We, the undersigned organisations and partners from around the world, reaffirm our unwavering solidarity with human rights defenders (HRDs) who continue to face judicial harassment, arbitrary detention, and persecution for their peaceful human rights work. We call for the release of all unjustly imprisoned activists and demand an end to attacks against HRDs.
On the sixth anniversary of the Stand As My Witness (SAMW) campaign, 15 July 2026, we stand together to highlight the ongoing unlawful targeting of defenders and to renew our collective commitment to their protection and release.
Launched in July 2020, the Stand As My Witness campaign was created to shine a light on the misuse of repressive national laws to silence human rights defenders and to mobilise international solidarity in response. Since its inception, the campaign has worked to raise awareness of emblematic cases, coordinate joint advocacy actions, and challenge the growing criminalisation of human rights activism.
At its launch, the campaign issued a call urging civil society organisations and allies worldwide to stand in solidarity with detained and persecuted defenders. This call was endorsed by more than 190 organisations, helping to draw international attention to the misuse of judicial systems to suppress dissent and civic freedoms, and harm those who fight for justice.
Over the past six years, sustained advocacy, international pressure, and collective action have contributed to the release of more than 31 human rights defenders, demonstrating the tangible impact of global solidarity.
Despite these achievements, many activists remain unfairly jailed. We remain deeply concerned that attacks against human rights defenders continue to intensify across all regions. Governments are increasingly resorting to restrictive laws, politicised judicial systems, surveillance, digital repression, and arbitrary detention to target activists, journalists, environmental defenders, women human rights defenders, Indigenous leaders, and others working to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The CIVICUS 2025 People Power Under Attack Report states that civic freedoms are being curtailed in a record number of countries. Civil society is under severe attack in 122 of 198 countries and territories with detention of protesters, journalists and human rights defenders as among the top violations globally.
Through this joint statement, we call on governments worldwide to:
Immediately and unconditionally release all arbitrarily detained human rights defenders;
End the misuse of laws and judicial systems to criminalise peaceful activism and repeal laws seeking to silence dissent;
Guarantee the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly;
Cease propagating false information and anti-rights narratives, and use of digital platforms against civil society and human rights defenders; and
Ensure the protection and safety of all human rights defenders in accordance with international human rights law.
We emphasise that human rights defenders are not criminals and terrorists, but courageous and concerned individuals who work to advance justice, dignity, accountability, and freedom for all.
The Inter-American Court’s climate Opinion requires States across Latin America and the Caribbean to apply the standards of the Escazú Agreement—even if they have not yet ratified the treaty.
In a Blog Post Published on 2 july, 2026Luisa Gómez, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, explains that one year after the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency, the debate is no longer whether countries across Latin America and the Caribbean must protect environmental defenders. That question has already been answered. The Court confirmed that all Member States of the Organization of American States (OAS)—to which the Advisory Opinion directly applies—must implement the highest standards of protection for those defending the environment.
To define those standards, the Court drew extensively on the Escazú Agreement, the first legally binding regional treaty promoting environmental democracy. In doing so, it reinforced the treaty’s significance, even in countries that have not yet ratified it, including Peru, Guatemala, and Costa Rica. The implication is clear: these States can no longer treat Escazú’s standards as external, optional, or irrelevant.….
The incorporation of Escazú’s standards into the Inter-American corpus juris marks an important step toward strengthening access rights and protections for environmental defenders in the context of the climate crisis.
But no Advisory Opinion changes reality on its own. These decisions generate change when they are used in litigation, legislative reform, public debate, and collective organizing to ensure that human rights standards addressing the climate crisis translate into concrete protections for those defending the environment.
Recently, in the Province of Mendoza, Argentina, a significant development unfolded regarding criminal charges against environmental defenders protesting against mining activities. Public authorities, citing the Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, requested the suspension of the prosecution. They argued that continuing with the charges would be unconstitutional and could criminalize social protest and environmental advocacy.
