mine Özerden, Çiğdem Mater, Tayfun Kahraman, and Can Atalay have been given in the Gezi Trials? They are currently convicted of serious charges such as “attempting to overthrow the Republic of Turkey by force and violence” and “aiding this attempt,” which means the higher Court of Cassation also signed off on the decision. In the document of approval released by the Court of Cassation, is there any answer to the aforementioned question? No, there isn’t!
Scrutinizing the Gezi Trial files, one question remains: Why is Mine Özerden in prison?
And you can’t find the answer to that question. After poring over the files line by line, one can’t help but be reminded of Kafka’s novel, The Trial. So much so that you could replace the protagonist Josef K.’s name with Mine Özerden’s: “Somebody must have made a false accusation against Mine Özerden, for she was arrested one morning without having done anything wrong.”
This is exactly how the Gezi Trial, which today stands like a specter against the freedom of expression and assembly not only of the defendants but of the whole society, began for Mine Özerden.
Let’s start from the beginning: On September 26, 2013, a “criminal complaint” was sent via email to the Istanbul Communication Electronics Branch Directorate. According to the indictment, the person, who didn’t provide their name in “criminal complaint number 11167,” claimed to have “important information regarding the Gezi protests” and alleged that “before the protests began in Taksim, Mine Özerden opened bank accounts for several individuals under the direction of Osman Kavala from the Open Society Foundation.” According to the informant’s claim, the money collected in these accounts was intended to purchase “gas masks, bandages, and goggles,” which would then be “distributed to protesters.”
In the thousands of pages of the Gezi Trial file, this is the sole allegation concerning Mine Özerden.
Following up on this allegation requires due diligence in seeking the facts. Unlike Kafka’s novel, Özerden’s experiences are not allegorical but real; she has been held in Bakırköy Women’s Prison for nearly two years due to this unsubstantiated criminal complaint.
In the indictment, the prosecutor – after quoting the informant’s claim in quotation marks and bold black letters – immediately indicates in the next sentence that they “could not locate the informant”: “Upon the instruction of our Republic Prosecutor’s Office, an investigation was conducted into the IP address to obtain a detailed statement from the informant, however, no identification was made.”
In other words, the informant could not be found. So, were the bank accounts alleged by the informant opened?
No!
That, in fact, is the following sentence, where the prosecutor offers his admission that the informant could not be found. In the indictment, Istanbul Foundation’s 1st Regional Directorate’s investigation of the accounts of the Open Society Foundation, eventually preparing a report on this inquiry, but the report clearly stated that “no determination could be made regarding these allegations.”
In other words, the claim of an unidentified informant could not be substantiated.
On April 22, 2022 Mine Özerden’s lawyer submitted Tax documents, which proved that the informant’s claim was false to the file.
The court dismissed the Tax Inspectorate report and did not consider it as evidence.
Fact Two: No bank accounts opened; no purchase was made
Typically (in any rule-of-law state), when an informant cannot be found and an unsubstantiated criminal complaint is involved, the case is closed with a verdict of non-prosecution.
Moreover, according to the established jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, evaluating a purely unsubstantiated complaint on its own is also unlawful. Thus, this jurisprudence also warranted closing the case at this stage. The law is clear: you cannot prosecute anyone with a non-existent crime and an unsubstantiated allegation.
However, instead of closing the file at this point, the prosecutor opened another investigation completely unrelated to the Gezi inquiry. Mine Özerden was incidentally wiretapped within the scope of this investigation. It wasn’t until much later, when the Gezi Trial indictment was prepared, that the fact Özerden had been coincidentally wiretapped in this investigation emerged. When her lawyer officially questioned this, it was revealed that Özerden had never been a suspect in this investigation. Furthermore, there was no wiretap order issued against her in this investigation. Her lawyer had requested wiretap orders from the court, neither the police nor the prosecution had submitted these orders to the file.
