During October 2025, new guidelines on Environmental Protest and Civil Disobedience were released by Michel Forst, UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention.
The new guidelines aim to support states, civil society, environmental activists, and legal practitioners in understanding and implementing the rights guaranteed under the Aarhus Convention. The document underscores that individuals and groups have a recognised international right to engage in peaceful environmental demonstrations, even when challenging public or private actors whose practices may harm the environment.
The document outlines five guiding principles to help states ensure that peaceful environmental activism is respected, not repressed:
Address the root causes of the protest: Governments should tackle the real reasons behind environmental protests, such as inaction on environmental protection, lack of transparency, or exclusion from decision-making.
Reject criminalization of defenders: Authorities and media must stop portraying environmental activists as criminals and instead recognize their legitimate role in defending public interests.
Protect civic space: Civil disobedience must not be used as a pretext to restrict fundamental freedoms or limit peaceful public expression.
Ensure human rights–based policing: Law enforcement responses must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate — never arbitrary, excessive, or punitive.
Uphold justice and civic freedom: Courts should avoid rulings or sanctions that discourage peaceful protest or shrink civic space.
Furthermore, the guidelines recognize that some environmental defenders may resort to civil disobedience when legal channels fail, and the guidelines set out conditions under which such acts may be tolerated (e.g., proportionality, non-violence, necessity, public interest). The guidelines stress the need for states to prevent and remediate retaliatory actions against protestors, such as legal harassment, surveillance, excessive use of force, or criminalisation of protest. The text encourages states to review and reform national laws, police protocols, and judicial practices to ensure that protest rights are respected, especially for environmental defenders, and it calls for transparent mechanisms to monitor how protests are handled, report abuses, and hold responsible persons and institutions to account.
The guideline highlights that public authorities (including political figures) should refrain from using language labelling protesters as threats, “eco-terrorists,” or “foreign agents”, and media (especially public or state media) should maintain factual accuracy, avoid derogatory language, and refrain from mischaracterising environmental defenders.
On 15 October 2025 Sam Ellefson of ICII summarises the new report, which recounts recent reprisals from two dozen countries, underscores ICIJ’s reporting on how Beijing abuses international institutions in its campaign to silence critics abroad
The targeted repression of human rights activists across borders is becoming more frequent and sophisticated, according to the latest annual U.N. report detailing acts of intimidation and reprisals inside the international organization.
Two Hong Kong pro-democracy activists and a Uyghur linguist are among the cases compiled by the secretary-general between May 2024 and 2025, alongside updates on reprisals included in previous reports.
“Allegations of transnational repression across borders have increased, with examples from around the world,” the report said. “Targeted repression across borders appears to be growing in scale and sophistication, and the impact on the protection of human rights defenders and affected individuals in exile, as well as the chilling effect on those who continue to defend human rights in challenging contexts, is of increasing concern.”
Raphäel Viana David, the China and Latin America program manager at the International Service for Human Rights, a nonprofit that trains activists in U.N. advocacy, said the report reflected a shift within the U.N. in recognizing transnational repression as a tool states use to carry out reprisals.
In China Targets, ICIJ and 42 media partners exposed how Beijing has misused international institutions such as the U.N. and Interpol to target overseas dissidents. The investigation included interviews with 105 individuals across 23 countries who detailed how the Chinese government had reached beyond its borders to silence them.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) recently published its General Comment on the environmental dimension of sustainable development. In addition to recognising human rights defenders, the Comment clarifies State obligations towards marginalized communities and notes the importance of transitioning away from fossil fuels. It also outlines States’ extraterritorial obligations.
ISHR provided two written inputs to the draft of this General Comment earlier this year – a standalone submission regarding the recognition and protection of environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs) based on the Declaration+25, a supplement to the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, and a joint submission in partnership with the Center for International Environmental Law, Earthjustice, FIAN International, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam.
