‘Urgent action needed to prevent surge in digital violence in Africa, experts say’ says article in Business and Human Right of 30 March 2026
Activists and lawyers in Africa are calling for urgent action to protect women, girls and boys as digital violence surges across the continent. A massive rise in internet users, coupled with huge numbers of people aged under 30, has fuelled an increase in gendered online violence across the continent, according to experts, by giving perpetrators new tools to control and silence women and girls, and influence boys. “Unfortunately the world offline is not safe, equal and inclusive. But the world online is proliferating that to such an extent that it’s creating a foundation for a very, very unequal future,” said Ayesha Mago, global advocacy director at the Sexual Violence Research Initiative, a global network looking at violence against women. “In Africa, internet access is growing exponentially and more than 70% of the population of sub-Saharan Africa is under 30. We know that young people generally face higher rates of online violence and very often are bigger users of any tech,” she said.
Digital violence against women and girls has devastating effects such as mental health problems, withdrawal from public and economic life, physical attacks on LGBTQI+ people in countries that criminalise homosexuality, and femicide. While there is very little pan-African research, one study across five countries in sub-Saharan Africa showed that 28% of women had experienced online violence. As internet access expands, this number is expected to rise. Only 38% of people on the continent are internet users, according to the International Telecommunication Union – and among women the figure falls to 31%. Studies, research and anecdotal evidence at a national level paint a horrifying picture of extreme levels of violence and a toxic online environment with dire real-life consequences.
…In Uganda, in 2021, the National Survey on Violence in Uganda revealed that half of the women (49%) reported having been subjected to online harassment. In South Africa, upcoming research by Equimundo and UN Women found that exposure to harmful content translated into men being 2.6 times more likely to perpetrate violence and 1.8 times more likely to believe misogynistic views. Primary targets on the continent include women in the political arena, along with human rights activists, journalists and women with a public profile. A 2021 report by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the African Parliamentary Union looking at the experiences of 137 female parliamentarians across 50 African countries found that 46% had been the target of sexist attacks online and 42% said they had received threats of death, rape, beating, or abduction, often through social media.
A woman holds up a blank sheet of paper during a demonstration against China’s strict COVID-19 lockdown measures following the deadly apartment fire in Urumqi, Xinjiang. (Photo by Frederic J. BROWN / AFP via Getty Images)
Democracy activists often face arrest, exile, harassment, or retaliation against their families. This essay explains why NED protects sensitive information about grantees, how that duty of care supports the people advancing freedom, and how NED balances discretion with accountability.
Imagine living in a place where a knock at the door in the middle of the night could mean imprisonment, or worse. This is the daily reality for countless democracy and human rights activists around the world. Their bravery makes their work not only meaningful, but also deeply consequential.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) supports those working to strengthen fundamental freedoms in transitional and fragile democracies, as well as those bravely advancing freedom in closed societies. Our grantmaking focuses on the building blocks of democratic life—free elections, independent media, and the freedoms of association, speech, and belief. Just as important, however, is our responsibility to protect the individuals who make that work possible.
This primer offers an overview of why NED carefully manages information about its grantees, including what is shared publicly, what is provided to Congressional oversight bodies, and how discretion underpins the safety and viability of those we support. Activists face vastly different risks depending on their location, visibility, and the tactics of the regimes they confront. Supporting democracy means protecting those who fight for it, including respecting their choices about public visibility to ensure their safety.
Why Public Exposure Can Be Dangerous
Speaking out in many parts of the world can mean risking arrest, exile, or death. According to Freedom House, only about one in five countries around the world is rated “free,” while The Economist’s Intelligence Unit has found that only 25 countries today qualify as full democracies. For the vast majority living under authoritarian or hybrid regimes, even symbolic acts of dissent, like holding up a blank piece of paper, can lead to life-disrupting consequences.
Authoritarian regimes understand the power of dissent and the threat posed by those who dare to speak. That’s why they’ve developed increasingly sophisticated methods to target activists, journalists, human rights lawyers, and civil society leaders, both inside their borders and abroad. Their reach extends across continents, threatening those in exile through transnational repression and those at home through direct prosecution.
The following stories from grantees illustrate why NED’s approach to protection must adapt to the risks posed by both transnational repression and direct prosecution.