In one of these coincidental wiretaps included in the Gezi Trial indictment despite having no relevance to the Gezi investigation, Mine Özerden had a conversation with Osman Kavala on May 30, 2013. In this conversation, Mine Özerden mentioned to Osman Kavala that she had received “some offers.” Someone suggested, “Let’s buy gas masks and distribute them to the youth.” The conversation continued with discussions on how this could be done, such as “maybe opening a bank account.” It was nothing more than an exchange of ideas, with the conversation ending with the suggestion, “One of the volunteers could probably do that.”
The claim of the unidentified informant was based on this conversation. Özerden, who was coincidentally wiretapped in an investigation, where she was not a suspect, was accused on the basis of this wiretap turned into a criminal complaint. Özerden’s lawyer requested the full resolution of this wiretap. However, neither the complete resolutions of wiretaps nor the wiretap recordings were found by the prosecution and were never submitted to the file.
The conversation between Mine Özerden and Osman Kavala remained at the level of ideas because the content of the conversation was not substantiated during the investigation and trial process. No bank account was found to have been opened. Something that doesn’t exist can’t be found in the first place.
There is no evidence in the file that gas masks, bandages, or goggles were purchased. Not a single invoice exists, nor is there any evidence anywhere that these items were found.
So, suppose even one piece of evidence existed in the file – for example, if a bank account had been opened or if an invoice for goggles had been found – what would happen? Opening a bank account and buying gas masks, bandages, or goggles is not a crime under any law. Therefore, Özerden’s lawyer brought goggles, gas masks, and bandages to the trial and asked the panel, “Is acquiring these items a crime?”
Fact Three: No Press Statements or Meetings were Found to Constitute a Crime or Incitement to Commit a Crime
Despite the lack of concrete evidence, the indictment directed the accusation of “aiding an attempt to overthrow the Government of the Republic of Turkey by force and violence” against Mine Özerden. To strengthen such a serious accusation, the prosecutor highlighted Özerden’s voluntary coordination of the Taksim Platform and her continued membership in the board of directors of Anadolu Kültür, where she had worked years ago.
The Taksim Platform was established as a peaceful dialogue platform, holding weekly exchange of ideas meetings, and organizing art events. Although the activities of the platform fell within the scope of freedom of assembly and expression, it was criminalized in the indictment, yet no crime associated with the platform can be found.
Not a single press statement by the platform was included in the indictment. There was not any piece of evidence regarding which press statement or meeting of the platform, on which date, would constitute a crime according to the law. There was also no evidence that any post or statement released by the Taksim Platform could constitute a crime or incitement to violence in the indictment or the file.
The rationale behind the establishment of the Taksim Platform and all updates, statements and press releases ever released by the platform is still accessible today on the website taksimplatformu.com. So, if there had been even the slightest evidence that Taksim Platform was inciting violence, it would be easy for the prosecution to find and include in the indictment.
Moreover, the accusations against Özerden based on her membership in the board of directors of Anadolu Kültür were already refuted explicitly by the Tax Inspectorate report.
Fact four: Özerden was not in Istanbul during the Gezi protests.
It gets even stranger from here. In the indictment, Özerden is accused of organizing meetings of the Taksim Platform in Istanbul during the Gezi protests, attending the platform’s meetings, and even participating in violent actions in Gezi Park.
But the problem here is this: Mine Özerden was not in Istanbul during the Gezi protests.
The Gezi protests began on May 31, 2013. However, Özerden was working at a language school in Fethiye from June 1 to July 31, 2013. Furthermore, not a single video, photograph, or technical surveillance recorded by the police indicating Özerden’s presence in Istanbul during that period has been included in the case file.
However, official Social Security Institution (SGK) records proving Özerden’s presence in Fethiye during that period were submitted to the court. But neither the prosecutor during the investigation process nor the Istanbul 13th Heavy Penal Court during the trial took this into account. The Court of Cassation 3rd Criminal Chamber, which upheld the 18-year prison sentence, also did not. .
Even if it were the opposite, if Mine Özerden were in Istanbul during that time, it still wouldn’t prove anything. Being in Istanbul during the Gezi protests, organizing a meeting, or attending one is not a crime. On the contrary, the right to assembly and freedom of expression are protected by the Constitution.