‘States parties should respect, protect, and promote the work of environmental and indigenous human rights defenders, as well as other civil society actors who support people in marginalized and disadvantaged situations in realizing their Covenant rights.’ States parties should take all necessary measures to ensure that environmental human rights defenders and journalists can carry out their work, without fear of harassment, intimidation or violence, including by protecting them from harm by third parties.’
ISHR welcomes that priorities from the joint NGO submission to the CESCR are reflected in the General Comment, in particular Indigenous Peoples’ right to ‘free, prior and informed consent’ and the need to transition away from fossil fuels (including by reducing ineffective subsidies).
However, we regret that the Comment does not more explicitly acknowledge the critical role of EHRDs in promoting sustainable development or strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) as an obstacle to their engagement. The CESCR has previously noted the risks faced by HRDs and provided guidance on their recognition and protection in the context of land issues in General Comment No. 26 and it should have extended this analysis to EHRDs in the context of sustainable development. The use of SLAPPs to silence HRDs has been acknowledged by other UN bodies, including in the most recent report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Ms. Mary Lawlor, to the Third Committee of the General Assembly.
Some additional highlights from the General Comment are set out below.
The Committee found that ‘[t]he full realization of Covenant rights demands a just transition towards a sustainable economy that centres human rights and the well-being of the planet’.
States should supervise commercial activity, establish a legal obligation for businesses in respect of environment and human rights due diligence, and ensure that victims of human rights violations stemming from businesses have redress.
States have obligations to conduct human rights and environmental impact assessments, which are to be undertaken with ‘meaningful public participation’.
States have an extraterritorial obligation to ensure that any activities within the State or in areas under its control do not substantially adversely affect the environment in another country. This also extends to preventing businesses in the State from causing such harm in another jurisdiction. Even though the CESCR does not expressly mention it in the Comment, this should also apply to cases of attacks against EHRDs.
The CESCR also clarifies States’ obligations towards marginalized communities, spotlighting the concept of intersectionality. It also explicitly notes that equal exercise of economic, social and cultural rights by women and men is a prerequisite for sustainable development, encouraging States to redistribute the unpaid domestic work undertaken by women and girls.
Environment-related obligations have also been set out for States in the context of specific Covenant rights, for example, the right to self-determination , right to freely utilize natural resources , right to work , right to an adequate standard of living, right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, right to education and other economic, social and cultural rights.
The General Comment recognises that certain communities are particularly vulnerable to the effects of environmental degradation – it calls on States to identify and protect those at risk. The CESCR focuses particularly on children (specifically calling for child rights defenders to be recognised and protected and for their participation in climate action to be facilitated), Indigenous Peoples, peasants, pastoralists, fishers and others in rural areas, and displaced persons.
‘Environmental degradation, including climate change, intensifies the vulnerabilities of individuals and groups who have historically experienced and/or experience marginalization. These vulnerabilities are shaped by intersecting factors such as socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, gender, disability, age, migratory status, sexual orientation, and gender identity.’
The thirteenth Václav Havel Human Rights Prize – which honours outstanding civil society action in defence of human rights – has been awarded to Ukrainian journalist and human rights defender Maksym Butkevych. The prize was presented at a special ceremony on the opening day of the autumn plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in Strasbourg on 29 September 2025
Mr Butkevych is a co-founder of the Zmina Human Rights Centre and of Hromadske Radio. Despite his lifelong pacifism, he volunteered for the Ukrainian Armed Forces at the start of the 2022 Russian invasion and became a platoon commander. Captured and sentenced to 13 years in prison by Russian forces, he endured over two years of harsh imprisonment before being released in a prisoner exchange in October 2024. He remains a powerful symbol of courage and resilience in defence of justice and freedom.
The two runners-up for the 2025 Prize are Georgian journalist Mzia Amaghlobeli and Azerbaijani journalist Ulvi Hasanli. Both of them are currently detained in their home countries.
