ISHR and the Colectivo 46/2 condemn the assassination of opposition leader Samcam Ruìz by the Nicaraguan Government.
In the joint letter published on 23 June 2025 The 46/2 Collective denounces to the international community the assassination of retired Nicaraguan Army Major Roberto Samcam Ruíz, which took place on 19 June in his home in San José, Costa Rica.
Samcam Ruíz was a strong voice of denunciation against the Ortega-Murillo dictatorship, denouncing the Nicaraguan army and pointing it out as a participant in the repression and extrajudicial executions committed since 2018. He had also denounced an espionage network against opposition refugees in Costa Rica.
The retired major was one of the 94 Nicaraguans denationalised in February 2023 by the dictatorship and since 11 July 2018 had been a refugee in Costa Rica due to persecution and criminalisation by the dictatorship of Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo. He obtained Spanish nationality on 26 July 2023.
The assassination of the former retired military officer is not the first attack against opponents on Costa Rican soil. In 2023, opposition member Joao Maldonado and his wife were shot at with the clear intention of killing them. Maldonado had already suffered another attack in 2021, also in San José, Costa Rica. In 2022, the Nicaraguan opposition leader Rodolfo Rojas was found dead in Honduras. According to relatives, he had been lured to Honduras from Costa Rica, where he had gone into exile. To the list must be added the murder of another refugee, Jaime Luis Ortega, in 2024, in Upala, a canton on the border with Nicaragua. Following these events, Roberto Samcam had spoken to the press, pointing out the direct involvement of the Ortega Murillo regime and indicating that he knew that his life was at risk.
Although the investigations into Samcam’s murder are ongoing, the circumstances of the murder and the profile of the victim raise strong suspicions that it may be a political crime with possible transnational links. This murder takes place in a context in which various human rights organisations have been documenting a sustained pattern of surveillance, threats, harassment and acts of intimidation directed against Nicaraguans in exile in the region, especially in Costa Rica.
We consider that this crime should be analysed and investigated as part of a broader strategy of transnational repression promoted by the Nicaraguan regime to persecute and silence dissent outside its borders, in open violation of the human rights of refugees and exiles. This transnational repression has been documented by the Group of Experts on Human Rights in Nicaragua (GHREN), who have pointed out that ‘The Government’s repressive actions transcend the country’s borders and affect people who are opponents or perceived as such abroad. The government has also continued to target family members of opponents inside Nicaragua, including children, by mere association, as a way of punishing opponents and/or deterring them from speaking out wherever they are’.
Given the gravity of this crime and the sustained pattern of transnational repression against exiled Nicaraguans, we urgently call on the international community to demand that the Nicaraguan State immediately cease all forms of persecution, surveillance and violence against dissidents in exile. We also request that the international community strengthen political, technical and financial support for the protection mechanisms for human rights defenders in exile. We also urge the establishment of bilateral or multilateral channels of communication with the host countries of Nicaraguans in order to assess the security situation and articulate preventive responses to possible acts of transnational persecution. Finally, we call on international human rights bodies to urgently follow up on these cases as part of a systematic pattern of cross-border repression, and to ensure justice and truth for the victims.
Signatories:
Collective Nicaragua Never Again
Centre for International Law and Justice – CEJIL
International Federation for Human Rights – FIDH
International Institute on Race, Equality and Human Rights
Autonomous Women’s Movement – MAM
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
Peace Brigades International – PBI
International Network on Human Rights Europe – RIDHE
Legal Defence, Registry and Memory Unit – UDJUDR
Open ballot boxes
International Service for Human Rights – ISHR
Additional information:
The 46/2 Collective is a coalition of 19 international, regional and Nicaraguan human rights organisations that regularly informs the international community about the lack of action by the Nicaraguan regime to meet its international human rights obligations.
Watch a recording of the statement at an interactive dialogue on the annual report of the High Commissioner by ISHR Executive Director Phil Lynch
High Commissioner, this statement addresses four themes from your update.