One year later, the true measure of the Advisory Opinion’s impact will not be found in its pages, but in how judges, legislators, communities, and environmental defenders use it to strengthen protections for both the environment and the people who defend it.
Click here to dive deeper into the practical uses of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion on the climate emergency.
On 29 June 2026, Amnesty published a roundup of what can be achieved when we stand together in solidarity. Despite the increasingly fractious state of the world, governments and civil society have come together to pass important laws and resolutions to tackle human rights harms, following protests and petitions from activists and campaigners.
Here a few examples but the list is worth reading in total:
In January, human rights defender Sean Binder and 23 others connected to a Search and Rescue NGO were acquitted in Greece after years on trial. Amnesty International has been campaigning in support of Sean’s case since 2018.
Eleven members of the Istanbul Bar Association’s executive committee were acquitted on 9 January, after facing charges for “spreading terrorist propaganda” and “publicly disseminating misleading information”. The 11 had been on trial over a statement issued by the Bar Association on 21 December 2024 about the killing of two journalists in northern Syria and the arrest of journalists and lawyers at a related peaceful protest in Istanbul the day before.
Human rights defenders who had been arbitrarily detained in Venezuela were released between January and May 2026. They included Javier Tarazona, Rocío San Miguel, Kennedy Tejeda, Carlos Julio Rojas and Eduardo Torres, Darío Estrada, Rosa Chirinos, and Yevhenii Trush.
Eight years after the murder of human rights defender Marielle Franco and her driver Anderson Gomes in Rio de Janeiro, and the attempted murder of Fernanda Chaves, a press officer working for Marielle, those responsible for orchestrating these crimes have finally been convicted. The conviction is a major step forward in the fight against political violence and impunity in Brazil. It is also a testament to the persistence of Marielle’s family, social movements and civil society organizations, such as Amnesty International, in demanding truth and justice over the years. Amnesty International Brazil is continuing to call for broader measures to prevent political violence and ensure effective protection for human rights defenders, especially Black leaders, women and those who challenge entrenched systems of inequality and discrimination.
Adamu Oseni (aka Hussaini Oseni) was released on 18 February 2026 after years of campaigning by Amnesty International Nigeria. Oseni had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Ondo State High Court, for possessing a phone linked to an armed robbery, despite evidence he was not involved in the crime. After Amnesty International Nigeria submitted a pardon request on his behalf in 2024, his sentence was reduced to 20 years before he was finally released.
Million Beyene, a journalist and managing editor at Addis Standard, was abducted from the newsroom in on 15 April, by three men wearing plain clothes. It is believed he was targeted because of his work as a journalist. Amnesty International launched an Urgent Action on 27 April and he was released to his family on 28 April. Upon his release, he said:”I am currently receiving medical treatment and doing my best to recover. The experience has been difficult, and I am still coping with its impact, but I remain strong. I am deeply grateful for all your support and efforts on my behalf. It truly means a lot to me.”
A Norwegian court rejected Greece’s request to extradite Tommy Olsen, founder of the NGO Aegean Boat Report, who is wanted on criminal charges connected to his work documenting human rights violations against refugees and migrants at Europe’s borders. Following his initial arrest in Norway, Amnesty launched an Urgent Action calling on Norway to reject his extradition and stating that the charges against him were not supported by evidence and were an abuse of anti-smuggling legislation. Olsen still faces criminal proceedings against him in Greece and is subject to a European arrest warrant. Amnesty International will continue to campaign against the criminalization of solidarity with refugees and migrants.
Human rights defenders who engage with the United Nations are increasingly facing reprisals through transnational repression, as States seek to silence criticism beyond their borders.
ISHR calls on States to raise cases of transnational repression as reprisals against human rights defenders who engaged with the United Nations. Here is the message it will send and it calls on anybody to sign up:
Excellency,
In the past, you showed your support in preventing reprisals against those who engage with the United Nations by co-sponsoring the resolution on reprisals and/or publicly naming cases of reprisals against human rights defenders.