Opening the ceremony, PACE President Theodoros Rousopoulos said it was no coincidence that all three shortlisted candidates this year were journalists. Urging the immediate release of Ms Amaghlobeli and Mr Hasanli, he said: “Your voice may be silenced, but your testimony is heard loud and clear.” The President – himself a former journalist – also thanked all three candidates for their courage in opposing authoritarianism and for acting as role-models for a whole generation of journalists and human rights defenders: “Governments should not be afraid of the truth,” he declared.
IPS at this occasion published a post critical of the lack of follow up to free the laureates:
The Václav Havel Prize is an important international recognition for those who stand up for human rights and against autocracy, but while recognition through such awards and solidarity matters deeply, it is not enough. The Council of Europe must match its willingness to recognise the courage of human rights defenders with efforts to stand courageously up to autocrats and dictators, even and especially those within its own membership ranks.
For PACE leadership and members, the recognition given to human rights defenders through the Václav Havel Prize must be matched with tireless, persistent and coordinated action to put pressure on the other political bodies of the Council of Europe. This includes adopting resolutions demanding the release of imprisoned laureates; organising visibility campaigns within PACE through side events, exhibitions and public initiatives; building stronger connections and networks with families of prisoners; and consistently deploying all available diplomatic tools to keep political prisoners at the forefront of European media and diplomacy.
At the same time, CoE leaders, including the Secretary General and Commissioner for Human Rights (currently Alain Berset and Michael O’Flaherty, respectively), must put the release of political prisoners at the top of the organisation’s priority list. These leaders have important public platforms that must consistently and relentlessly raise the profile of human rights defenders at risk. Leaders must work to mobilise member states to apply pressure for the release of political prisoners.
Finally, Council of Europe member states – signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights – need to recognise that the continued detention of human rights defenders poses a great risk to the long-term credibility of the institutions. Member states – on their own and through the organisation’s powerful Committee of Ministers – have to use all tools at their disposal to address the rising cases of political prisoners and crackdowns against civil society across the broader region. The Committee of Ministers needs to put enhanced enforcement pressure on member states regarding the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on fundamental freedoms. These judgements, after all, often affect the fate of political prisoners.[https://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/democracy-and-society/prizes-without-freedom-risk-becoming-trophies-of-hypocrisy-8573/]
On 17 September 2025 Global Witness published its annual report , documenting killings and long-term disappearances of land and environmental defenders. 2024 shows continuing bad news.
Julia Francisco Martínez stands at the graveside of her husband Juan, a Honduran Indigenous defender who was found murdered in 2015. Giles Clarke / Global Witness
Every year, Global Witness works with partners to gather evidence, verify and document every time a land and environmental defender is killed or disappeared. Our methodology follows robust criteria, yet undocumented cases pose challenges when it comes to analysing data
Global Witness documents killings and long-term disappearances of land and environmental defenders globally. In partnership with over 30 local, national and regional organisations in more than 20 countries, we produce an annual report containing these figures, and we have done so since 2012.
Our methodology involves a year-long process of cross-referencing data from different sources to ensure its credibility. Over 2,200 killings or long-term disappearances of defenders appear in our database since 2012 – with 146 cases documented in 2024.
Every year, we maintain a database to keep a record of these crimes and create a comprehensive global picture of the systematic violence defenders face.
The data provides a snapshot of the underlying drivers behind reprisals and indicates how some defenders and their communities face increased risks. Exposing these trends is the first of many steps to ensure that defenders and their communities are protected and can exercise their rights without fearing for their lives.
Killings and disappearances documented between 2012 and 2024
2,253 defenders have been killed or disappeared since 2012 Global Witness
146 of these attacks occurred in 2024 Global Witness
The accompanying press release goes into considerable detail on the methodology used.
On 18 September 2025, ISHR said that analysis of revised 2026 budget proposal for UN80 reform points to disproportionate cuts to the chronically-underfunded human rights pillar. Together with peace and development, human rights constitutes one of the three key areas of action for the UN and thus should be adequately funded.