Rushan Abbas at the 2025 Democracy Awards. (Photo: M.K. Mindful Media)
Case Study: Rushan Abbas and the CCP’s Hostage Diplomacy
Rushan Abbas, founder of Campaign for Uyghurs and a NED grantee, gave her first public speech about China’s abuses in Xinjiang in 2018. Her husband’s entire family had already vanished in the 2017 crackdown. Just six days after her speech, her sister, Dr. Gulshan Abbas, a retired medical doctor with no political ties, also disappeared.
“She was being targeted because of my advocacy,” Abbas said. “Every day I wake up with her eyes in my mind. Of course, I feel guilty. Speaking out in the United States as an American citizen cost my sister her freedom.”
To this day, Dr. Gulshan Abbas remains missing in China’s vast detention system—her only ”crime” being related to someone who exposed the CCP’s abuses. This brutal form of hostage diplomacy forces exiled activists into an impossible choice: stay silent or risk their loved ones’ safety.
Case Study: Natalia Arno and the Kremlin’s Transnational Reach
Natalia Arno (Photo by THOMAS SAMSON/AFP via Getty Images)
Natalia Arno, president of the Free Russia Foundation and a longtime NED partner, was forced into exile from Russia in 2012. Since then, she’s been a leading voice in exile activism, advocating for political prisoners, supporting democratic leaders, and coordinating programs to hold the Putin regime accountable.
But in May 2023, after a private event in Prague, she returned to her hotel to find the door ajar and a strange scent inside the room. Hours later, she experienced numbness, pain, and blurred vision. Doctors in Washington, D.C. confirmed exposure to nerve toxins.
“I never could have believed the scale and brazenness and how long the Kremlin tentacles are into the West,” she said. Despite years of surveillance and intimidation, Arno continues her work. “You could lose your life,” she said, listing examples of poisoned, tortured, and murdered activists. “I have been in this game for 20 years, and I can write a book about all the kinds of attacks against me in Russia.”
Activism in Exile and Under Authoritarian Rule
Authoritarian regimes target democracy advocates in two primary ways. Activists working inside authoritarian states face direct repression: denial of employment, education or housing to surveillance, interrogation, imprisonment, or death. Activists living in exile, such as members of the diaspora, confront transnational repression: intimidation, harassment, cyberattacks, and retaliation against relatives still living under dictatorship.
While both forms of courage are vital to the cause of freedom, they require different kinds of protection. For activists in exile like Abbas and Arno, visibility can be both a tool and a vulnerability—they use their public platforms to build international support while enduring harassment and threats from afar. For those working quietly inside repressive states, even the faintest association with democracy support can result in severe consequences. NED’s Duty of Care and Do-Not-Disclose policies reflect this spectrum of risk, providing flexible protections appropriate to different contexts, roles, and levels of exposure.
Visibility and Risk in Democracy Activism
Activists face difficult decisions about how visible they can afford to be. For some who live in exile, like Abbas and Arno, activism is essential to raising awareness and building international support. As public figures in free societies, they can testify before lawmakers, engage journalists, and speak on behalf of silenced communities. But even in freedom, visibility comes with the danger of transnational repression.
Abbas has faced smear campaigns, online harassment, and death threats requiring FBI involvement. Her family in China has been targeted. “Those kinds of things actually became so normal because we face this almost weekly or monthly,” she said. “And we just laugh at it and take it as the impact of our work.”
Arno’s risks didn’t end after fleeing Russia. “Being in NATO or EU countries doesn’t save us from this huge Kremlin machine,” she said. “Surveillance is still huge, cyberattacks are huge, but also physical attacks.”
These cases illustrate the first front of transnational repression: authoritarian regimes projecting power beyond their borders to intimidate, threaten, or attack critics abroad.
Iran has become one of the clearest examples of how far authoritarian regimes are willing to go to silence dissent beyond their borders. Iranian democracy activists, journalists, and human rights defenders living in exile have faced kidnapping plots, assassination attempts, surveillance, and harassment across Europe and North America. Multiple Western governments have linked Iranian intelligence services to plots targeting exiled dissidents, leading to disrupted operations, criminal prosecutions, and sanctions. Iran’s efforts to pursue critics abroad underscore the growing reality of transnational repression and the need for democracy organizations to extend duty-of-care protections even to partners living in open societies.