The following human rights defenders have dedicated themselves to promoting and safeguarding human rights in their respective countries, including through engagement with the United Nations. Yet, instead of being protected, they are facing reprisals and transnational repression linked to their cooperation with UN human rights mechanisms.
Through threats, criminalisation, surveillance, attacks on family members, professional sanctions, asset seizures and other forms of intimidation, these defenders continue to face consequences for engaging with the United Nations, even while living in exile.
I urge your delegation to raise the following cases during the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly’s Third Committee and publicly condemn all acts of reprisals and transnational repression against individuals who cooperate with the UN.
Basma Mostafa (Egypt) is an investigative journalist and human rights defender who fled Egypt in 2020 after reporting on enforced disappearances, torture and extrajudicial killings. Despite living in exile in Europe, she continues to face threats, harassment, surveillance and intimidation linked to her human rights work and engagement with UN human rights mechanisms. Her case was included in the UN Secretary-General’s reprisals report.
Anna Kwok (Hong Kong) was the Executive Director of the Hong Kong Democracy Council. In connection with her international human rights advocacy and engagement with UN mechanisms, Hong Kong authorities issued an arrest warrant against her, revoked her passport and offered a reward for information leading to her arrest. Her case was included in the Secretary-General’s reprisals report, and reprisals have also extended to her family members.
Armel Niyongere, Dieudonné Bashirahishize, Vital Nshimirimana and Lambert Nigarura (Burundi) are human rights lawyers who were forced into exile after cooperating with the UN Committee against Torture. Despite living in Belgium, they remain subject to the consequences of reprisals, including life sentences handed down in absentia and the freezing of their assets in Burundi. In 2025, the Committee against Torture found that Burundi had violated the Convention against Torture by retaliating against them for engaging with the UN.
These cases underscore the urgent need for States to address transnational repression as a growing threat to the integrity of the UN human rights system and the safety of those who engage with it.
I call on your delegation to publicly raise these cases during the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly’s Third Committee, condemn all acts of reprisals and transnational repression against those who cooperate with the United Nations, and urge the governments concerned to end these violations.
Human rights defenders must be able to engage with the United Nations freely, safely and without fear of retaliation, whether at home or abroad.
Yours sincerely,
your full name will go here
New/Mode and International Service for Human Rights should email me with exciting updates about this campaign and others. This campaign is hosted by the International Service for Human Rights. The protection of your privacy is important to ISHR. On this page, you will find our most up-to-date Privacy Policy.
Every 10 hours, a human rights defender, journalist or trade unionist is killed or disappeared. Every hour, a child dies in armed conflict. One in five people have experienced discrimination in the past year. These stark figures emerge from new data released by UN Human Rights. The human rights indicators offer a global snapshot of the state of human rights under four key Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators linked to SDG16 and SDG10.
“Behind every data point is a real life lived — or lost,” said UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk. “These new global human rights data show that discrimination, violence and exclusion are systemic and continue to affect those already at the margins.”
Violence against human rights defenders has reached record levels, with at least 5,995 killed since 2015. Discrimination remains widespread and deeply structured, with persons with disabilities facing a high burden at nearly one in three affected, alongside elevated gender-based discrimination against and, for the first time analyzed by our Office, sexual and gender minorities reporting two to three times higher rates than the general population.
Civilian deaths in armed conflict, while declining by 23 per cent in 2025 from an unprecedented peak in 2024, remain catastrophic. Despite these alarming trends, progress in data collection is expanding: discrimination data are now available in 124 countries, up from 15 in 2015, and with a growing range of population groups and grounds of discrimination covered. However, progress in establishing national human rights institutions that comply fully with international standards has stalled, with no overall increase in 2025, signalling that visibility and accountability mechanisms have not kept pace with the scale of the crisis.
At least 358 defenders killed in 28 countries for their peaceful work in 2025
Courageous human rights defenders (HRDs) around the world often chart the course in the struggle against injustice but need the international community’s support to sustain their lifesaving work amid an increasingly hostile landscape, Front Line Defenders said as it launched its flagship report on 15 June 2026.