On 16 September 2025, the UN Secretary-General published its report revising its earlier proposal for the UN’s 2026 budget (known as ‘Revised estimates’ report). The International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) has analysed the revised budget and is deeply concerned about proposed cuts to an already chronically under-resourced human rights pillar. While demands on the human rights system do not cease to grow to address mounting global conflicts and crises, further cuts will significantly reduce effectiveness and efficiency, and its capacity to deliver on human rights protection to individuals and populations on the ground.
‘The UN’s human rights pillar has historically received significantly less funds than development and peace and security, accounting for just 7% of the UN regular budget and less than 1% of UN’s total expenditure. Any cuts to it would result in minimal savings but have significant and disproportionate adverse consequences for the rights of people around the world – Phil Lynch, ISHR Executive Director
In recent years, a liquidity crisis fuelled by the late or non-payments of dues by the US and China had already prompted High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk to suspend the delivery of reports, workshops and other activities mandated by the Human Rights Council (HRC). The HRC has also reduced the length of its sessions, limiting space for States, experts and civil society to address some of the world’s most pressing rights issues and crises.
Additional cuts to the human rights pillar would further undermine the ability of the UN’s human rights bodies to continue to investigate atrocity crimes such as in Gaza, Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of Congo, to support victims and human rights defenders, to assist States in improving their human rights policies, and to develop global human rights standards that protect us all.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stressed the cuts are ‘carefully calibrated’ and ensure balance between the UN’s three pillars (peace and security, development, and human rights). Yet, the proposed cuts to the budget of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) of around 15% run much deeper than the 2026 proposed budget on development (targeted for around 12% cut) and peace and security (targeted for a 13% cut, excluding peacekeeping operations).
Like a three-legged stool, if the human rights pillar is cut to the extent proposed then not only will it collapse, but the whole system will topple.
ISHR is campaigning for the UN80 Initiative to be more than a simple accounting overhaul for the UN, centred only on cost-cutting. On July 21, ISHR and 16 civil society organisations signed an open letter to the Secretary-General and High Commissioner Türk with concrete recommendations and proposals to ensure that the UN human rights system is streamlined, strengthened and sustainable, guided by the aim of support human rights defenders, providing justice to victims and ensuring accountability for rights abuses.
The cuts will next be reviewed by a UN budgetary committee traditionally hostile to human rights funding, whose conclusions will serve as a basis for States to negotiate.
For more information, please contact: Raphael Viana David, ISHR, Programme Manager r.vianadavid@ishr.ch
The Trump administration’s omission of key sections and manipulation of certain countries’ rights abuses degrade and politicize the 2025 US State Department human rights report, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Human Rights First and many other NGOs concluded .
On August 12, 2025, the State Department released its “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices” covering the year 2024. The report omits several categories of rights violations that were standard in past editions, including women, LGBT people, persons with disabilities, corruption in government, and freedom of peaceful assembly. The administration has also grossly mischaracterized the human rights records of abusive governments with which it has or is currently seeking friendly relations.
By undermining the credibility of the report, the administration puts human rights defenders at risk, weakens protections for asylum seekers, and undercuts the global fight against authoritarianism.
This year’s human rights report may strictly keep with the minimum statutory requirements but does not acknowledge the reality of widespread human rights violations against whole groups of people in many locations. As a result, Congress now lacks a widely trusted, comprehensive tool from its own government to appropriately oversee US foreign policy and commit resources. Many of the sections and rights abuses that the report omits are extremely important to understanding the trends and developments of human rights globally, Human Rights Watch said.
On Israel, the State Department disregards the Israeli authorities’ mass forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza, their use of starvation as a weapon of war, and their deliberate deprivation of water, electricity, medical aid, and other goods necessary for civilians’ survival, actions that amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of genocide. The State Department also fails to mention vast damage and destruction to Gaza’s essential infrastructure and the majority of homes, schools, universities, and hospitals.