At the same time, this external pressure is inseparable from the repression activists face at home. For those still inside authoritarian states, the threat is direct and unrelenting. These activists continue their work at great personal risk, operating under surveillance, harassment, and the constant threat of arrest or imprisonment while pushing for democratic change.
In response to these dangers, many activists adopt a lower profile. How public they are in their work is an intentional choice to protect themselves, their families, and their networks from retaliation. While the steps they take to remain safe in authoritarian environments may mean their activism lacks the visibility of public campaigns, it is no less vital. Activists in authoritarian environments take great risks to build the infrastructure of democracy movements—documenting abuses, organizing communities, and informing international action.
In China, the Chinese government has systematically stigmatized international democracy funding. Even tenuous connections to external support and collaboration can carry severe consequences. As one activist working with international human rights and democracy organizations explained, “Me, myself, my family members, were interrogated by police officers in China.” Others have been detained and prosecuted for similar work. The Chinese government has also targeted the family members of human rights defenders in an effort to deter continued activism.
As a result, discretion is essential. “We prefer NED to not mention our names publicly,” the activist said, “in order to protect staff members and board members and even former colleagues, former members, and our families.”
Public activism draws global attention and builds coalitions, but it also brings heightened risk. Regimes often target public figures to intimidate or silence them—and to send a warning to others.
Activism that seeks to engage in quieter and less confrontational forms of engagement, by contrast, can provide greater security and sustainability, particularly in repressive settings. “While of course it’s much more dangerous for those activists who are inside Russia to speak out,” one Russian activist explained, “it’s much safer for those working in exile and most continue their work quietly.”
Human rights work in authoritarian environments demands different operational and political strategies. While the work often seeks to expose gross human rights abuses and expose corrupt networks, the ability to gather and verify the information requires close cooperation between groups that are in exile and networks that are in country.
In Tibet, NED-supported partners have documented China’s campaign to erase Tibetan identity through colonial-style boarding schools. In Venezuela and Cuba, investigative journalists have exposed corruption and human rights violations while keeping low profiles to stay safe. While international and exile organizations are often the face of the work, the networks on the ground are equally essential to what they achieve.
As Arno put it, “People are our biggest value, our biggest treasure. When activists are facing such dangerous things like imprisonment, torture, murder, we have to protect them with all possible measures.”
Supporting Activists Safely and Effectively
Since its founding in 1983, NED has supported democracy activists and citizen leaders—whether operating in exile or inside closed societies—to advance human rights and democratic values in some of the world’s most repressive contexts. NED’s Founding Statement of Principles and Objectives notes that in “societies where even [these] independent institutions are prohibited or severely restricted, the immediate objective is to enlarge whatever possibilities exist for independent thought, expression, and cultural activity. … [The Endowment] will not neglect those who keep alive the flame of freedom in closed societies.”
As a congressionally mandated independent nonprofit, NED was designed to provide support to its partners in a way that is impactful, secure, and accountable. Few donors are structured to do this work with the same level of care and discretion, which is why frontline democracy advocates consistently place their trust in NED.
Key to NED’s approach is the principle of protection through discretion. As NED’s Board of Directors approve grantmaking strategy and individual projects, the identifying details of grantees are made available to them. However, we avoid public disclosures that could expose partners to government reprisal. This is not only an ethical commitment—it is a key operating principle rooted in NED’s Duty of Care and Public Disclosure Policies, which obligates the organization to do no harm.
Without this policy of protection, many activists could not safely engage with international support. “It’s very difficult to build reputation and trust” one democracy activist said. “How you treat your grantees, with special care and understanding of the particularities of each region, should be the gold standard that all donors take as an example.”
NED’s Approach to Public Disclosure of Grantees
NED publishes listings of its current grantees twice a year on its website and includes a comprehensive listing of grantees in its annual report, complete with grant descriptions, grant amounts, and grant durations, organized by country and region. However, we do not publicly disclose personally identifiable information in these listings to avoid placing individuals at risk, now or in the future.
Some have asked why NED does not publish the personally identifying details of its grantees on its website. The reason is simple: in many cases, doing so would put a target on the backs of those we support and compromise their ability to do their work.