The report also reveals statistics gathered and verified by the HRD Memorial – which Front Line Defenders coordinates – documenting the killings of at least 358 HRDs in 28 countries in 2025. The countries with the highest number of killings documented were Colombia (165), Mexico (43), Palestine (43), Brazil (22) and Honduras (13). Defenders working on land, environmental and peasant communities rights (23.46%); HRDs working on Indigenous peoples’ rights (17.03%); and those documenting violations in conflict (9.78%) were the most commonly targeted. (See pp. 6-13 for complete data.)
“From drastic funding cuts and raging conflicts, to creeping repression even in countries that once supported them, 2025 saw some incredibly challenging times for human rights defenders around the world,” said Alan Glasgow, CEO of Front Line Defenders. “Defenders show tremendous resilience to uphold human rights – we owe them a debt of gratitude and support to keep their fight alive.”
Wide-ranging risks to HRDs
According to Front Line Defenders’ data, arbitrary arrest/detention continued to be one of the most commonly reported violations against HRDs around the world, in addition to threats/other harassment, surveillance, legal action and death threats (see pp. 14-21 for a more detailed breakdown, including by region and by gender).
Globally, the five most targeted areas of human rights defence were: LGBTIQ+ rights (9.5%); freedom of expression (9.4%); women’s rights (6.9%); human rights movements (6.1%) and freedom of assembly / protest movements (5.4 %). While they account for smaller proportions individually, land, environmental and Indigenous Peoples’ rights account for 8.7% of the total when considered collectively.
Regionally, the most commonly reported violations against HRDs were: arbitrary arrest or detention in the Middle East and North Africa (32.5%) and Asia-Pacific (16.1%); death threats in the Americas (24.2%); threats or other harassment in sub-Saharan Africa (15.3%); and legal action in Europe and Central Asia (14.9%). Front Line Defenders also documented a wide range of digital threats against HRDs, including online surveillance/censorship, social media online threats of violence or harassment, phone surveillance, interrogation and having their devices confiscated or destroyed.
The combination of the more repressive environment and reduction in funds was felt in practice: human rights defenders had to stop their work and shutter their organisations.
Voices of determination
The report includes numerous voices of HRDs speaking directly about the challenges they face.
Among them are contributions from HRDs in Guatemala, DRC, Malaysia, Tunisia, Ecuador, Eswatini/Swaziland, Occupied Western Sahara, and Egyptian HRDs facing transnational repression while in exile in Europe.
Lutfiye Zudiyeva, a prominent Crimean Tatar woman human rights defender and journalist who has been criminalised for her work, penned a foreword to the report in which she said: “For this movement to be sustainable and to effect long-term systemic change, we need consistent support from the international community, from governments, and from citizens. HRDs should be supported, and be able to live and work without fear, knowing that they are not alone.”
On 3 June 2026 UN experts expressed dismay at the death in custody of Indigenous Miskitu leader and lawmaker Brooklyn Rivera, and the allegations of enforced disappearance of seven members of his family who had come to claim his remains.
“It is outrageous that repeated warnings and calls for protection have gone unheeded. We consider it an act of cruelty that the Nicaraguan Government is reportedly not allowing Brooklyn Rivera’s family to make decisions about funeral rites and the burial of his remains,” the experts said. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2026/03/14/where-is-nicaraguan-indigenous-leader-brooklyn-rivera/]
They called for a prompt, effective, thorough, independent, impartial and transparent investigation into the circumstances of Rivera’s death in line with international standards, in particular the Minnesota Protocol, and for those responsible to be held accountable.
UN human rights mechanisms have followed this case since 2023 and have repeatedly raised concerns for Brooklyn Rivera’s life, physical integrity, health, and well-being. On 22 August 2025, the human rights experts wrote to the Government of Nicaragua about Rivera’s alleged arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance. They also requested proof of life from Nicaraguan authorities, following rumours of his death in custody. There was no response.