The report is dishonest about abuses in some third countries to which the US is deporting people, stating that the US found “no credible reports of significant human rights abuses” in El Salvador, although they cite “reports” of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearance, and mistreatment by police. The administration has transferred to El Salvador’s prisons, despite evidence of torture and other abuses.
The State Department glosses over the Hungarian government’s escalating efforts to undermine democratic institutions and the rule of law, including severe curbs on civil society and independent media, and abuses against LGBT people and migrants. It also fails to acknowledge that Russian authorities have widely used politically motivated imprisonment as a tool in their crackdown on dissent, and its prosecutions of individuals for “extremism” for their alleged affiliation with the LGBT movement.
Environmental activist Hipólito Quispe Huamán was shot and killed Saturday night in the Madre de Dios region of southeastern Peru, in what authorities suspect was a targeted attack linked to his work defending the Amazon rainforest, AFP reported on 29 July 2025.
Quispe Huamán was driving along the Interoceanic Highway when he was gunned down, according to local prosecutors. Karen Torres, a regional prosecutor, told reporters that investigators are considering his environmental advocacy as the likely motive.
“This is a murder with a firearm of yet another defender of the Madre de Dios region,” she was quoted as saying by AFP.
Quispe Huamán had served as an active member of the Tambopata National Reserve Management Committee and was a vocal opponent of deforestation and illegal land use in the Peruvian Amazon. His killing has sparked outrage from human rights and environmental organizations, which say the attack reflects a growing pattern of violence against Indigenous leaders and environmental defenders in the region.
“We condemn the murder of environmental defender Hipólito Quispe Huamán in Madre de Dios, another victim of the growing violence against those who protect our territories and ecosystems,” said the National Coordinator for Human Rights (CNDDHH) in a statement posted on social media. “Not one more death!”
Hipólito Quispe Huamán. Photo courtesy of CNDDHH (on X).
Quispe Huamán’s brother, Ángel, called for accountability. “I demand justice for my brother’s death. This kind of thing cannot happen,” he told local media.
The Ministry of Justice has pledged to support the legal defense of Quispe Huamán’s family and ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice. However, critics say the government’s response mechanisms remain under-resourced. The Intersectoral Mechanism for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, led by the Ministry of Justice, has faced ongoing criticism for lacking the budget and personnel needed to respond effectively to threats.
Attacks against environmental defenders have increased across Peru’s Amazonian regions, where extractive industries, drug trafficking, and illegal land grabs often operate with impunity. In July 2024, the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest (AIDESEP) declared a state of emergency after an Indigenous leader was tortured and killed in central Peru, citing escalating threats from coca growers and criminal networks.
According to Global Witness, at least 54 land and environmental defenders have been murdered in Peru since 2012—more than half of them Indigenous. Many of these killings remain unsolved.
Quispe Huamán’s death has reignited calls for stronger protections for those who safeguard the rainforest and Indigenous territories. As investigations continue, activists and family members are demanding not only justice—but a systemic response to end the violence.
At the 59th Human Rights Council session, civil society organisations share reflections on key outcomes and highlight gaps in addressing crucial issues and situations. Full written version below.
We join others who have expressed grave concern about the UN’s financial situation throughout the session. We deplore that we are in this position primarily due to the failure of some States to pay their assessed contributions in full and on time. We regret that this crisis is currently affecting the Council’s ability to deliver its mandate. Today, UN Member States are sending a clear message that human rights and their implementation are optional and not inalienable. We call on all States to pay their dues to the UN in full and without delay, both now and in future years, and strengthen the human rights pillar of the UN by substantially increasing its regular budget. [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/united-nations/]
We welcome the Council’s decision to renew, once more, the Mandateof theIndependent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, following a call from more than 1,259 organisations from 157 countries and territories. While the mandate was supported by the overwhelming majority of Council members, we regret that a mandate focusing on core human rights issues such as freedom from violence and discrimination was once again put for a vote.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on civil society space. The resolution acknowledges important civil society initiatives such as Declaration +25 and addresses key and emerging trends such as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), the phenomenon of transnational repression, and foreign funding legislation, as well as other restrictive legislation including counter-terrorism legislation. We regret, however, that language on transnational repression has been weakened throughout the negotiations and does not take a step forward in terms of defining the phenomenon and its patterns. ..