First, the work of human rights defenders is essential for the realisation of all human rights. We deplore the criminalisation and arbitrary detention of defenders in all regions. We call for the release of Eduardo Torres in Venezuela, Ibrahim Metwally in Egypt, Mahmoud Khalil in the US, and Sophia Huang Xueqin in China, among thousands of defenders imprisoned globally for their work for freedom and justice.
Second, principled respect for international law protects us from tyranny. The failure of States with influence to end Israel’s genocide against Palestinians, and the double standards of States which fail to condemn Russia’s atrocity crimes in Ukraine, erode the foundations of peace, security and development everywhere.
Third, impunity for atrocity crimes denies justice to victims and fuels violations. This Council should mandate investigative mechanisms on Afghanistan and China. All States should respect international courts and sanction authorities – including US officials – who seek to pervert international justice.
Finally, no business, however efficient, can survive when customers don’t pay their bills. States which don’t pay their UN dues in full or on time, especially the US and China, benefit from the system while causing a liquidity crisis, with devastating human rights impacts. They should lose the right to vote at the General Assembly and the Security Council until they pay their dues. Humanity’s future depends on all States increasing their human rights investment.
This event will take place on 16 June 2025, from 1:00PM – 2:00PM CEST, in Room XXV, of the Palais des Nations in Geneva Add to calendarpdf Download event flyer
In the face of the triple planetary environmental crisis, of conflict, genocide and apartheid, of the consolidation of authoritarian ideologies and narratives around the globe, and the erosion of the rule of law as well as the closing of civic space, never have we needed a robust international human rights system so badly.
But the UN human rights system is in crisis. As essential users and actors of the system, human rights defenders’ views are valuable. The event provides a space to be hearing directly from them not only about why they need an effective, efficient, responsive UN human rights system to support their activism especially in the current context, but also about the ways in which the UN system needs to grow, evolve, adapt and reform itself to deal with the crisis of credibility and legitimacy it is currently facing.
Panelists:
Laura Restrepo, Committee for Solidarity with Political Prisoners (CSPP) & FDSS, Colombia
Mariama Jumie Bah , Human Rights Defenders Network Sierra Leone
Elena Petrovska , LGBTI Equal Rights Association (ERA), Western Balkans/Turkey
Douglas Javier Juárez Dávila, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Guatemala
Some States are using travel bans to punish and silence human rights defenders who dare to speak out at the United Nations. These acts of reprisal — from confiscating passports to unjustly labeling activists as terrorists — are designed to isolate, intimidate, and silence voices demanding accountability and justice. A travel ban may be less visible than a prison cell, but its impact is no less damaging. It prevents defenders from attending UN meetings, carrying out their work, reuniting with loved ones, or seeking safety.
Mohamed El-Baqer (Egypt), who, though pardoned after being unjustly detained for 5 years, is still listed on a terrorist list and barred from travelling.
Anexa Alfred Cunningham (Nicaragua), an Indigenous leader who was banned from returning to her country and her land.
These are not isolated cases — they are part of a pattern of reprisals meant to silence dissent and deter others from engaging with the UN.
What the International Service for Human Rights demand is:
The lifting of travel bans and restrictions against Loujain, Mohamed, Anexa, and Kadar.
The inclusion of their cases in the UN Secretary-General’s annual report on reprisals. This is the first step to recognise they are cases of reprisals which need to be addressed and resolved.
Concrete action from States to publicly condemn and raise these cases at the Human Rights Council and General Assembly. According to our research, we found that more publicity and peer-pressure bring more probability for the reprisal case to be resolved (i.e. here, for the bans to be lifted).
The establishment of clear UN protocols to prevent and respond to acts of reprisal.
You can help us achieve our goals:
The first step, is for the Secretary-General to include these cases in his reprisals report. You can contribute by:
👉 Signing our petition to the UN Secretary-General to ensure Loujain, Mohamed, Anexa, and Kadar are included.
From 7-10 April, the Latin American and Caribbean Forum on Environmental Human Rights Defenders brought together environmental defenders, Indigenous Peoples, civil society, and government representatives in Basseterre, Saint Kitts and Nevis.