“The reported serious violations committed against Brooklyn Rivera and his family must stop. The Nicaraguan Government must reveal the fate and whereabouts of the seven missing family members and release them immediately,” the experts said.
They urged authorities to immediately respect the rights of Rivera’s family, including granting them access to all relevant information and records, ensuring their participation in decisions regarding his remains, and allowing funeral rites to be carried out in accordance with the family’s wishes and Miskito traditions.
The case of Brooklyn Rivera comes against the backdrop of a grave and sustained deterioration of the human rights situation in Nicaragua. On 1 May 2026, Human Rights Council’s experts warned of a pattern of enforced disappearances, incommunicado detention and detention conditions that could amount to torture or other cruel treatment. In March 2026, the report of a Group of Experts on Nicaragua described repression and persecution by authorities as systematic, amounting to, prima facie, crimes against humanity.
“Rivera’s case cannot be separated from the broader and deeply troubling human rights context in Nicaragua, including the repression of dissent, attacks on civic space, and the persecution of Indigenous leaders, human rights defenders and those perceived as opponents,” the experts said.
The arrest and subsequent enforced disappearance of Rivera occurred after his return from participation in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2023, the experts noted.
Today was the funeral of one my best friends and, more importantly, one of the most significant architects of the international human rights system as it developed in the last 50 years. Theo (Theodoor Cornelis) van Boven, was born in Voorburg on 26 mei 1934 and died peacefully in Maastricht on 9 mei 2026.
I have had the honor to work with him for many years [our lives intertwined over a long period of time and on different locations] and wrote about him several times. Most recently “Courageous Leaders and NGO Initiatives” in Ramcharan and others (ed), The Protection Roles of Human Rights NGOs, Essays in honour of Adrien-Claude Zoller, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, 2023 (ISBN 978-90-04-51677-9), pp 614-636.
So, here a large part of the section on this great man: This section is about a man who was crucial in getting the United Nations and NGO partners to deal with human rights protection. Much has been written about his work and the enormous contribution Theo van Boven made to the UN human rights machinery as we now know it. .. Nowadays the United Nations has an elaborate machinery to deal with human rights violations. The system is far from perfect and still too often subject to political pressures and selectivity but there are now a great many thematic and country mandates, emergency sessions and there is an International Criminal Court against impunity. Wind back 40 years and none of this existed. The violations were there for all to see but not for the United Nations, which preferred to consider this part of the ‘internal affairs of sovereign states’. The man who would make it his life’s mission to change this, Theo van Boven, got in 1977 the position from where to do it: Director of Human Rights in the UN.
His teenage years were eaten up by the second world war. His memories of that period, his strict protestant background and his law studies in Leiden led him to enter an area that was not so obvious at the time: international human rights. He studied in the USA, wrote there a thesis on freedom of religion and soon afterwards, around 1960, he found himself as a young diplomat shaping the human rights policy of the Netherlands. A decade later the protest against the Vietnam war, the violations by the Greek colonels, the coup d’état in Chile and President Carter’s new policy on human rights pushed human rights suddenly higher on the political agenda. Theo had become an expert member of the UN Sub-commission on Human Rights and was one of the engineers of the first UN effort to investigate large-scale human rights violations, namely Chile. I myself met him when he was still a young professor lecturing on human rights in Amsterdam. Then – in the summer of 1977, the same month I started at the ICJ – he was appointed Director of the small human rights secretariat of the UN in Geneva. Here he started his work to bring dictators to accountability and to give the UN a capacity to deal with gross and systematic violations of human rights. Something that is now taken for granted but it would cost Theo his job.
