Posts Tagged ‘news’

UN Third Committee Hears that Human Rights Defenders face growing repression

October 21, 2026
United Nations

Enforced disappearances are reaching alarming levels worldwide, while human rights defenders face increasing persecution and surveillance, United Nations experts warned the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) on 20 October 2026 citing thousands of unresolved cases and growing threats to those seeking justice and accountability.

Andrea Bolaños Vargas, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, warned that criminalization has become the most prevalent global threat facing those who expose abuses and defend fundamental freedoms. Presenting findings from a survey of 1,122 respondents, she reported that 66 per cent of women human rights defenders believed their situation had deteriorated, rising to 78 per cent among LGBTIQ+ women defenders. Three quarters said restrictive laws and regulations had undermined their work.

“Criminalization is combined with disinformation and stigmatization, surveillance, arbitrary detention, administrative restrictions, funding restrictions, digital attacks, and in some cases, violence against defenders themselves, as well as their families,” she said. Such threats extend even to regions with long-standing democratic traditions. “The human cost is enormous,” she stressed, reporting that 83 per cent of survey respondents experienced negative effects on their mental health. Nearly half of the women human rights defenders surveyed reported having to leave their homes to seek safety, with 24 per cent internally displaced and 22 per cent forced into exile.

Even exile offers no guarantee of protection, she warned, citing surveillance, attacks against relatives, deprivation of nationality and other forms of transnational oppression. “Protection alone is not enough,” she declared, adding: “The aspiration must be that no one has to risk their safety, freedom or life to defend human rights.” [see e.g. https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2026/09/28/over-130-human-rights-experts-issue-global-call-for-states-to-end-transnational-repression/]

Delegates Clash over Imprisoned Activists

…The Czech Republic’s representative highlighted the imprisonment of human rights defenders in Belarus and the Russian Federation, drawing attention to Ukrainian activists Iryna Danylovych and Amet Suleymanov, held in Russian Federations prisons without adequate medical care.

Germany’s delegate urged Moscow to release two Indigenous human rights defenders and called on China to free Hong Kong lawyer Chow Hang Tung.

Rejecting the criticism, China’s representative accused Germany of spreading “smears”. “Some countries and political forces seek to portray criminals as human rights defenders to whitewash their unlawful and criminal conduct,” he said.

Belarus’s delegate dismissed the Czech Republic’s allegations concerning medical care for detainees, insisting that free healthcare is available to all, including prisoners. The Russian Federation’s representative, meanwhile, accused Ukraine and the Baltic States of persecuting those defending Russian-speaking populations, citing the arrest of Latvian activist Viktor Gushchin.

The European Union’s representative, speaking in its capacity as observer, warned that growing fear and self-censorship among people cooperating with United Nations human rights mechanisms represents “a substantive loss to us all”, expressing concern over technology-facilitated transnational repression….

https://press.un.org/en/2026/gashc4446.doc.htm

Both UN experts and NGOs urging India to end the crackdown on peaceful protests

October 20, 2026

On 20 October 2026, a large number of UN special rapporteurs and experts as well as 4 important NGOs called on India to end the crackdown on peaceful protests and release arbitrarily detained protesters.

Alarmed by a repeatedly heavy-handed police response to peaceful youth-led demonstrations in New Delhi and other parts of the country over the past three months, UN experts and international NGOs ca;;ed on Indian authorities to respect, protect and fulfil the right to peacefully protest, and ensure justice for human rights violations reported during these and previous protests.

“This crackdown reflects a broader, troubling pattern,” the experts said. “We have repeatedly alerted the Indian authorities to undue restrictions on peaceful assembly, excessive use of force, arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and the targeting of student activists, amongst others.” In March, 10 student and labour-rights activists were reportedly detained in New Delhi by plain-clothes police officers, held incommunicado for more than 24 hours, and allegedly subjected to ill-treatment, threats, coercion and forced declarations, before being released following habeas corpus proceedings.