The Escazú Agreement is a landmark regional human rights treaty that guarantees access to environmental information, public participation and justice in Latin America and the Caribbean. Article 9 describes States’ obligation to protect human rights defenders in environmental matters and guarantee their rights, including those related to access to information, participation, and justice, as set forth in the agreement.
As of today, 17 countries are parties to the agreement, while other key countries in the region still haven’t signed or ratified it. In February 2025, Special Procedures mandate holders sent a communication to these countries urging them to sign and ratify the agreement.
The 2024 Action Plan adopted by the parties to the Escazú Agreement aims to implement practical protections for human rights defenders in environmental matters. It outlines capacity building and assessment, calling for urgent national action to address immediate threats and ensure the continuity of defenders’ work.
Since April 2024, individuals who believe that a State is not complying with its obligations as a party to the Escazú Agreement can send information (‘communications’) to the treaty’s Implementation and Compliance Support Committee. At a 2024 Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Agreement, States agreed to incorporate a gender perspective within the Escazú Agreement, recognising the unique risks faced by women human rights defenders in environmental matters.
This decision further requires States to consider gender-based violence and ensure women’s participation, enhancing security and effectiveness for all defenders.
At the Forum on Environmental Human Rights Defenders, the #EscazuEnlaCorteIDH initiative was presented during the Third Forum. This initiative seeks to ensure that Escazú standards are included in the Inter-American Court’s forthcoming advisory opinion on the climate emergency.
A central piece of this effort was the amicus brief co-submitted by ISHR.
The 58th regular session of the UN Human Rights Council ran from February 24 to April 4, 2025, resulting in 32 Resolutions and 14 Universal Period Review adoptions.
The session included a high-level segment attended by over 100 dignitaries, thematic panels addressing the rights of specific vulnerable groups, interactive dialogues, and debates on country-specific reports. This session also marked key anniversaries of the Beijing Declaration and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Human Rights Council plays a crucial role in addressing global violations and continues to serve as a platform for activists and victims of violations. In the face of multiple intersecting crises and conflicts, democracy erosion, and authoritarianism on the rise, Council decisions continue to wield considerable power to improve civil society conditions, particularly in fragile contexts where civic actors are particularly affected by widespread human rights violations and abuses, while offering unique opportunities for the negotiation of higher human rights standards.
I have on the past used other such reports by the ISHR and the UHRG (see below) but thought that this time I should highlight other NGOs:
CIVICUS contributed to the outcomes of the Council session through engagement on key Resolutions, delivery of statements, and organisation of events. We sounded the alarm on the global erosion of civic space and the growing repression of civil society across multiple regions.
Regional Developments: Africa
A strong Resolution on South Sudan was adopted, extending the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan (CHRSS).
Regional Developments: Asia Pacific
A Resolution on Myanmar’s human rights situation was adopted by consensus amid escalating violence and widespread impunity.
Regional Developments: Americas
The Resolution on Nicaragua renewed the mandate of the Group of Human Rights Experts (GHREN) on Nicaragua.
Regional Developments: Europe
Key resolutions were adopted on Ukraine and Belarus, continuing international monitoring mechanisms.
Regional Developments: Middle East
Resolutions on Iran and Syria were adopted, with mixed results on addressing severe human rights concerns.
Several important thematic resolutions were adopted during the session.
Civil Society Challenges
Ahead of the 58th session, CIVICUS raised attention on the increasing restrictions imposed on civil society. CIVICUS engaged in key side events during HRC58, spotlighting democracy, child human rights defenders, and intersectional approaches to civic space.
A detailed post-session report is available via this link.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ):
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), together with partner organizations, participated actively in the 58th session. Civil society’s critical engagement is essential in calling on the Council and its member States to respond to the plight of victims of human rights violations. In this regard, the ICJ was pleased to ensure that our partner from the African Albinism Network delivered our joint statement on the tenth anniversary of the mandate of the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of human rights by persons with Albinism. Maintaining effective access to the UN in Geneva for civil society is key to ensure that people can themselves participate or be represented in the discussions at the Council that concern them directly. With regard to this, the ICJ denounces all attempts to undermine civil society participation, including the intimidation of human rights defenders during side events, observed again at this HRC session.