Unlike his predecessors, Theo van Boven did not put all his faith in quiet diplomacy and he regularly talked about the need for the UN to address gross and systematic violations, about the mobilisation of shame and stated that the UN should care about victims. He also started to receive the victims – and the NGOs who represent them – in his office. This led to an incident that would be comic if it was not for the consequences. J. Matarollo was an Argentinean exile lobbying against the generals in his homeland who were killing left-wing opponents by the thousands. Theo agreed to hear him and told his secretary (inherited from his predecessor) to call Matarollo to give him an appointment in the early of hours of the next day. She faithfully called the Argentinean embassy assuming that he was a diplomat as these were the kind of people that normally met with the Director. The next day there was no Matarollo but an angry Note Verbale from Argentinean Ambassador Martinez accusing Theo of meeting with terrorists.
In the UN he did not conform to the image of the traditional diplomat, e.g. by pinning an anti-apartheid button on his suit, but even more so by publicly stating that NGO reports about dead bodies floating down a river in Guatemala were true, or by denouncing disappearances in Chile and Argentina. When in 1980 the government in the USA changed and Ronald Reagan and his team decided to play down violations by right-wing regimes, especially in Latin America, Theo did not flinch and openly criticised their support to these dictatorships. “Naming and shaming” by a UN official was unusual and not easily accepted by the diplomatic community. The Latin American regimes – led by Argentina and silently encouraged by the US – started a campaign to oust Van Boven as Director of Human Rights.
To complicate matters for van Boven, the new UN Secretary-General must have felt little sympathy for this particular Director, as J. Perez de Cuellar had earlier, in 1980, been appointed as Special Representative by the previous Secretary General to go to Uruguay and look into the human rights situation. His report was such a whitewash that it was heavily criticized in the Commission on Human Rights. How correct this reaction had been was shown when the famous pianist Estrella – whom de Cuellar claimed to have visited in the Libertad prison – came to Geneva and told the I.C.J and others that there had been no such visit.
In the meantime in 1980 Theo had put great energy – together with some key NGOs in creating a Working Group on Enforced Disappearances. As a mechanism focusing only on Argentina was politically not feasible, the new idea was to create a thematic mandate on the phenomenon of disappearances in the knowledge that Argentina was going to be the main target. At the decisive session the tension was enormous as the outcome of the vote was very uncertain. The Jordanian Chairman of that session had to deal with endless procedural issues, many of them proposed by Uruguay (egged on by Argentina which was only an observer). Finally, late at night the Chair felt that the resolution creating the mandate could be passed without a vote and moved to do so, but the Uruguayan Ambassador again started to put up his name plate as a sign that he wanted the floor. The Chairman quite unusually interrupting, looked directly at the Uruguayan Ambassador and said: “I URGE my brother from Uruguay NOT to do this..” The name plate slowly turned downwards again and the Chair immediately declared the resolution adopted. The NGOs and tens of Mothers and Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo in the public galleries started a spontaneous applause and quite a tear was shed. ..
In early 1982 the issue of Theo van Boven’s tenure as Director came to the fore. His contract had to be renewed which normally was a routine matter, but not this time. The issue came to an explosion when Theo’s opening speech to the Human Rights Commission was sent on a Friday evening to the UN Secretariat in NY for information and at the same time given to the UN Office of Information in Geneva for distribution at the time of delivery the next Monday morning. The UN Office of Information decided to make the statement available to the media that very Friday evening (with the usual proviso: “check against delivery”). The Representative of Guatemala in Geneva obtained a copy of the statement and vehemently objected to the statement. The SG’s office demanded that Theo should refrain from mentioning countries by name – which Theo refused not only out of principle but also because the press would notice the difference on Monday and assume that there had been pressure to remove the names.
As a family friend bringing the kids back from a ski outing, I happened to overhear Theo on the phone to New York agreeing to a ‘compromise’: he would mention at the beginning of his speech that certain passages were done in his ‘personal capacity’. A few days later Theo was suddenly informed that his contract would anyway not be prolonged. His announcement at a dramatic session of the Human Rights Commission grew quickly into an international diplomatic incident.