NED’s Duty of Care and Public Disclosure policies seek to balance the ability of our partners to operate as freely and securely as possible with our transparency requirements. At the same time, our relationship with our grantees is fully transparent. Organizations must take the initiative themselves to seek support from the Endowment. They know who we are, where our funds come from, and the values that guide our support. Activists seek out NED’s assistance precisely because it is open, accountable, and trusted.
NED respects the agency of its grantees to decide whether it is safe to publicly disclose their relationship with NED. Organizations regularly and proudly share their partnership with NED as a mark of credibility and support. Others, particularly those operating in hostile environments, often request confidentiality to safeguard their security and effectiveness. In all cases, NED ensures our partners are aware of our policies and procedures so that they can make informed decisions about their own public posture.
This approach is an ethical obligation as much as it is a matter of organizational policy. We know about the persecution of Uyghurs and underground Christians in China, the protests in Cuba and Iran, the continued repression in Belarus and Nicaragua, and human rights abuses in Burma and North Korea because courageous individuals risk their lives to report them. Supporting democracy means more than funding programs or issuing statements—it means protecting the people behind the work.
With that responsibility comes a duty: to minimize risk, not add to it through careless exposure. In a world where authoritarian regimes are increasingly sophisticated, coordinated, and ruthless in targeting dissent, discretion becomes an essential safeguard.
Transparency and Accountability
Even as NED protects grantee confidentiality in public settings, it maintains rigorous transparency and accountability to the NED Board, Congress, and U.S. oversight bodies. The NED Board reviews and approves both grantmaking strategy and individual grants. As outlined in our Duty of Care, we submit comprehensive annual plans and updates to congressional committees that outline our strategy and grantmaking priorities. We maintain active communication with Members and their staff, respond promptly to official requests for information, and create opportunities for elected officials to engage directly with our grantees—both in Washington and abroad—to better understand the real-world impact of NED-supported efforts. We likewise provide an annual report to the executive branch as a formal accounting of our work, priorities, and impact. NED consults regularly with representatives of the legislative and executive branches on our work, both in Washington and in the field, and responds to Freedom of Information Act information requests.
NED upholds strict due diligence and financial oversight procedures to ensure that resources are used responsibly and for their intended purpose. Our grantmaking is governed by the standards of all federal spending, with clear agreements, financial reporting requirements, and independent audits to ensure funds are used for their intended purpose.
In addition, the Endowment is subject to comprehensive oversight, including Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigations, State Department Inspector General reviews, and annual independent audits.
By combining discretion abroad with transparency at home, NED fulfills its dual responsibility: protecting those who advance freedom in repressive environments while remaining transparent and accountable. As authoritarian threats grow more complex and far-reaching, we will continue strengthening our Duty of Care so those who defend democracy can pursue their work safely, effectively, and with confidence in the support behind them.
The 24thedition of the Geneva International Film Festival and Forum on Human Rights (FIFDH) took place in Geneva from 6-15 March 2026. The Right Livelihood team attended several screenings and debates and shared the experience in this text.
Ellynn Del Perugia, Administrative Officer, wrote on 26 March 2026 about this:
Each year, the FIFDH offers the opportunity to watch documentaries and movies from all corners of the world. Some echoed the work and values of Right Livelihood Laureates or the proposals currently under research, others expanded our understanding of the broader human rights landscape.
More than providing an opportunity to learn, these films act as living memories and testimonies. They make public what power would prefer to keep hidden. In some cases, placing a camera in someone’s hands becomes an act of resistance in itself. As 2024 Laureate Issa Amro did when he initiated a camera distribution project in Hebron, Palestine, to document and collect video evidence of abuses and injustices committed by Israeli settlers and the military against Palestinians.
The festival opened with “A Fox Under a Pink Moon”, which won the Grand Award of the festival. This self-portrait follows a 16-year-old Afghan artist as she attempts to escape multiple forms of violence in Iran and join her mother in Austria, using her mobile phone as both a tool of survival and a means of artistic expression.
Over the following days, the programme moved across different geographies and contexts: Argentina grappling with fifty years of memory since the dictatorship in the documentary “Identidad”; China’s expanding surveillance state and its repression of the Uyghur population, in “Eyes of the Machine”; Pakistan’s environmental and human crisis in “Black Water”; and the fragile future of multilateralism explored in “Solidarity” alongside a debate on the future of International Geneva. The latter raised important questions for Right Livelihood, which uses international platforms to support the Laureates. Are we witnessing the end of a rules-based international order? And if so, what replaces it? An order based purely on the interests of the most powerful? What would a future without International Geneva look like?