Over the last months, hundreds of thousands of students and their supporters have been gathering peacefully to protest in different parts of the country against Government decisions regarding the education system, and more recently, voter-roll deletions which affect 130 million individuals, reportedly belonging to the Muslim minority, Scheduled Castes and Tribes. “Despite the non-violent nature of the assemblies, law enforcement agencies have reportedly deployed force against unarmed students, including lathi charges and have prevented thousands from joining the protests,” the experts said.

The experts raised concerns over reports that Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) – or India’s criminal procedure code – has been invoked to impose broad bans on public gatherings, suspend public transportation and execute internet shutdowns.

“We call on the authorities to immediately cease the use of excessive force, rescind blanket assembly bans, and refrain from the misuse of digital surveillance, including through biometrics, and internet disruptions.” The experts called for an independent, impartial, and thorough investigation into the conduct of law enforcement and affiliated forces to be launched without delay to ensure full accountability, justice, and victims’ reparations.

Amnesty International, CIVICUS, Front Line Defenders and South Asians for Human Rights also call on the Indian authorities to release everyone arbitrarily detained for the exercise of their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and ensure accountability for abuses by security forces.

On 10 October 2026, protests were called by the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and backed by student groups calling for the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner of India, following reports that the nationwide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls by the election commission removed around 130 million names from voter lists.

Arbitrary detentions continued on 11 October and there were reports of physical attacks by police on protesters in detention. Many women protesters and journalists accused security personnel of sexual harassment while detaining them during the protests.Right-wing vigilante groups were also seen threatening and assaulting protesters and journalists. Some of them harassed Muslim women journalists while they were covering the protests.

Nearly 40 journalists were detained over the two days. Some of them were physically assaulted, intimidated, and had their camera and mobile phones seized or destroyed despite showing their press identity cards. A group of lawyers who carried out a rally near the Supreme Court in support of protesters also faced unlawful force by police and some were detained briefly.

Instagram accounts of the news outlets Molitics and Journo Mirror have been blocked in India during its coverage of the protests citing Information Technology Rules.

On 10 October authorities also ordered a 24-hour mobile internet shutdown in central Delhi. Mobile internet was also reportedly blocked at eight stadiums used as detention centres, cutting detainees off from their lawyers and families. Reports also suggest that the shutdown was taking place beyond areas of protests and detention.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/10/india-un-experts-alarmed-fresh-crackdown-protests-and-rights-violations

https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/statement-report/india-end-crackdown-peaceful-protests-and-release-arbitrarily-detained-protesters

https://m.thewire.in/article/rights/backstory-its-a-terrible-time-to-be-a-journalist-in-modis-india/amp

https://kmsnews.org/kms/2026/10/17/six-us-lawmakers-urge-rubio-to-raise-indias-crackdown-on-protesters-during-visit.html

Tomorrow 20 October webcast event on transnational repression and reprisals against HRDs in New York

October 19, 2026

Recent developments within the UN human rights system have brought increasing attention to the scale of TNR, its human rights impacts and the obligations of States and other actors to prevent and respond to it. On 23 September 2026, more than 130 Special Procedures mandate holders and Treaty Body members issued a joint statement on TNR, describing it as a growing, direct challenge to the international human rights system and the UN Charter’s principles. The statement clarifies the legal obligations of States under international law, and sets out a roadmap for States, businesses, INTERPOL and international organisations to better prevent and respond to TNR, and protect and assist individuals and groups affected. These recommendations build on existing reports by UN Special Procedures, the brief on TNR by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and resolutions adopted by the Human Rights Council. [see https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2026/09/28/over-130-human-rights-experts-issue-global-call-for-states-to-end-transnational-repression/]

TNR also increasingly intersects with acts of intimidation and reprisal against individuals and groups who cooperate, or seek to cooperate, with the United Nations. The Secretary-General’s 2026 annual report on reprisals (A/HRC/63/62) documents TNR-related reprisals affecting individuals and organisations across regions, including through digital technologies. These practices can extend the reach of repression across borders, targeting defenders and other civil society actors even after they have left the country in which the original threats arose. They can also affect relatives, colleagues and communities, creating a broader chilling effect on engagement with the United Nations. Of the  32 States cited in the report, 15 are cited for violations that include TNR, affecting at least 43 individuals and four organisations. [see https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2026/10/01/un-report-warns-of-transnational-reprisals-human-rights-defenders-cooperating-with-the-un/]

The growing recognition of these interconnected patterns creates an opportunity to move from documentation and recognition towards coordinated prevention, protection and accountability. Responses to TNR should be grounded in international human rights law and should address the conduct of both States perpetrating repression abroad and States within whose territory such acts occur. They should also ensure that people at risk can safely access international and regional human rights mechanisms, including the United Nations.