As I was on the verge of leaving the ICJ, I had some time on my hands. So I got the idea – warmly supported by Niall McDermot – to publish a book with a selection of Theo’s major speeches from the last five years. One of his Special assistants, Bertie Ramcharan, who had written a good part of them, was very helpful and we managed to get a book out within only 6 weeks. The first copy was flown in to Geneva by the publisher and presented to Theo at a public farewell which the ICJ had organised for him. NGOs, some UN staff and students showed up in such large numbers at the university hall that the fire brigade had to refuse access to late comers. Speech after speech – including by Saddrudin Aga Khan – cantered on Theo role in getting the UN machinery on human rights to deal with violations more concretely and on his support for human rights NGOs…
With Ian Guest and many others, I remain convinced that Theo’s dismissal from the UN was the result of pressure by Latin American dictatorships with support from the Reagan administration. As stated in People Matter, he was “hired and fired for the same reason: his deep commitment to human rights”.
After his dismissal Theo and his family returned to the Netherlands where many were very disappointed that there was no real interest in giving him an equivalent position in the foreign affairs department and he ‘ended up’ in the new University of Maastricht as professor of international law, where together with others such as Cees Flinterman he bent the research programme into his favourite direction: human rights. He continued his involvement in international activism in a variety of functions: with NGOs (e.g. European Human Rights Foundation, IMADR, International Alert), and with the UN (e,g. the Sub-commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Compensation 1990 -1993, Special Rapporteur on Torture 2001-2005, first Registrar of the UN Yugoslavia Tribunal). In 1998 he became the Head of the Dutch Delegation to the Rome Conference which created the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In 1985 he was called to Buenos Aires as a witness to testify against the nine military leaders (including Videla) for their human rights violations in the period 1976 en 1983. The UN had advised him not to go but he felt that he should do anything to end the impunity of these perpetrators. Theo’s testimony – he was called already on the 2nd day – was seen as crucial in establishing that the leaders of the Junta must have known about the massive violations. Theo took the same position with regard to the father of princess Maxima Zorreguieta (the wife of the king of the Netherlands). As Minister of Agriculture Jorge Zorreguieta must have known about the atrocities and should at least have taken distance instead of denying any knowledge. A position which Theo took in 2001 and was still heard defending in 2012.
In the light of Theo van Boven’s recurring clashes with Argentina it must have given him great moral satisfaction when on 26 November 2009 he received a degree honoris causa from the University of Buenos Aires as well as the highest decoration from the Government.
ICTJ stated: “Van Boven’s commitment to the pursuit of justice was relentless. He spoke up about impunity and accountability in contexts of repression such as the military dictatorships in Argentina and Chile, where he also championed the cause of the disappeared, even when political pressure limited others from doing so. Today, ICTJ honors his voice, his perspective, and his deep-rooted legacy. Inspired by his resolve, we will continue our commitment to uphold human dignity above all else in the pursuit of justice and lasting peace all over the world, however long it takes.“
Women human rights defenders (WHRDS) are taking enormous daily risks to help vulnerable people living on the frontline of Russia’s war on Ukraine. Some deliver humanitarian aid to those in desperate need of food and clothes, while others evacuate elderly and infirm residents from communities under fire. Some do this work full-time, others join these efforts when they can. Few had any experience of activism before Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.
Human Rights First has regularly worked alongside women activists around the northeastern region of Kharkiv, and sometimes in the Donetsk region further south, and has seen firsthand the lifesaving work they do, and the risks involved.
Across the world, women – including women activists – experience war differently from men. In a 2023 report, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders described these environments as the “hypermasculinized context of war”. In these contexts, the role of WHRDs becomes more essential even as they face additional challenges “because of [their] work and because of who they are.”
WHRDs often face the same risks as their male counterparts, including restrictions on their rights, but also face additional and distinct risks shaped by entrenched stereotypes and expectations about women’s roles. They are stigmatized and criticized for actions for which men are praised, frequently stereotyped not as agents of change, but as vulnerable individuals in need of protection.
These are not new prejudices. A 2019 report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders also found that women defenders working in conflict and post-conflict are “particularly exposed to gender-based violence, including sexual violence,” and are “more directly affected by breakdowns in health-care services.” Their legitimacy as defenders continues to be challenged and they remain largely excluded from decision-making.