Fact Five: Wiretapping is Illegal
So, what was written about Mine Özerden on all those pages in the indictment whenthere was no concrete evidence of a crime against her?
The indictment merely contains pages of phone conversations between Özerden and her friends! These conversations delve into personal matters, discussing, for instance, the exhaustion of life and the beauty of getting away from some stressors of life. In one conversation, for instance, Mine Özerden advises a friend to attend a conference in Istanbul where world-renowned philosophers Slavoj Žižek and Alain Badiou are speakers. The conference, titled ‘Globalization and the New Left,’ was organized by Bakırköy Municipality and MonoKL publications. However, this advice was included in the indictment as if it were a crime.
Similarly, Özerden’s response of “enjoy the beautiful weather, how lovely” to a friend saying “the weather was even better two or three days ago” is also included in the indictment as part of these casual conversations. None of the phone taps contain any reference to the organization of the Gezi protests. Instead, they clutter the file. Moreover, these wiretaps are illegal!
The Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court, which handled the case, determined that the wiretaps were illegal. In its decision dated February 18, 2020, acquitting 16 defendants in the Gezi trial, including Osman Kavala, Mücella Yapıcı, Can Atalay, Yiğit Aksakoğlu, Tayfun Kahraman, Çiğdem Mater, Mine Özerden, Yiğit Ekmekçi, and Ali Hakan Altınay, the court made the following legal assessment:
“We have 53 wiretap orders in our file. It is understood that the first wiretap order was issued for the offense of ‘forming and leading a criminal organization,’ not for the offense of ‘crimes against the government.’ Later, it was observed that Article 312 of the Turkish Penal Code (crimes against the government) was added to the requests and decisions for extending the wiretapping. However, Article 312 was not among the crimes subject to legal wiretapping as listed in Article 135/8 of the Criminal Procedure Code at that time. There is no wiretap order issued after that date. Therefore, it is accepted that the wiretap recordings are in violation of the law and are illegal evidence, considering the established precedents of the Court of Cassation and the principle that ‘the fruit of the poisonous tree is also poisonous.’ Hence, the wiretaps included in the indictment are considered as prohibited evidence.”
In other words, all phone conversations used as evidence against Mine Özerden, along with other defendants, were the fruits of the poisonous tree. In summary, the real crime was the wiretapping of phones.
But as if that weren’t enough, a new term called ‘revaluation’ was coined to justify the inclusion of wiretap recordings in the indictment. The indictment stated that “the revaluation of all evidence concerning the investigation, especially the wiretaps, was ordered.” However, there is no procedure called ‘revaluation’ in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mine Özerden asks: “Isn’t this openly insulting to use the word ‘revaluation’?”
They Were Convicted with the “Poisonous Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”
Ultimately, the acquittal verdicts were overturned. Despite no additional evidence being presented to substantiate the allegations, the convictions handed down by the Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court on April 25, 2022, against Osman Kavala, Can Atalay, Çiğdem Mater, Mine Özerden, and Tayfun Kahraman were upheld by the Court of Cassation’s 3rd Criminal Chamber.
Osman Kavala, who was sentenced to an aggravated life sentence for the allegation of “attempting to overthrow the Government of the Republic of Turkey,” has been in prison for over six years. Can Atalay, Çiğdem Mater, Mine Özerden, and Tayfun Kahraman, who were each sentenced to 18 years in prison for “aiding this attempt,” have been deprived of their freedom for 700 days.
Responding to our questions from prison, Mine Özerden made the following comment regarding the entire legal process:
“Not only do the institutions and decision-makers of the country I am a citizen of fail to protect our rights, but they also increasingly violate our fundamental, constitutional, and legal rights more and more everyday. For nearly two years, we have been deprived of our physical freedom without reason, evidence, or truth…
I find myself involuntarily caught in a senseless quarrel of irrationality and illogic. We are continuously instrumentalized by different political segments with various affiliations. My wish is for people from all walks of life to stand up against injustice and for a collective will demanding basic human rights to emerge.”