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on human rights and climate change in relation to climate finance. As acknowledged by the resolution, climate finance is a tool for addressing climate change and it is also important for the enjoyment of human rights when finance prioritises equity, climate justice, social justice, inclusion and just transition processes. … We also regret that, notwithstanding the support expressed by numerous delegations, this resolution is blatantly silent in recognising the positive, important, legitimate and vital role that environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs) play in the promotion and protection of human rights and the environment, particularly in the context of climate change. As recognised by the HRC resolution 40/11, EHRDs are one of the most exposed and at risk around the world. The Inter-American Court on Human Rights has recently ruled in its Advisory Opinion on “Climate Emergency and Human Rights” that EHRDs play a fundamental role due to the urgency, gravity and complexity to address the climate emergency. We will not have climate justice without consulting, listening and including EHRDs in climate actions and initiatives, including this annual resolution.
We express our support for a new strong resolution on the safety of journalists, adopted by consensus and co-sponsored by over 70 countries from all world regions, signalling a renewed international commitment to prevent, protect and remedy all human rights violations against journalists. The resolution becomes the first across the UN to recommend a range of concrete, specific measures to
It is concerning that the Council could not find consensus on the resolution on access to medicines, vaccines and other health products. States should acknowledge that intellectual property rights can be a barrier for access to health products, especially in public health emergencies and should act with a view to finding human-rights compliant solutions. States should further ensure that the benefits of scientific progress is available, accessible, acceptable and of good quality to all people, without discrimination.
We welcome the resolution on new and emerging digital technologies and human rights. The resolution reaffirms the need for human rights due diligence and impact assessments throughout the life cycle of new and emerging digital technologies, and crucially calls upon States to refrain from or cease the use of artificial intelligence applications that are impossible to operate in compliance with international human rights law. The resolution importantly mandates OHCHR to expand its work on UN system-wide promotion, coordination, and coherence on matters related to human rights in new and emerging digital technologies.
We welcome the rejection by the Council of an unprecedented, harmful draft resolution (L.1/Rev.1) presented in bad faith by Eritrea to discontinue the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. The voting result (25 against, 4 in favour) is clear and will deter similar initiatives to terminate mandates. The Pandora’s Box remains closed for now. We welcome the adoption of resolution L.7, which extends the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and enables continued scrutiny of Eritrea‘s dire human rights situation.
We welcome the adoption by consensus of the resolution on the situation of human rights of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar—a strong signal of the Council’s continued prioritization of their plight. As violence between the Myanmar military and Arakan Army escalates, Rohingya face renewed existential threats. We recognize the efforts made to align the resolution closer to the evolving situation on the ground, including its recognition of the role of Arakan Army along with the Myanmar military in perpetuating violence and targeting Rohingya. We also welcome the resolution’s acknowledgment of the worsening humanitarian crisis due to dwindling aid that is driving more Rohingya to risk dangerous journeys by sea. The call for protection of Rohingya across borders and respect for non-refoulement is vital. We support the resolution’s emphasis on accountability and reparations as prerequisites for safe, voluntary, and dignified return of Rohingya refugees. However, we regret its failure to call for an end to arms and jet fuel sale and transfers that continue to fuel ongoing violence.