At the outset, the ICJ welcomes the adoption of a number of important resolutions renewing, extending or creating mandates under the HRC purview, among which the following were adopted without a vote:
a resolution extending the mandate of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic for a period of one year;
a resolution establishing an open-ended intergovernmental working group for the elaboration of a legally-binding instrument on the promotion and protection of the human rights of older persons;
a resolution renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism for a period of three years;
a resolution renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for a period of three years;
a resolution extending the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar for a period of one year;
a resolution renewing the presence of the Office of the High Commissioner in Seoul, for a period of two years with the same resources and extending the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea(DPRK) for a period of one year.
While regretting the failure to adopt them by consensus, the ICJ also welcomes the adoption of other important resolutions by a majority of the votes:
a resolution extending the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine for a period of one year;
a resolution renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus for a period of one year and extending the mandate of the Group of Independent Experts on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus for a period of one year;
a resolution renewing the mandate of the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua for a period of two years;
a resolution extending the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran for a period of one year and deciding that the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran should continue for one year with an updated mandate to address the recent and ongoing violations of human rights; and
a resolution extending the mandate of the independent human rights expert tasked with undertaking the monitoring of the human rights situation in Haiti, for a renewable period of one year.
This session discussed armed conflicts whose intensity had continued to increase, including in Gaza, Ukraine, the DRC and Myanmar.
……Unsurprisingly, the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was one of the most-discussed throughout the 58th session. Many countries voiced strong support for the Palestinian people and their human rights, with many calling for a two-State solution based on Israel’s withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital. The ICJ commends the many States who intervened during the negotiations and adoption of the resolutions on the situation in the OPT to emphasize the need for accountability, and who voiced their support for the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice and their respective recent decisions on Israel/Palestine. The resolution adopted at this session titled “the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the obligation to ensure accountability and justice” invited the General Assembly to consider establishing an ongoing international, impartial and independent mechanism to assist in the investigation and prosecution of persons responsible for the most serious crimes under international law committed by all parties in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel since 2014.
Earlier in the year, on 7 February 2025, the Council had already held a special session to discuss the human rights situation in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where armed clashes between Congolese forces and the Rwanda-backed M23 movement had been ongoing, and had escalated since January 2025. The special session had resulted in the adoption of a resolution requesting the High Commissioner to urgently establish a fact-finding mission to report on events since January 2022. The resolution had also established an independent COI composed of three experts appointed by the HRC President to continue the work of the fact-finding mission. At the 58th session, the ICJ and many countries expressed grave concern about the human rights situation in the DRC, and during the Enhanced Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner and the Team of Experts at the end of the session many of the same themes and concerns heard during the special session were raised again.
Threats to Multilateralism
This 58th session took place in the context of increasing threats against multilateralism. In particular, this session started in the aftermath of the United States and Israel announcing that they would boycott the Council by not engaging with it. In addition, on 27 February – the day before the interactive dialogue with the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, when the HRC was scheduled to discuss the serious human rights violations committed by the State apparatus, including executions, torture and arbitrary detentions – Nicaraguaannounced its decision to withdraw from the Council.
Accountability
The ICJ regrets the attempts by some countries at this session to undermine accountability mechanisms by presenting them as political tools purportedly interfering in the internal affairs of the States concerned and encroaching upon their sovereignty. The human rights organization recalls that such spurious arguments contradict the international human rights law obligations freely agreed upon and undertaken by States and disregard the fact that, as the 1993 Vienna Declaration states, “the promotion and protection of all human rights is a legitimate concern of the international community”.