Across these very different stories and regions, one theme kept returning: the suppression of memory as a tool of power. “Identidad” follows one man’s quest to rediscover his origins and identity. The documentary explores the importance of remembrance in countering the erasure of memory, a tactic often employed by repressive governments to conceal their own crimes.
“Eyes of the Machine” raises a similar question, documenting the silencing of the Uyghur population’s culture, language and collective memory. Here too, some individuals have chosen to keep these memories alive and share their stories, often at great personal risk.
This is something we recognise deeply at Right Livelihood. The Laureates we support are often people who choose to speak, act and organise in contexts where doing so comes at great personal cost.
Held alongside the 61st session of the Human Rights Council, several Laureates and partners present in Geneva also participated in this festival. It is difficult to leave these films feeling indifferent. They unsettle, as they should. They raise questions about the direction of the world and the future that lies ahead. But they also remind us that memory, when kept alive, can be a form of hope.
Judge Temirbek Mamatov, who reviewed the case following the ruling by the nation’s Supreme Court, refused to drop the charges and acquit the journalist who participated in the hearing via a web link from the prison colony, Radio Azattyk reported. Mamatov also imposed a travel ban on Tajibek kyzy, and her case is expected to be retried.
On 23 March 2026 Civil Rights Defenders welcomed the decision allowing Makhabat Tajibek kyzy to return home and to finally reunite with her family and teenage son. We also repeat the call that Civil Rights Defenders and other human rights groups have made since the day Tajibek kyzy and her colleagues were arrested: Kyrgyzstani authorities should drop all unsubstantiated charges brought in retaliation for her legitimate journalistic work. Makhabat Tajibek kyzy needs to be fully acquitted and rehabilitated.
The director of anti-corruption investigative outlets Temirov Live and Ait Ait Dese, Tajibek kyzy was arrested in January 2024 along with 10 other current and former staff members and sentenced in October of that year to six years in prison on charges of calling for mass unrest. Until today, all of her co-defendants in the case have been released from jail under probation, pardoned or acquitted.
The 972 deaths recorded between 2016 and 2025 make Colombia “one of the most dangerous countries in the world” for such activists, according to the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk.
Following the historic peace accords between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in 2016, the report noted a gradual increase in assassinations. This was linked to the state’s inability to maintain a strong presence in areas previously controlled by the guerrilla group.
Over 70% of identified perpetrators were armed non-state actors, with the majority of cases analyzed by the report involved in drug trafficking, illegal mining, illegal logging, and human trafficking. The number of attacks and threats against human rights defenders investigated by the UN between 2022 and 2025 was 2,018, however this is thought to represent “only a fraction” of the true number due to underreporting and the lack of efficient government records of such cases.
The report recognized the work of the current Historic Pact (Pacto Histórico) government of Gustavo Petro, which has publicly recognized the gravity of the situation and worked to develop a national strategy to counter it. This included the 2022 law that established peace as a matter of state policy, recognizing the state’s responsibility to “guarantee human security” through a “territorial and intersectional approach”.
However, the UN says the state’s response has failed human rights defenders due to its fragmented nature that lacks coordination between national, departmental, and municipal authorities.
“In addition to ensuring accountability for the murders that have taken place, addressing the structural causes of this human tragedy through a comprehensive approach must be a priority for all relevant authorities in Colombia, in order to protect human rights defenders and enable them to carry out their vital work safely,” Türk said.
High levels of impunity have also persisted, with only 55 out of the 800 cases investigated between 2022 and 2025 ending in sentencing. In over half of these cases, no suspects have been identified.
Nearly a quarter of victims identified by the UN were Indigenous (23%) highlighting a disproportionate effect on this population that represents less than 5% of Colombians.
Other disproportionately affected groups include Afro-Colombians, LGBTQ+ individuals, rural community leaders and environmental protectors, as well as political leaders.
The report concluded by urging the Colombian state to take action to combat this issue, recommending institutional reforms and criminal investigations into perpetrators.