This UNGA81 side event will bring together UN experts, States and civil society to examine how TNR and reprisals manifest in practice, clarify applicable human rights standards and responsibilities, and identify concrete measures that States, the UN and other actors can take to prevent violations, protect those at risk and ensure accountability.

Location: New York City, United States of America

Date: 20 October 2026

  • Time: 1:15PM – 2:30PM EST
  • Address: UN Headquarters, Conference Room 7
  • Event language(s) English
  • RSVP Needed: no
  • The event will be webcast on UN Web TV.

Opening remarks: Ambassador Laura Dupuy Lasserre, Permanent Representative of Uruguay to the United Nations

Speakers:

  • Claudia Fuentes Julio, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights [tbc]
  • Ben Saul, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism
  • Grażyna Baranowska, Chair of UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID)
  • Civil society representative

Closing remarks: Ambassador Florian Laudi, Deputy Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations

Moderator: International Service for Human Rights

https://ishr.ch/events/beyond-borders-not-beyond-reach

Five Human Rights Defenders Targeted for Seeking Help Abroad

October 19, 2026
Freedom House Logo - Torch next to words Freedom House

PPI Watch_Sept2026

From left to right: Pham Chi Dung, Anar Mammadli, Joshua Wong, Mohammad Seifzadeh, Gasser Abdel Razek (Photo Credits: Pham Chi Dung Facebook, Wikimedia Commons, Center for Human Rights in Iran, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights)

Brian Tronic, Director, Fred Hiatt Program to Free Political Prisoners, wrote “Dictatorial regimes are retaliating against democratic activists who talk to foreign governments and international bodies“

On September 2, prominent Hong Kong democracy activist Joshua Wong pleaded guilty to charges under the territory’s notorious National Security Act—the second time he has faced prison time under the Beijing-imposed law. Having already been imprisoned since November 2020, he now faces the possibility of another lengthy sentence simply for demanding that Hong Kongers have a voice in their own government. Joshua’s detention has been widely recognized as emblematic of the Chinese Communist Party’s increasing restrictions on freedom in and the autonomy of Hong Kong.

However, his case is also an example of an important but less visible phenomenon: to hide truth about their abuses, dictatorial regimes are criminalizing the act of talking to the outside world. The allegations against Joshua included meetings in the United States with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and then Senator Marco Rubio. Unfortunately, activists around the globe are facing similar charges. The following cases highlight the efforts of repressive regimes to shut down engagement with foreign democracies and international bodies that have made protecting democracy part of their mission.

Vietnamese journalist Pham Chi Dung was detained after petitioning members of the European Parliament (EP) to pressure Vietnam over its human rights record. In 2019, he wrote to EP members asking them to postpone ratification of the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement until Vietnamese authorities made human rights improvements, and made a similar appeal in a video featured at an event hosted by a British EP member. Two days later, he was arrested. UN experts noted that the arrest “appears to be an act of reprisal for his human rights advocacy.” Dung was later sentenced to 15 years in prison for “conducting antistate propaganda,” and he remains imprisoned today.

Mohammad Seifzadeh, a human rights lawyer in Iran, wrote a letter with other human rights activists to UN Secretary General António Guterres in December 2022, asking him to respond to the Iranian regime’s execution of peaceful protesters. Just a few months later, as a result of the letter, he was convicted of “propaganda against the system” and “spreading false information” and sentenced to a year in prison (though his sentence was eventually suspended for medical reasons).