With regards to the situation in Syria following the fall of the Assad regime, the need for accountability was high on the HRC’s agenda throughout the 58th session. ….In this regard, the ICJ particularly welcomes the adoption of the resolution on the situation in Syria, which encouraged the interim authorities to grant the COI necessary access throughout the country and to cooperate closely with the Commission. The ICJ also notes the authorities’ declared commitment to investigating the recent spate of violations and abuses, including through the newly established fact-finding committee to investigate the events in the west of the Syrian Arab Republic in March 2025. In this connection, the human rights organization called for investigations to be demonstrably independent, prompt, transparent and impartial…
As usual, a number of country situations were not on the agenda of the Council but would actually require much greater scrutiny. At the 58th session, the ICJ expressed particular concern on the situation in Tunisiaand Eswatiniamong others, where attacks on independent judges and lawyers are a key manifestation of deepening authoritarianism in these countries…
The impact of the liquidity crisis and the withdrawal of critical support was also discussed during informal negotiations on the resolution renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. While in the end the resolution is short, there was much debate about specific phrasing concerning the resources provided to the mandate. The ICJ participated in the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur, stressing the need for coordination and cooperation between civil society and regional systems to address counterterrorism laws that violate human rights and fundamental freedoms of civil society actors, highlighting in particular the situations in Venezuela and Eswatini. The ICJ reiterated the importance of the Special Rapporteur being adequately resourced in order to fully address these challenges.
Led by Norway, the resolution crucially covers new grounds and further develops States’ obligations to protect human rights defenders in the digital age. It also considers the needs expressed by human rights defenders during the consultative process leading to its negotiation and approval.
For the first time and in a major win for the human rights defenders movement, the resolution includesa reference to the Declaration +25 and is very much in line with its content.
‘The Declaration +25 is a ground-breaking initiative,’ said Phil Lynch, Executive Director at ISHR. ‘Civil society organisations worldwide have united to produce this authoritative articulation of the international legal framework for the protection of human rights defenders. We are very pleased that the Human Rights Council recognised it,’ Lynch added.
For example, the resolution calls on States to forgo the use of biometric mass surveillance and to refrain from or cease the use or transfer of new and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence applications and spyware to actors that are not liable to operating these in full compliance with international human rights law.
Initially, the resolution included a reference to transnational repression but this was removed in the final version.
‘While we welcome the reference to types of transnational repression referred to in the resolution, we stress that transnational repression is not only about actions taken by a State, but also its proxies, to deter, silence or punish people and groups who engage in dissent, critique or human rights advocacy from abroad, in relation to that State,’ said ISHR’s Lynch and civil society partners in their end of session statement.
Indeed, transnational repression includes acts targeted directly against human rights defenders, journalists or activists, as well as acts targeting them indirectly by threatening their families, representatives or associates. Particularly vulnerable are nationals or former nationals, members of diaspora communities and those living in exile. ISHR will continue to push for States to publicly recognise and acknowledge this form of harassment.
Another lost opportunity is the lack of explicit recognition of the positive role of child human rights defenders in promoting human rights and fostering change in societies, including their active role in the digital space. The resolution also doesn’t tackle the specific challenges and risks they face because of their age and their civic engagement, as highlighted by the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders in her 2024 report.
The resolution fell short of reaffirming States commitments from UNGA A/RES/78/216, to enhance protection measures for child defenders and to provide a safe, enabling and empowering environment for children and young people online and offline.
The negotiation of the resolution was a hard and long process: 12 informal sessions were needed to agree on a text. In a regrettable move, some States presented amendments to the tabled text trying to undermine and weaken it. The text was finally adopted without a vote.
OHCHR is now mandated to convene three regional workshops and a report to assess risks created by digital technologies to human rights defenders and best practices to respond to these concerns.
During the 58th regular session of the Human Rights Council, ISHR delivered a statement during the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders affirming that human rights, peace and security are deeply interconnected, and the importance of the international system to human rights defenders.
The international system – to which many human rights defenders turn for justice, solidarity and accountability – is under attack.
Already weakened by double standards by States from all regions, human rights and the rule of law are being destroyed by a cabal of authoritarian leaders and unaccountable corporations. We thank the Special Rapporteur and other experts for their 27 February statement on this issue.