Mine Özerden still awaits a logical explanation as to why she is being tried, why she is being punished, and why she has been held at Bakırköy Women’s Prison for years.
Instead of explaining, the judiciary merely extends to her the poisonous fruit of a poisonous tree.
Hossam Bahgat is demanding an apology and remedy after a travel ban and freeze on his assets was reversed on 20 March 2024 (AFP/Mada Masr/file photo)
On 22 March 2024 MEE reported on a very interesting development in Egypt, where dozens of rights defenders have been affected by travel bans and asset freezes for over decade in a ‘politically motivated’ case [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/hossam-bahgat/].
Egypt has announced the closure of a 13-year landmark case in which human rights defenders were accused of receiving illicit foreign funding – but those affected by the allegations are demanding justice. An investigative judge on Wednesday declared the closure of case 173/2011, known in the media as the “foreign funding case”, due to what he described as “insufficient evidence”.
The case has been widely denounced as a politically-motivated attack on Egypt’s civil society. Judge Ahmed Abdel Aziz Qatlan’s decision marks the end of a probe against 85 organisations. It also means an end to asset freezes and travel bans imposed on members of these organisations, he added.
Before the decision on Wednesday, accusations against most of the organisations implicated had already been dropped and this week’s decision only affects five organisations.
These were the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR); the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI); the Arab Penal Reform Organisation; the Cairo Institute For Human Rights Studies; and Al-Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence.
Rights groups and human rights defenders have called for an apology and compensation for the defendants. Hussein Baoumi, foreign policy advocacy officer at Amnesty International, who had previously monitored the case as Amnesty’s Egypt researcher, said the closure of the case is a welcome step but is “long overdue”.
“The government must issue a public apology and compensate the human rights defenders for years of smearing and punitive measures, merely because they defended the rights of millions of people,” he told Middle East Eye.
Baoumi expressed cautious optimism about the government’s respect for the court decision. “It is too early to say if this marks a serious shift in the government’s crackdown on civil society,” he said. “Closing case 173 must be followed by lifting all travel bans and asset freezes against human rights defenders, all those arbitrarily detained must be released and the NGO law must be amended to bring it in line with Egypt’s obligations.”
Hossam Bahgat, director of the EIPR, has been under a travel ban and barred from accessing his bank account for eight years. Following the closure of the case, he said he felt “vindicated but not relieved”.
He demanded “an official and public apology and restitution for the psychological and material damage resulting from this bogus case”. Gamal Eid, the founder of the ANHRI, welcomed the decision to lift his travel ban but said he still hopes for “the return of all the innocent and oppressed people to their families and loved ones”, referring to the estimated 65,000 political prisoners still languishing in Egyptian jails.
The Cairo Institute for Human Rights (CIHRs) said on Friday: “The decision does not remedy the injustices suffered by the dozens of human rights defenders targeted by the case over the course of the previous decade. Egyptian authorities must issue a formal apology to the victims of this persecution and compensate them for the losses and hardship they have been forced to endure.“
Bahey eldin Hassan, CIHRs director, has been sentenced to 18 years in jail in absentia and his sentence remains in effect, the group said. Hassan and dozens of other human rights defenders are currently living in exile because they fear arrest if they return to Egypt.
CIHR also called on Egypt to put an end to its ongoing crackdown on civil society and human rights defenders, including Ibrahim Metwally, Ezzat Ghoneim, and Hoda Abdelmoniem, who are still behind bars in connection with their work.
CIHR is calling for a review of Egypt’s counter-terrorism legislation and penal code to safeguard the freedom of human rights defenders to carry out their jobs without fear of reprisals.
“Only through a comprehensive review of repressive Egyptian legislation, the releasing of the tens of thousands of peaceful political prisoners, and a genuine opening of public space, can Egyptian authorities demonstrate genuine political will to reform,” it said.
On 30 March 2024 Dunja Mijatović ended her term as Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the next day the new Commissioner, Michael O’Flaherty, started his work.