Srinagar: A coalition of international human rights organizations has called for the immediate release of Kashmiri journalist Irfan Meraj, three years after his arrest by India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA).
According to Kashmir Media Service, nearly three dozen human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Committee to Protect Journalists, said Meraj’s continued detention is based on charges they believe are politically motivated and linked to his work documenting human rights issues in occupied Jammu and Kashmir.
The organizations said that the case reflects growing pressure on journalists and researchers working on sensitive issues in the territory. The advocacy groups highlighted the detention of Kashmiri human rights defender Khurram Parvez, coordinator of the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), who has been held since 2021. Investigators previously described Mehaj as an associate of Parvez, a fact that rights organizations say forms part of the basis for the charges against him.
The coalition urged the Indian government to end what they described as reprisals against journalists and human rights defenders in occupied Jammu and Kashmir and to reconsider laws that allow extended detention without trial. They also criticized the Modi-led Indian government for failing to respond to several inquiries previously raised by UN human rights experts regarding alleged violations in the region.
The groups called on the international community to monitor the situation closely and encourage greater protection for journalists and civil society organizations, stating that continued attention from international institutions may be necessary to ensure that press freedom and basic civil liberties are upheld in the territory.
Meraj was arrested in March 2023 during an investigation conducted by India’s National Investigation Agency for uploading posts on brutalities of Indian forces in the territory.
The Human Rights Center “Viasna” published a joint photo of three of its employees — Marfa Rabkova, Nasta Loika, and Valiantsin Stefanovich — who were released.
Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko released 250 political prisoners on 19 March 2026, the largest group freed so far, as the United States moved to lift more sanctions, The releases are part of a broader effort by Minsk to improve ties with Washington after years of isolation and sanctions. Among those freed was Katsyaryna Andreyeva, a journalist with Polish Belarusian-language broadcaster Belsat, according to reports.
Also released was Marfa Rabkova, an activist with Belarusian human rights group Viasna who was arrested in September 2020 and sentenced to 14 years and nine months on charges including “extremism,” the Reuters news agency reported.
Coale – an envoy for US President Donald Trump – said he expected all remaining political prisoners to be released by the end of the year, adding that Washington would lift all sanctions imposed over the 2020 crackdown on protesters if that happens, Reuters reported. He also said Lukashenko had been urged to halt further arrests. The United States has agreed to lift sanctions on several Belarusian banks and the country’s finance ministry, as well as fertiliser producers, according to the AFP news agency.
Exiled Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya welcomed the latest prisoner release as a moment of “great joy” and “huge relief.”
Civil Rights Defenders welcomes the news that human rights defender Nasta Loika has been released from prison in Belarus as part of the country’s largest mass release of political prisoners to date. Nasta is a longstanding advocate for human rights in Belarus and an alarm bearer in the Natalia Project, the world’s first alarm and positioning system for human rights defenders at risk.
“We are deeply relieved that Nasta Loika is finally free. Her courage, resilience, and commitment to human rights have inspired countless people in Belarus and beyond. While we celebrate her release, it comes after years of unjust persecution. No one should ever be imprisoned for defending fundamental rights,” says Gabrielle Gunneberg, Global Department Director at Civil Rights Defenders.
Reacting to the release of 250 individuals imprisoned in Belarus on politically motivated grounds, including human rights defenders Marfa Rabkova and Nasta Loika, as a part of a deal with the United States, Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia Director, said:
“While the release of hundreds of individuals unjustly detained on politically motivated charges is a welcome step, it must not be mistaken for justice. Marfa Rabkova, Nasta Loika, Valiantsin Stefanovich and others should not have spent a day in prison. Freedom should never be the product of geopolitical bargaining in human beings. Justice will not be served until those responsible for their unlawful imprisonment are held accountable.
Human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Ales Bialiatski reacted to the release of fellow human rights defenders:
“I am immensely happy, like all my colleagues, about the release of our friends, our colleagues: Valiantsin Stefanovich, Marfa Rabkova, and Nasta Loika. The thing that we expected — I have been expecting it for the last three months, and my colleagues have been expecting it for more than five years — has come true. Because Marfa Rabkova served five and a half years, Valiantsin Stefanovich served four and a half years, and Nasta Loika served several years. And it was an absolute injustice, it shouldn’t have been like this.