It was gratifying to see the rapid solidarity of many States with Ukraine following Friday’s White House confrontation with one such authoritarian. It is disheartening that the shortsighted response of many of those same States to the existential human rights funding crisis is to increase security spending by reducing development assistance. Human rights, peace and security are deeply interconnected.
Of course, no single State can fill the US gap or counter its influence, but a diverse group of States with a shared interest in universal rights and the rule of law must do so. Human rights defenders globally need your increased political and financial support, now. Our common interests are not served by lawlessness and raw power.
Madame Rapporteur, thank you for endorsing the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders +25. Read with the 1998 Declaration, it elaborates authoritative standards on the rights of defenders, and State and non-State actors’ obligations to respect and protect them.
Finally, alongside 196 organisations, ISHR calls on States to support a strong Norway-led resolution on human rights defenders and technology at this session.
Natika Kantaria is a human rights advocate with nearly a decade of experience planning and implementing advocacy campaigns in human rights. She has worked with international organizations and watchdog NGOs and collaborated with the public and private sectors. For the ISHR she wrote a piece on 26 February 2025 about a worrying trend: ‘Foreign agent’ laws have been introduced in various countries, violating international human rights law and threatening to silence human rights defenders. This pattern is particularly evident in Eastern Europe, where NGOs courageously resist and need the support of the international community. See e.g. my earlier posts:
Societies thrive when everyone can work, speak out, and organise freely and safely to ensure justice and equality for all. Legislation requiring NGOs to register as ‘foreign agents’ is a barrier to this virtuous cycle. Despite the European Court of Human Rights’ 2022 ruling that Russia’s 2012 foreign agent law violated freedom of expression and association, the governments of Hungary, Georgia, Slovakia, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina have proceeded undeterred to introduce similar laws.
These laws specifically target NGOs and not-for-profits that receive foreign funds and require them to register as foreign agents, organisations serving the interests of a foreign power, or agents of foreign influence. By doing so, they restrict the capacity of human rights defenders to organise, participate and exercise their right to defend rights by:
imposing disproportionately high fines and heavy sanctions to NGOs refusing to comply, which may ultimately lead to the termination of their operations
using vague wording, that ultimately gives too much room and power for government interpretation. For instance, the requirement for NGOs to register in official records or identify themselves as ‘agents of foreign influence’ lacks clarity and specificity.
increasing the burden of NGOs by introducing heavy reporting and auditing requirements. The State’s alleged need for transparency as their primary purpose can, therefore, be effectively addressed through existing legislation regulating NGOs.
employing a negative narrative that stigmatises and delegitimises the work of the civil society organisations and human rights defenders. This rhetoric promotes hostility and distrust toward civil society and encourages attacks against defenders.
Furthermore, such laws contradict the commitments of these countries under international human rights law. Article 13 of the 1998 UN Declaration on human rights defenders recognises the right of defenders to solicit, receive and utilise resources.
Article 10 of the Declaration +25, a supplement to the UN Declaration put forward in 2024 by civil society, human rights defenders and legal experts, addresses States’ attempts to prohibit foreign contributions or impose unjustified national security limitations. It stipulates that States should not hinder financial resources for human rights defenders and outlines measures to prevent retaliation based on the source of their funding. These laws violate rights related to freedom of expression, association, and privacy, as outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Foreign agent laws also run counter to commitments made by countries at the regional level as members of the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), including recommendation CM/Rec(2018)11, which emphasizes the protection and promotion of civil society space and OSCE guidelines for protecting human rights defenders.
NGOs are increasingly becoming a primary target for repressive governments. According to the CIVICUS Monitor 2024 report, the countries mentioned above that have introduced ‘foreign agent’ laws have either ‘closed’ or ‘obstructed’ civil society space. In addition, the Trump administration’s rhetoric and its decision to freeze foreign aid have contributed to strengthening hostile narratives already present in ‘foreign agent laws’ in Eastern Europe and have emboldened governments in their efforts to publicly undermine these organisations.