“… Over the past six years, I have witnessed the extraordinary commitment to human rights displayed by partners of my Office, and by ordinary citizens in the face of an ever-changing landscape of politics, technology and social issues. At the same time, I have seen the harm that the current challenges to human rights can do to our societies. The escalation of conflicts, most notably Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, has underlined the fragility of peace and the dire consequences of disregarding international law and human rights…
Throughout my tenure, the dedication of NGOs, journalists, activists and other partners has been a constant source of inspiration. Their unwavering commitment to the defence of human rights, often at great personal risk, has reinforced my belief in the power of collective action and the enduring relevance of our principles.
As my term ends, I am encouraged by the progress that has been made in the field of human rights, but mindful of the work that remains to be done. It is important to continue engaging on issues related to the environment and artificial intelligence…Finally, there is a crucial need to engage with and to enable the full participation of young people and their organisations in all future discussions. Governments should empower young people to make choices and meaningfully influence their future.
The Council of Europe’s new Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O’Flaherty, begins his six-year mandate today with a pledge to put human rights at the heart of member states’ agendas.
“I intend to inject a human rights perspective into the greatest challenges facing our societies,” said O’Flaherty, noting that he intends to carry out his first visit as Commissioner to Ukraine. “I can think of nothing more urgent than addressing the human rights consequences of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which has caused terrible human suffering and destruction“.
The Commissioner also identified other areas where stronger human rights protection is urgently needed, including the climate crisis, the governance of artificial intelligence, freedom of expression, migration and the rise of hate speech, including antisemitism and anti-Muslim attacks.
A significant part of the Commissioner’s agenda will also be devoted to bringing the struggles of marginalised people and victims of discrimination to the forefront of human rights discussions. “In particular, Roma and Travellers face an intolerable situation that requires greater attention,” said the Commissioner.
Finally, the Commissioner highlighted his intention to focus on youth, socio-economic rights and human rights defenders, as well as to use his mandate to contribute to the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
” I step into this new role with a sense of great responsibility, as well as deep appreciation and respect for the work of my predecessor, Dunja Mijatović. Human rights affect every aspect of our lives. At a time when they face multiple challenges, we must recommit ourselves to weaving them into the fabric of our societies. This will require a concerted effort and I intend to play my part to the best of my ability by accompanying and standing up for rights holders across the Member States.”
NGOs and activists paid tribute to the late Chinese human rights defender Cao Shunli by holding a moment of silence and applauding her name during their speaking time at the Human Rights Council.
Delivering a joint statement before the Council plenary on behalf of ISHR and 16 organisations accredited to the UN as well as 20 NGOs without consultative status, a human rights defender from the Chinese mainland concluded her intervention with a short silence and a call to States and NGOs to mirror the courage of human rights defenders and always stand in solidarity with them.
After the intervention, in a sign of respect to Cao Shunli, the room was filled with applause from NGOs and a handful of governments in honour of Cao and in solidarity with victims of reprisals for cooperation with the UN.
‘It is unacceptable to normalise reprisals,’ the human rights defender from the Chinese mainland said. ‘Cao’s courage inspires defenders globally, so let her legacy and name resonate in this room until there is accountability for all victims of reprisals,’ she emphasised.
In an attempt to silence the activist, the Chinese delegation raised a point of order protesting against the statement. This mirrored their 2014 response to ISHR and other NGO’s attempt to hold a moment of silence at the Council after Cao’s death, during which Chinese diplomats disrupted the session for over an hour. This time, Cuba, Venezuela, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Russia supported China in their attempt to silence activists’ right to speak at the United Nations.
In response to China’s attacks, Belgium on behalf of the 27 states of the European Union, supported by the United States of America, Canada and the United Kingdom, took the floor to defend NGOs’ right to speak freely.
‘We cannot allow Cao’s story and her work to be forgotten,’ said Raphaël Viana David, China Programme Manager for ISHR. ‘Ten years on, no one has been held to account for this emblematic case of tragic State reprisals. UN experts called for an inquiry in 2014, 2019 and once again last week. Governments cannot let Beijing off the hook: they must push for accountability for Cao’s fate and for that of all activists who have been persecuted for cooperating with the UN in standing up for human rights.’