We emphasize the vital role of investigative mechanisms and, in the context of the UN’s liquidity crisis, we urge all those involved, including the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner, to allocate sufficient resources for these mechanisms to operate. All UN Member States must pay their dues in full and on time. As the conflict in Sudan, now in its third year, shows no sign of abating, resulting in the world’s largest displacement crisis and egregious atrocities against civilians, the work of the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) should continue. At HRC60, extending its mandate will be a priority.
We continue to deplore this Council’s exceptionalism towards serious human rights violations in China, including crimes against humanity. In his global update to this Council session, High Commissioner Türk indicated he remains ‘concerned about lack of progress on much-needed legal reform to ensure compliance with international human rights law’ and ‘regret[s] that there has not yet been a resolution to the individual cases [the OHCHR has] raised]’. It is imperative that the Council take action commensurate with the gravity of UN findings, by establishing a monitoring and reporting mechanism on China as repeatedly urged by over 40 UN experts since 2020. We urge China to genuinely engage with the UN human rights system to enact meaningful reform, and ensure all individuals and peoples enjoy their human rights, on the basis of recommendations from the OHCHR Xinjiang report, UN Treaty Bodies, and UN Special Procedures.
This Council’s continued silence on the human rights crisis in Egypt remains of major concern. The human rights situation in Egypt is worse than at any point in its modern history and continues to deteriorate. During its UPR process, Egypt rejected or dismissed as “already implemented” recommendations related to serious human rights violations 134 times. In particular, Egypt either rejected or dismissed recommendations to release political prisoners and end arbitrary arrests 12 times, to stop attacks against independent civil society and journalists 19 times, and to end torture and ill-treatment 6 times. The goverment also refused to ensure accountability for those who have committed torture and other human rights violations 7 times, and rejected or dismissed recommendations to halt violance and discrimination against women, minorities and members of the LGBT+ community 25 times, including repeatedly rejecting calls to criminalize marital rape, as well as forced virginity and anal exams. In this context, action by the HRC to address these violations is as important as ever.
Watch the video of the statement below:
Signatories:
African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS)
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
In March 2026, the UN Human Rights Council (the Council) will appoint the next Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders. The role of this Special Rapporteur is essential: they promote the work of those who defend human rights and they protect human rights defenders at risk. The Special Rapporteur serves in a voluntary capacity and is independent of the UN, States and non-governmental organisations. As other Special Rapporteurs, they are tasked by the UN to monitor and report on human rights situations around the world. They also provide advice and recommendations for the implementation of those rights.
The four rapporteurs until now have all been of exceptional calibre:
Mary Lawlor (Ireland)
2020-2026
She became a Board member of the Irish Section of Amnesty International in 1975, was elected Chair from 1983 -1987 and in 1988 became its Director. She founded Front Line Defenders in 2001 to focus specifically on the protection of human rights defenders at risk.
On 1 May 2020, she took up the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, where she has adopted a people-centred approach to the mandate. Her mandate was renewed for another three-year term by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2023.
She is also currently an Adjunct Professor of Business and Human Rights in the Centre for Social Innovation (CSI), School of Business, Trinity College Dublin.
Mr. Michel Forst (France) was Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders from June 2014 until April 2020. From 2008 to 2013, Mr. Forst was the UN Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti, and between 2012 and 2013 he was the Chair of the Coordination Committee of the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council.
Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya (Uganda) was the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders from 2008 to 2014. Before her appointment as Special Rapporteur, Ms. Sekaggya was the Chairperson of the Uganda Human Rights Commission and a High Court Judge in the country.
Ms. Hina Jilani (Pakistan) was Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders from 2000 – 2008. In 1980, she and her sister founded Pakistan’s first women-only legal practise. She became an Advocate of the Supreme Court shortly after her tenure as Special Rapporteur came to an end.
We should becampaigning so the new person appointed is independent, impartial and competent and comes from a background that represents the diversity of our world.
Are you a suitable candidate? Apply! (1) Complete the online survey (2) Submit the application form in Word format. The deadline for applications is 31 August 2025, noon Geneva time (CEST).
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 