Azerbaijani activist Anar Mammadli, chair of the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre (EMDS), was arrested in 2024 a few weeks after calling on Azerbaijani authorities to release political prisoners and respect fundamental rights at events hosted by the UN Human Rights Council and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). A group of UN officials expressed “serious concerns that Mammadli’s detention and prosecution may be in retaliation for his human rights work and his engagement with UN mechanisms.” In 2026, Anar was sentenced to 13 years in prison on a variety of baseless charges.

In November 2020, three staff of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, including Executive Director Gasser Abdel Razek, were arrested a few days after discussing human rights issues with 13 foreign ambassadors and diplomats. While they were released a few weeks later, they were placed under a travel ban that remains in place to this day.

https://freedomhouse.org/article/political-prisoners-watch-five-democracy-advocates-targeted-seeking-help-abroad

Nominations for the 2027 Right Livelihood Award are now open!

October 14, 2026

Nominations for the 2027 Right Livelihood Award are now open.

If you know any courageous change-makers striving to create a more just, peaceful, and sustainable world for all? RLF welcomesnominations from all over the world, people of all ages and backgrounds. Deadline To be considered for the 2027 Award, nominations must be submitted by January 24, 2027. You can submit through our online form in English, French, and Spanish.

The Call for Nominations remains open year-round, but any submissions received after this date will be assessed in the following year.

For any questions: research@rightlivelihood.org.

Find out more about the Award: https://trueheroesfilms.com/equip/digest/?sort=most&award=97238E26-A05A-4A7C-8A98-0D267FDDAD59

Thai Prime Minister files criminal defamation complaint against human rights defender Yingcheep Atachanont

October 12, 2026

On 8 October 2026, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), requests urgent intervention in the following situation in Thailand.

The Observatory has been informed that a criminal defamation complaint has been filed by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul against Mr. Yingcheep Atchanont, director of the Thai non-governmental organisation Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw), an FIDH member organisation, in connection with his legitimate work of monitoring public affairs and promoting democratic accountability.

On 15 September 2026, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul filed a criminal defamation complaint against Yingcheep under Article 326 (“defamation”) and 328 (“libel”) of Thailand’s Criminal Code with the Bangkok Criminal Court.

This development follows the announcement made by the Prime Minister on 22 July 2026 that he would take legal action against Yingcheep. The Prime Minister’s criminal defamation complaint stems from Yingcheep Atchanont’s submission of a petition to the opposition coalition in the House of Representatives on 21 July 2026, seeking a parliamentary examination of allegations that nine politicians from the ruling Bhumjaithai Party, including Prime Minister Anutin, five cabinet ministers, and three senior figures, were involved in vote manipulation during the June 2024 Senate election. According to iLaw’s investigation, evidence and witness statements suggested irregularities including candidate arrangements, the distribution of voting instructions, and the provision of financial incentives to candidates by networks linked to the Bhumjaithai Party, across different stages of the election process, which raised serious concerns over the integrity and transparency of the polls.

The Observatory recalls that since its founding in 2009, iLaw has played a prominent role in advancing democratic participation, freedom of expression, and a fair justice system in Thailand. The organisation has documented the impact of repressive laws and decrees adopted following the 2006 and 2014 military coups d’état and campaigned for their reform through public engagement and online advocacy. It has also worked to support citizen participation in legislative and constitutional reform processes, particularly through campaigns to collect signatures for proposed legislation and initiatives to amend Thailand’s military-backed 2017 Constitution. In addition, iLaw has contributed to strengthening electoral transparency by systematically documenting voting irregularities and mobilising citizens to participate in election observation.

The June 2024 Senate election gave rise to allegations of systemic fraud and vote-buying. Under a new selection system, more than 40,000 candidates voted among themselves through multiple rounds of selection at the district, provincial, and national levels to determine the 200-member Senate. The results led to public scrutiny particularly due to the disproportionately high number of successful candidates from provinces where the Bhumjaithai Party enjoyed strong electoral support…

The Observatory denounces the criminal lawsuits against Yingcheep, which appear to be in retaliation against the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression, as enshrined in international human rights law, in particular in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a state party.