ISHR and its civil society partners urge the international community to hold the individuals and institutions responsible for Cao’s death to account and to end all acts of reprisals and repressive measures seeking to restrict civil society space and prevent activists from engaging with the UN.
On 22 February 2024, Human Rights Watch came with a study on governments reaching outside their borders to silence or deter dissent by committing human rights abuses against their own nationals or former nationals. Governments have targeted human rights defenders, journalists, civil society activists, and political opponents, among others, deemed to be a security threat. Many are asylum seekers or recognized refugees in their place of exile. These governmental actions beyond borders leave individuals unable to find genuine safety for themselves and their families. This is transnational repression.
Transnational repression looks different depending on the context. Recent cases include a Rwandan refugee who was killed in Uganda following threats from the Rwandan government; a Cambodian refugee in Thailand only to be extradited to Cambodia and summarily detained; and a Belarusian activist who was abducted while aboard a commercial airline flight. Transnational repression may mean that a person’s family members who remain at home become targets of collective punishment, such as the Tajik activist whose family in Tajikistan, including his 10-year-old daughter, was detained, interrogated, and threatened.
Transnational repression is not new, but it is a phenomenon that has often been downplayed or ignored and warrants a call to action from a global, rights-centered perspective. Human Rights Watch’s general reporting includes over 100 cases of transnational repression. This report includes more than 75 of these cases from the past 15 years, committed by over two dozen governments across four regions. While the term “transnational repression” has at times become shorthand for naming authoritarian governments as perpetrators of rights violations, democratic administrations have assisted in cases of transnational repression.
Methods of transnational repression include killings, unlawful removals (expulsions, extraditions, and deportations), abductions and enforced disappearances, targeting of relatives, abuse of consular services, and so-called digital transnational repression, which includes the use of technology to surveil or harass people. These tactics often facilitate further human rights violations, such as torture and ill-treatment.
This report also highlights cases of governments misusing the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol)—an intergovernmental organization with 195 member countries—to target critics abroad.
Victims of transnational repression have included government critics, actual or perceived dissidents, human rights defenders, civil society activists, journalists, and opposition party members and others. Governments have targeted individuals because of their identity, such as ethnicity, religion, or gender. Back home, families and friends of targeted people may also become victims, as governments detain, harass, or harm them as retribution or collective punishment. Transnational repression can have far-reaching consequences, including a chilling effect on the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly among those who have been targeted or fear they could be next.
This report is not an exhaustive examination of cases of transnational repression. Instead, it outlines cases that Human Rights Watch has documented in the course of researching global human rights issues that point to key methods and trends of transnational repression.
Human Rights Watch hopes that by drawing attention to cases of transnational repression, international organizations and concerned governments will pursue actions to provide greater safety and security for those at risk. Governments responsible for transnational repression should be on notice that their efforts to silence critics, threaten human rights defenders, and target people based on their identity are no less problematic abroad than they are at home. This report provides governments seeking to tackle transnational repression with concrete recommendations, while raising caution against laws and policies that could restrict other human rights.
Human Rights Watch calls on governments committing transnational repression to respect international human rights standards both within and beyond their territory. Governments combatting transnational repression should recognize such abuses as a threat to human rights generally and act to protect those at risk within their jurisdiction or control.
“Effectively realising human rights for everyone, everywhere is the pathway to free, fair and just communities and a more peaceful and sustainable world“, write ISHR Director Phil Lynch and Board Chair Vrinda Grover on 8 March 2024. Here some excerpts from a piece worth reading:
We face a global climate emergency. We witness atrocity crimes being perpetrated with apparent impunity, from Afghanistan to Sudan, Palestine to Ukraine, and Nicaragua to Xinjiang. We confront rising populism and propaganda, with artificial intelligence misused to fuel disinformation and discrimination, and democracy facing a ‘make-or-break year’ in 2024, with over 70 national elections. Each of these crises and conflicts are complex, yet they are also interconnected in four fundamental ways.