In Ukraine, WHRDs evacuate civilians, deliver humanitarian assistance, and document war crimes, often at significant physical and mental risk. Yet, they are excluded from effective decision-making spaces. In March 2022, UN special procedure mandate holders drew attention to the absence of Ukrainian women from peace negotiations, despite their central role in the humanitarian response.
Human Rights First is part of the Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition a global network supporting WHRDs facing harassment, threats, surveillance, arbitrary detention and other forms of retaliation. Through this coalition and our own Human Rights Defenders program, we promote the work of WHRDs and work toward their protection. [https://whrdic.org/]
In 2022, Human Rights First supported the production of a guide for journalists on responsibly reporting war-related sexual violence, authored by three Ukrainian women experts in gender issues.
Human Rights First has worked alongside WHRDs in Ukraine since the Russian invasion of 2014. Since the full-scale invasion in 2022, the organization has made dozens of visits to the front-line region of Kharkiv. This has involved assisting WHRDs with evacuations from frontline areas, documenting war crimes, and reporting on the work of local activists providing humanitarian aid, countering corruption and disinformation, and those responding to the mental health crisis.
This report (by Brian Dooley and Suchita Uppal) draws on interviews with WHRDs working in frontline areas of northeastern Ukraine, highlighting their work during the conflict, the risks they face, and the critical role they have played in sustaining communities under fire. Published on April 10, 2026
Front line Defenders on 27 March 2026 shared an update on human rights defender Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy:
On 23 March 2026, the Leninskii District Court of the City of Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, ordered the release of a woman human rights defender Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy from prison. At the preliminary session of the retrial in her case, the Court changed the measure of restraint and granted her release from the penal colony where she had been detained. Her release is conditional upon an order not to leave the country. The retrial is scheduled to begin on 7 April 2026.
Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzyis a woman human rights defender and journalist. She is the director of Temirov Live and Ayt Ayt Dece. Temirov Live is a YouTube-based media outlet that investigates and reports on corruption by state and non-state actors in Kyrgyzstan, founded in 2020 by Bolot Temirov, a prominent Kyrgyzstani human rights defender and journalist. Ayt Ayt Dese is a YouTube-based project aimed at popularising human rights issues through the performance and publication of folk songs on human rights topics. Among other topics, Ayt Ayt Dese has covered investigations by Temirov Live.
On 23 March 2026, Leninskii District Court of the city of Bishkek commenced the retrial of the case of Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy with a preliminary session. The retrial was set following a decision of the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan on 10 March 2026. Based on Opinion No. 52/2025 by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial and overturned the previous rulings that sentenced the woman human rights defender to six years in prison.
At the preliminary session, Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy’s lawyers filed three motions. First, the defence attorneys requested the Court to declare the expert witness evidence from previous trials as inadmissible, arguing that authorities had pressured the expert witnesses into giving false testimonies. The issue of evidence tampering by the authorities was previously highlighted in the case of human rights defender and whistleblower Zhoomart Karabaiev, who was on trial for reporting that authorities pressured expert witnesses to provide statements supporting the prosecution. The second motion requested that the Court immediately and unconditionally ceases all judicial proceedings against Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy. The third motion sought a change in her measure of restraint, from detention in the penal colony to release under the condition that she remains in the country. While the Court denied the first two motions, it agreed to change the measure of restraint for Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy, leading to her release later that day.
Upon her release, Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy expressed gratitude for the support she has received since the beginning of the prosecution against her in 2024. However, she also shared that she was subjected to psychological pressure and violence from the authorities in the penal colony, which aimed at exacerbating her isolation from the community supporting and defending her rights.
Front Line Defenders welcomes the Court’s decision to release Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy, who has been targeted solely for her peaceful and legitimate human rights work. The organisation continues to call upon the authorities in Kyrgyzstan to immediately and unconditionally cease all types of persecution targeting the woman human rights defender and drop all charges against her.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 