The Observatory calls upon the Thai authorities to ensure that all complaints are dropped and urges them to take concrete steps towards the decriminalisation of defamation under Articles 326 and 328 of the Criminal Code, which are used to intimidate, silence, and harass human rights defenders in Thailand.

https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/human-rights-defenders/thailand-criminal-defamation-complaints-filed-against-human-rights

Defenders’ Days in Stockholm: international conference for human rights defenders starts today

October 12, 2026
Over a hundred human rights defenders come to Sweden to meet at Defenders’ Days.

Today, 12 October 2026, Defenders’ Days opens, bringing together more than 100 human rights defenders from around the world to share experiences, build networks, and strengthen their work. Among the participants are a Palestinian editor-in-chief who has lost friends and colleagues during the war, a Venezuelan journalist who was detained because of her reporting, and a Ukrainian lawyer working to document war crimes. What they have in common is their commitment to defending human rights, one of the world’s most important and most dangerous callings. 

Defenders’ Days is an international conference for human rights defenders, providing a safe space where participants from across the globe can meet, exchange experiences, and learn from one another. For many, it is also a rare opportunity to pause, regain strength, and find support in work that is often marked by threats, harassment, and significant personal risk. 

“We are witnessing democracy and respect for human rights come under pressure in many parts of the world. At the same time, human rights defenders continue to stand up for others, often at great personal cost. For a few days, they have the opportunity to come together, build networks, and strengthen one another for the work ahead,” says Sofia Walan, Executive Director of Civil Rights Defenders. 

The conference brings together journalists, lawyers, democracy activists, environmental defenders, and human rights defenders from more than 50 countries. The programme includes training sessions and workshops on topics such as digital security, psychosocial well-being, advocacy, and leadership. 

Equally important, however, is the opportunity to meet others who share similar experiences. 

“Defending human rights can be both challenging and isolating. At Defenders’ Days, participants can connect with people who understand their reality. It creates new partnerships, provides renewed energy, and serves as a reminder that they are part of a global movement working together to defend freedom, democracy, and human rights,” says Sofia Walan. 

Defenders’ Days was launched in 2013 and is organised by Civil Rights Defenders. This year’s conference takes place on 12–14 October and brings together participants from more than 50 countries. 

Read more about Defenders’ Days here.

Two human rights defenders continue to be prosecuted in Greece in spite of everything..why??

October 6, 2026

On 3 October 2026 Human Rights Watch and others lament the weird insistence of Greece to go ahead with the prosecution of two prominent human rights defenders as a politically-motivated attempt to silence their efforts to expose abuses against migrants, The trial of the two activists, Panayote Dimitras and Tommy Olsen, is set to begin on the Greek island of Rhodes on 6 October 2026. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2025/11/21/human-rights-defenders-in-greece-on-trial-for-baseless-charges-for-assisting-people-on-the-move/

“The upcoming trial of Panayote Dimitras and Tommy Olsen is a blatant attempt to criminalize and silence their legitimate human rights work,” said Eva Cossé, senior Europe researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Prosecutors should drop this politically motivated case against Dimitras and Olsen once and for all.”

Dimitras, founder and president of the Greek nongovernmental group Greek Helsinki Monitor, and Olsen, a Norwegian national and founder of the nongovernmental group Aegean Boat Report, are being prosecuted alongside two Cameroonian asylum seekers on charges of “forming or joining for profit and by profession a criminal organization with the purpose of facilitating the entry and stay of third country nationals into Greek territory.” If convicted, they face up to 20 years in prison.

The charges brought against the activists in early 2023 stem from their peaceful human rights and humanitarian work, Human Rights Watch said. The indictment seeks to criminalize the defendants’ practice of notifying Greek authorities and international bodies of the whereabouts of newly arrived asylum seekers and migrants on the Greek islands, to help ensure that they have access to the country’s asylum procedure and not be pushed back to Türkiye.

Dimitras and Olsen have for years documented and exposed human rights violations against asylum seekers and migrants, including violent pushbacks by Greek authorities, that have been characterized as “systematic” by the European Court of Human Rights.