Military coups, violence against peaceful protesters, and efforts to weaken constitutional safeguards in 2025 drove the 20th consecutive year of decline in global freedom, according to a new report released on 19 March by Freedom House. The report, Freedom in the World 2026: The Growing Shadow of Autocracy, found that 54 countries experienced deterioration in their political rights and civil liberties, while only 35 registered improvements. Today just 21 percent of the world’s people live in countries rated Free, down from 46 percent two decades ago.
“Even as 2026 has brought new opportunities for those living under authoritarian rule from Venezuela to Iran, the last 20 years have been a dark period for global freedom,” said Jamie Fly, chief executive officer of Freedom House. “Armed conflict, coups, attacks on democratic institutions, and crackdowns on rights by authoritarians have now resulted in two full decades of decline. Those who still enjoy the blessings of freedom must do more to counter authoritarianism and provide more effective support for the democratic aspirations of people standing up to repression around the world, or this persistent decline will continue.”
In addition to deepening repression among authoritarian regimes, the past year featured a chequered performance among the world’s democracies. Of the 88 countries rated Free, the United States experienced the sharpest decline, with a drop of 3 points to a score of 81 on the report’s 100-point scale; it was matched in this group only by a decline in Bulgaria (−3), closely followed by Italy (−2). Worsening gridlock in Congress and escalating assertions of unilateral executive authority—combined with a multiyear rise in threats and reprisals for nonviolent speech, and a weakening of anti-corruption safeguards—brought the US score to its lowest level since Freedom in the World began publishing 0–100 scores in 2002. The United States’ decline for 2025 contributed to a 12-point erosion over the past two decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Key report findings:
Global freedom declined for the 20th consecutive year in 2025. A total of 54 countries experienced deterioration in their political rights and civil liberties during the year, while only 35 countries registered improvements.
Largest increases and best overall scores: On Freedom in the World’s 100-point scale for political rights and civil liberties, Syria (+5), Sri Lanka (+5), Bolivia (+4), and Gabon (+4) recorded the largest gains for 2025. The best overall country scores were those of Finland (100), Sweden (99), Norway (99), and New Zealand (99).
Largest declines and worst overall scores: Guinea-Bissau (−8), Tanzania (−7), Burkina Faso, (−5), Madagascar (−5), and El Salvador (−5) had the largest one-year score declines.The countries with the worst overall scores were South Sudan (0), Sudan (1), and Turkmenistan (1).
Status changes: Three countries—Bolivia, Fiji, and Malawi—improved from Partly Free to Free status thanks to competitive elections, growing judicial independence, and the strengthening of the rule of law.
Deepening and persistent authoritarian repression: Conditions for freedom continued to deteriorate in Iran in 2025, with authorities arresting more than 21,000 people as part of a crackdown on alleged espionage and collaboration following the regime’s 12-day war with Israel in June, and expelling some 1.8 million Afghan migrants and refugees without regard for their basic rights. The country’s score fell by 1 point to 10 out of 100. The scores for Russia and China remained unchanged at 12 and 9, respectively, but Russian authorities took further steps to suppress antiwar speech and independent journalism, while Chinese officials cracked down on small but multiplying protests.
Although the scores for many rights and liberties deteriorated over the last two decades, media freedom, freedom of personal expression, and due process have suffered the heaviest impacts. Coups, armed conflicts, attacks on democratic institutions by elected leaders, and intensified repression by authoritarian regimes have been the main drivers of global decline during this 20-year period.
Since 2005, the group of countries with Partly Free status has shrunk substantially. Of the 59 countries that were rated Partly Free as of 2005, a total of 19 have dropped to Not Free, swelling the ranks of the world’s autocracies, whereas just 9 have improved to Free.
Most democracies remain resilient in the face of daunting challenges. Despite internal pressures and threats from foreign powers, democracies continue to demonstrate that their domestic political systems are responsive and capable of course correction. Of the 87 countries rated Free in 2005, a total of 76—more than 85 percent—have remained Free throughout the two-decade period of global decline.