First, repression and rights violations are among the root causes of all these crises and conflicts…
Second, respect for human rights, and accountability for violations, is essential to address and resolve these crises and conflicts. ..
Third, very few States, if any, have been prepared to treat human rights as paramount and apply human rights standards in a principled, consistent way to each crisis and conflict. ..The selective and inconsistent application of international human rights law undermines the integrity of the framework, as well as the credibility, legitimacy and influence of States and other actors who engage in such double standards.
Fourth and finally, the work of human rights defenders at the national level, as well as their engagement and advocacy at the international level, is essential to address and resolve each of these conflicts and crises. Defenders prevent rights violations, document abuses, promote accountability, and propose solutions that are grounded in community priorities and needs. Indigenous rights defenders carry the knowledge that is necessary to live sustainably and to respect and protect the environment. Digital rights activists are pushing for rights-based regulation of artificial intelligence to ensure that humanity benefits from its innovations and efficiencies. Whistleblowers are exposing government wrongdoing and corporate misfeasance, working to safeguard democracy, while corporate accountability activists are campaigning for an international treaty on business and human rights. Women human rights defenders from Afghanistan are leading the campaign to hold the Taliban accountable for the crime of gender apartheid, while also ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches the most vulnerable populations. In Sudan, women defenders are leading peace movements and protests at the local level, as well as international advocacy, which was instrumental in the establishment of a UN investigative mechanism, further adding to the pressure on the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces to end the war. Despite the challenges, complexities and uncertainties we collectively face, we remain convinced that, with international human rights laws and standards providing a compass, human rights defenders can chart a course to a more peaceful, just and inclusive world….
Despite the challenging times, exacerbated by declining funding for international human rights advocacy and organisations by some States and foundations, ISHR continues to pursue a positive and forward-looking agenda.
We’re pleased that in 2023 the Democratic Republic of Congo enacted a specific national law on the protection of defenders, the culmination of years of work by ISHR and national partners. With this development, the DRC joins the ranks of countries like Côte d’Ivoire, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Mongolia amongst the countries where we have worked alongside national partners to strengthen legal frameworks for defenders and establish specific defender protection laws and will continue to work to ensure effective implementation.
In the area of women’s rights, we are working with defenders from Afghanistan and Iran, together with international legal experts, to push for the explicit recognition and codification of the atrocity crime of gender apartheid. This would fill an international protection gap for women and girls, as well as impose responsibilities on third States and non-State actors to take concrete steps to prevent and end gender apartheid.
With 2023 marking the 25th anniversary of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, we are coordinating a broad coalition to develop an authoritative baseline document of international and regional jurisprudence in relation to the protection of defenders, which will be launched in 2024.
And throughout 2024 we’ll continue allying with Black-led organisations to promote racial justice, with feminist and LGBTIQ+ organisations to resist anti-rights narratives and movements, with corporate accountability activists to strengthen laws on business and human rights, and with Global South defenders to ensure that key multilateral fora are relevant, accessible and responsive to them.
Reflecting on our collective wins over 2023, we identified one golden thread: human rights defenders working in dynamic coalitions, movements and networks to strategically leverage international law and mechanisms to contribute to positive change. With 2023 marking both the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 25th anniversary of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, and 2024 marking ISHR’s own 40th anniversary, it is apt to recall that the work of defenders and the integrity of the international framework are essential to the realisation of human rights on the ground.
The promise of the Universal Declaration will only be fulfilled when we work in coalition to ensure that defenders are protected and that standards are consistently respected and applied.
On 14 March 2024, a large number of leading NGOs paid tribute to Cao Shunli, and all human rights defenders targeted by the Chinese government for their commitment to uphold the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/cao-shunli/]:
Cao Shunli was a brave Chinese woman human rights defender and lawyer. Working with fellow activists, Cao documented abuses, including the now-abolished ‘Re-education through Labour’ extrajudicial detention system, which she was also subjected to as a result of her human rights work. She campaigned for independent civil society to be meaningfully consulted and to be able to contribute to the Chinese government’s national reports to its first and second Universal Periodic Reviews (UPR). In an attempt to speak with government officials about the UPR, Cao courageously organised peaceful sit-ins with other concerned citizens outside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs despite great risks. She also submitted information on extralegal detention and torture in China to the UN and expressed the hope that ‘if we could get even 100 words’ into a UN report, ‘many of our problems could start to get addressed.’