While the silencing of NGOs has become part of the agenda for many governments, and the rise of ‘foreign agent’ laws serves as a step towards establishing authoritarian regimes, civil society actors continue to mobilise in response. Strengthening engagement with international human rights mechanisms, fostering joint global advocacy, and providing support to targeted organisations and groups are essential steps that international NGOs and the international community should take to build resistance, reinforce coalition efforts, and protect the work of human rights defenders.
International and regional human rights mechanisms have called for governments to either repeal these laws, or not to adopt them in their current forms. On 7 February 2025, three UN independent experts issued a statement in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the government reintroduced the ‘Law on the Special Registry and Publicity of the Work of Non-Profit Organisations’ after its initial withdrawal in May 2024. The statement stressed that creating a register of non-profit organisations receiving foreign funding in one of the entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina will impose severe restrictions on NGOs and would grant government control over their operation, including the introduction of an annual inspection, with further reviews of legality of CSOs receiving foreign funding possible upon requests from citizens or relevant authorities.
In this unsupportive environment, donors have a fundamental role to play. ‘As civil society actors devise strategies to push back against these repressive tactics, private philanthropy and bilateral and multilateral donors have vital support roles to play,’ writes James Savage, who leads the Fund for Global Human Rights’ (FGHR) programme on the Enabling Environment for Human Rights Defenders. ‘They can help civil society prepare for future challenges, so that it is organised not only to respond to evolving forms of repression but also to get ahead of them by tackling their root causes,’ Savage concludes.
New and emerging technologies have become a fundamental tool for human rights defenders to conduct their activities, boost solidarity among movements and reach different audiences. Unfortunately, these positive aspects have been overshadowed by negative impacts on the enjoyment of human rights, including increased threats and risks for human rights defenders. While we see the increased negative impacts of new technologies, we do not see that governments are addressing these impacts comprehensively.
Furthermore, States and their law enforcement agencies (often through the help of non-State actors, including business enterprises) often take down or censor the information shared by defenders on social media and other platforms. In other cases, we have seen that businesses are also complicit in attacks and violations against human right defenders.
Conversely, lack of access to the internet and the digital gaps in many countries and regions, or affecting specific groups, limits the potential of digital technologies for activism and movement building, as well as access to information.
The Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted in 1998, does not consider these challenges, which have largely arisen with the rapid evolution of technology. In this context, and, as part of activities to mark the 25th anniversary of the UN Declaration on human rights defenders, a coalition of NGOs launched a consultative initiative to identify the key issues faced by human rights defenders that are insufficiently addressed by the UN Declaration, including on the area of digital and new technologies. These issues are also reflected in the open letter to States on the draft resolution on human rights defenders that will be considered during HRC58.
This side event will be an opportunity to continue discussing the reality and the challenges that human rights defenders face in the context of new and emerging technologies. It will also be an opportunity to hear directly from those who, on a daily basis, work with defenders in the field of digital rights while highlighting their specific protection needs. Finally, the event will also help remind States about the range of obligations in this field that can contribute to inform the consultations on the HRC58 resolution on human rights defenders.
Panelists:
Opening remarks: Permanent Mission of Norway
Speakers:
Carla Vitoria – Association for Progressive Communications
Human rights defender from Kenya regarding the Safaricom case (via video message)
Woman human rights defender from Colombia regarding use of new technologies during peaceful protests
Human rights defender from Myanmar regarding online incitement to violence against Rohingya people
Video montage of civil society priorities for the human rights defender resolution at HRC58
Moderator: Ulises Quero, Programme Manager, Land, Environment and Business & Human Rights (ISHR)
This event is co-sponsored by Access Now, Asian Forum for Human Rights & Development (FORUM-ASIA), Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa HRD Project), Huridocs, Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR), International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA World), International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), Peace Brigades International, Privacy International, Protection International, Regional Coalition of WHRDs in Southwest Asia and North Africa (WHRD MENA Coalition).
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 