Kirill KUDRYAVTSEV / AFP
At the end of 2025 the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), one of the world’s oldest human rights movements and Human Rights Watch were declared “undesirable” by the Russian Federation. For FIDH the designation was made by the Prosecutor General of Russia on 13 November, and on 1 December, Russia’s Ministry of Justice included FIDH in its register of “undesirable organizations“, which currently contains 281 entities, including several FIDH members, such as the Center for Civil Liberties (CCL), the Norwegian Helsinki Committee (NHC), the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR), and Truth Hounds.
“This ignoble move not only further threatens and endangers our Russian members, partners, their staff, and ordinary Russian citizens supporting our human rights work. It also sends a clear message that Russia is no friend of the global human rights movement“, said Alexis Deswaef, FIDH President. “This designation of FIDH as an ‘undesirable organisation’ demonstrates the importance of our commitment to supporting those who defend human rights, whether in Russia or in exile. FIDH will continue to pursue this commitment more than ever.”
Under the “undesirable organisations” law, adopted in 2015 and further tightened in 2021 and 2024, the Prosecutor General’s Office has the power to declare as “undesirable” any foreign or international organisation that is deemed “a threat to the foundations of the constitutional order of the Russian Federation, the defense capability of the country or the security of the state“.
Concretely, “undesirable organisations” are banned from engaging in any activities inside Russia, including the publication or dissemination of any information, carrying out financial transactions, and providing financial or other assistance to local organisations and individuals. The “participation in the activities” of an “undesirable organisation” is subject to administrative and criminal liability, including up to four years of imprisonment. Any Russian citizen or organisation cooperating with an “undesirable organisation“, even if residing outside Russia, faces administrative penalties and, in the case of individuals, criminal liability. In practice, the vague wording of the law has led to the punishment of individuals simply for reposting information disseminated by an “undesirable organisation” on social media platforms, even if the original posts predated the organisation’s designation as “undesirable“.
“For over three decades, Human Rights Watch’s work on post-Soviet Russia has pressed the government to uphold human rights and freedoms,” said Philippe Bolopion, executive director at Human Rights Watch. “Our work hasn’t changed, but what’s changed, dramatically, is the government’s full-throttled embrace of dictatorial policies, its staggering rise in repression, and the scope of the war crimes its forces are committing in Ukraine.”
The Prosecutor General’s Office made the decision to ban Human Rights Watch on November 10, as follows from the Ministry of Justice’s register of “undesirable” organizations updated today. The official reasons for the designation are not known.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/11/28/russia-government-designates-human-rights-watch-undesirable
SIARHEI LESKIEC / AFP
Draft reports, press releases, open letters, briefing notes, op-eds and ensure that they are approved by board members and local partners.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 
...After more than 70 years of terror, killings, torture, and disappearances, the international community must renew its efforts to end the conflict in Kashmir. In 2018 and 2019, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights released reports that documented a wide range of abuses – including kidnappings, the killing of civilians, and sexual violence – perpetrated by both sides in the conflict. The UN needs to take the lead in stopping Kashmir’s torment. ……The conflict has consumed resources that should have been used for development; instead, they were channeled to arms purchases or a regional race to develop weapons of mass destruction. Everyone, regardless of age, religion, or ethnicity, has suffered, whether as a result of displacement, family separation, loss of property, the death or disappearance of friends and close relatives, grinding poverty, or simply the prospect of a future as bleak and constricted as the present.The international community has, at times, attempted to mediate between India and Pakistan. The UN has adopted resolutions demanding a referendum on Kashmir’s future status. But, even though it has long been evident that there is no military solution to the conflict – temporary ceasefire initiatives have never resulted in a lasting agreement – India to this day has resisted a plebiscite. In 2003, Pakistan’s then-president, Pervez Musharraf, formulated a four-step approach to a political solution. Without insisting on a referendum, India and Pakistan would begin a dialogue; recognize Kashmir as the main source of bilateral hostility; identify and eliminate what was unacceptable to each side; and strive for a solution acceptable to both countries – and especially to the people of Kashmir. Subsequently, a ceasefire was declared, and high-level meetings took place, but, following a terrorist attack, India terminated the talks. In 2012, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh tried unsuccessfully to revive the process.