On 14 September 2013, Chinese authorities detained Cao at the Beijing Capital International Airport as she was traveling to Geneva to participate in a human rights training, one month before China’s second UPR. Cao was forcibly disappeared for five weeks, until she resurfaced in criminal detention and was charged with ‘picking quarrels and provoking trouble’. By October 2013, it was clear that Cao Shunli was experiencing serious medical issues while in detention. After months of denial of adequate medical treatment, rejected appeals by her lawyers for bail on humanitarian grounds, and despite multiple calls from the international community for her urgent release, Cao died of multiple organ failure on 14 March 2014 in a hospital under heavy police guard to keep out her lawyers and friends.
Cao was one of the 2014 finalists of the prestigious Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders.
To this day, there has been no accountability for Cao Shunli’s death. The Chinese government refuses to admit wrongdoing, despite repeated calls in 2014 and 2019 by UN Special Procedures experts for a full investigation into this ‘deadly reprisal’.
Her case is one of the longest-standing unresolved cases in the UN Secretary-General’s annual reports on reprisals against civil society actors for engaging with the United Nations. China is one of the most consistent perpetrators of reprisals over time, and one of the most egregious perpetrators in terms of the sheer number of individuals targeted.
Cao is not alone: her courage, but also the abuses she endured, are unfortunately those of other human rights defenders who paid a high cost for cooperating with the UN. Her close colleague, Chen Jianfang was forcibly disappeared under Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location (RSDL) from 19-20 March 2019 after paying tribute to Cao Shunli on the 5th anniversary of her death. Chen was sentenced to four years and six months in jail for ‘inciting subversion of State power’ and left prison on 21 October 2023, after which authorities subjected her to strict surveillance. UN experts have raised with the Chinese government acts of reprisals against Chen Jianfang, but also Jiang Tianyong, Li Qiaochu, Dolkun Isa, Li Wenzu and Wang Qiaoling, among others. The recent instances of intimidation and harassment against NGO participants in China’s 4th UPR in January 2024 further highlight the gravity of the situation.
Li Qiaochu, Xu Zhiyong, Ding Jiaxi, Yu Wensheng, Xu Yan, Huang Xueqin, Li Yuhan, Chang Weiping: many other Chinese human rights defenders are today detained, disappeared, and at grave risk, for upholding the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
These documented acts do not account for the even greater self-censorship and refusal to engage with the United Nation as a result of a generalised climate of fear.
Ten years ago, when ISHR and many other human rights groups sought to observe a moment of silence at the Human Rights Council in her memory, the Chinese delegation, together with other delegations, disrupted the session for an hour and half.
Cao Shunli is a paradigmatic case of reprisals, not only because of her prominence, but also due to the array of severe human rights violations against her, committed in total impunity. These range from Chinese authorities blocking her exit from her own country, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention, lack of due process, torture or ill-treatment and denial of adequate medical care, to subsequent death in custody, and the lack of accountability for these abuses. The lack of any progress in achieving accountability underscores the urgent need for continued international attention and pressure on the Chinese government to ensure justice for Cao and all human rights defenders who face persecution for their work.
Cao Shunli said before her death: ‘Our impact may be large, may be small, and may be nothing. But we must try. It is our duty to the dispossessed and it is the right of civil society.’
Today, we pay tribute to Cao Shunli’s legacy, one that has inspired countless human rights defenders in China and abroad. We urge UN Member States to call for a full, independent, impartial investigation into her death. We reaffirm that no perpetrator of reprisals, no matter how powerful, is above scrutiny, and that reprisals are fundamentally incompatible with the values of the United Nations and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 