Dr Abduljalil AlSingace – Bahrain – Credit Hasan Jamali
17 March 2026: PEN International, together with a coalition of human rights organisations, wrote to King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa of Bahrain, urging the release of Dr Abduljalil Al-Singace, a 64-year-old human rights defender imprisoned for fifteen years for his pro-democracy activism. The letter highlights his deteriorating health due to denial of medical care, including delayed surgery and lack of physiotherapy, and his hunger strikes protesting the confiscation of his manuscripts and research. The organisations call on Bahraini authorities to release Dr Al-Singace, provide adequate healthcare, and return his confiscated work, noting that his release ahead of Eid Al-Fitr would be a meaningful act of compassion and reconciliation amid ongoing regional turmoil.
Your Majesties,
We are writing to respectfully urge Your Majesties to order the release of human rights defender Dr Abduljalil Al-Singace, who has now completed fifteen years of arbitrary imprisonment while serving a life sentence for his role in the pro-democracy movement.
Bahrain is currently facing unprecedented challenges as the regional conflict intensifies. The country has been subjected to multiple attacks and its airspace has been closed. At such a difficult time for the nation, acts that promote compassion, unity, and reconciliation are more important than ever. The release of Dr Al-Singace and others imprisoned for their human rights work and political views would send an important message during this difficult time.
Dr Al-Singace, now 64 years old, has been held in medical facilities since July 2021 and is currently detained at Muharraq Specialised Health Care Centre. He began a hunger strike in protest of the confiscation of his manuscripts and academic research. Since then, he has survived primarily on liquid intake, including multivitamin supplements. At times, he has resorted to full hunger strikes to protest the denial of medication and access to specialised medical treatment.
In November 2025, the UN Committee against Torture expressed serious concerns regarding his ongoing detention and urged Bahrain to release Dr Al-Singace, alongside fellow human rights defenders Hassan Mushaima and Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja.
We remain deeply concerned that Dr Al-Singace continues to suffer from the systematic denial of adequate medical care. For example, since 2021, he has experienced severe shoulder pain. After prolonged delays in obtaining a proper diagnosis, he finally received an MRI scan last year and doctors advised that surgery is required. However, there has been no indication as to when this operation will take place. He also continues to be denied physiotherapy despite his disability. These medical concerns should be addressed without further delay.
With Eid Al-Fitr approaching, an occasion traditionally marked by royal pardons, we respectfully ask that Dr Al-Singace be included among those pardoned. In the meantime, we urge Your Majesties to ensure that he is held in conditions that meet international standards, receives his medication without delay, and has access to adequate healthcare in compliance with medical ethics. We also urge the relevant authorities to facilitate the return of his confiscated research to his family at the earliest opportunity.
At a time when the region is experiencing profound turmoil, the release of political prisoners, including Dr Al-Singace, would offer a meaningful gesture of compassion and help ease the suffering felt by many families in Bahrain.
Yours sincerely,
ALQST for Human Rights
ARTICLE 19
Bahrain Centre for Human Rights
Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
The British Society for Middle Eastern Studies Committee on Academic Freedom
CIVICUS
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
DAWN
English PEN
The Free Al-Khawaja Campaign
Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
The Right Livelihood Foundation and partners have gone into the problems faced by Human Rights Defenders in exile:
Leaving your country means more than crossing a border. It means stepping into uncertainty, a place where language falters, futures blur and belonging must be rebuilt. But exile can also open doors. It can broaden perspectives, forge new alliances and inspire people to rebuild on their own terms.
Through the project “Reconceptualising exile”, Right Livelihood together with theGlobal Campus of Human Rights, work with a group of 14 fellows living in exile to rebuild life, regain identity and purpose while the ground they left behind remains too dangerous to return to. This visual story challenges what you think exile means. It invites you to see how it feels and how people rebuild from fragments, carrying language, memory and conviction across borders.
What forces someone into exile? Behind those numbers are real people punished for what they believe in:
For Natallia Satsunkevich, a human rights defender from Belarus, it was fighting for democracy in the face of the dictatorship.
For Viacheslav (Slava) Samonov, a Russian lawyer and LGBTQ+ activist, the dissolution of his NGO amid the post-invasion crackdown and the rapidly escalating repression against LGBTQ+ people.
For Askold Kurov, a Russian documentary filmmaker, it was promoting free media and LGBTQ+ rights.
For Helen Mack Chang, it was challenging the rampant corruption in Guatemala.
For Abdul Rahman Yasa, it was standing up for human rights, women’s issues and youth advocacy under the Taliban.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 