On May 15, a Norwegian appeals court rejected Greek authorities’ request to extradite Olsen, who lives in Norway, to Greece through a European Arrest Warrant. The Norwegian court concluded that the acts described by Greek authorities do not constitute criminal offenses under Norwegian law, noting that assisting someone in initiating an asylum procedure is a lawful act protected by international treaties. The court also found that extraditing Olsen to Greece would present a real risk of violating his right to freedom of expression.

Because Greek prosecutors have maintained arrest warrants, including the European Arrest Warrant, against Olsen, Olsen faces arrest and detention if he travels to Greece to defend himself. Dimitras who lives in Greece, is not in detention but is subject to a travel ban preventing him from leaving the country. The court summons specifies that, under Greek law, defendants will be tried in their absence if they do not appear or are not represented by a lawyer.

Proceeding on that basis would amount to an in absentia prosecution under international law. Under international law, including the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Greece is a party, anyone convicted in absentia, who later returns to the country where the conviction was issued, should have the opportunity to a fresh determination of the merits of their case by a court there.

The prosecution of Dimitras and Olsen is part of a wider, well-documented pattern of Greek authorities misusing criminal and administrative law to harass and intimidate human rights activists and civil society organizations defending the rights of asylum seekers and migrants. In January, a Greek court on the island of Lesbos acquitted 24 humanitarian workers of similar charges, after prosecutors subjected them to a devastating seven-year legal ordeal.

Despite this high-profile acquittal, Greek authorities have failed to change course, Human Rights Watch said. In February, the Greek government passed a migration law that makes membership in a nongovernmental organization an aggravating circumstance in migration-related criminal offenses, in some cases elevating them to felonies, with draconian penalties.

In 2023, the then-United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor, stated in a report to the UN Human Rights Council that “human rights lawyers, humanitarian workers, volunteers and journalists [working on migration in Greece] have been subjected to smear campaigns, a changing regulatory environment, threats and attacks, and the misuse of criminal law against them, to a shocking degree.” Lawlor has also said that the criminal investigation against Dimitras and Olsen “strongly appears” to be arbitrary.

“The Norwegian court firmly recognized that helping people present themselves to seek asylum is not a crime,” Cossé said. “Greek authorities should take a cue from the court and end this farce by dropping the case and halting the weaponization of criminal law against human rights defenders.”

https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/10/03/greece-rights-defenders-on-trial

https://euobserver.com/241141/they-want-to-shut-me-up-norwegian-activist-fights-20year-greek-prison-threat-over-asylum-aid

https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/human-rights-defenders/greece-migrants-rights-defenders-tommy-olsen-and-panayote-dimitras-to

https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/case/continued-judicial-harassment-and-trial-against-human-rights-defender-panayote-dimitras

https://ecre.org/mediterranean-ngo-questions-states-willingness-to-save-lives-after-latest-tragedy-%E2%80%95-trial-of-human-rights-defenders-in-greece-postponed-until-april-2027-%E2%80%95-european-court-cond/

Senior police officer Vineet Kapoor: “Human Rights Hero” from Madhya Pradesh

October 6, 2026

1 September 2026

The Essex Human Rights Centre was glad to have the chance to speak with Vineet Kapoor (MA in the Theory and Practice of Human Rights, 2005-6) and UK Chevening scholarship recipient.  He is a senior police officer in the Indian Police Service, currently serving as Deputy Inspector General of Police for Community Policing for the state of Madhya Pradesh. He was recently awarded the Human Rights Hero Award during the World Human Rights Summit on Youth Education, which took place at UN Headquarters in New York.

HRC: Congratulations Vineet on your recent award!  We would love to know how you became interested in policing

VK: Thank you! I get immense satisfaction when I can directly impact on the protection of rights and the creation of an environment of safety. Law enforcement and policing have a direct interface with public life. Fear and insecurity are the greatest breeding grounds of violence, exploitation and human rights violations. The police are entrusted with the responsibility to create an environment of safety and security which enables ordinary people to access justice. It also is a first responder to individuals and communities in crisis.

HRC: How has your study of human rights impacted upon your approach to policing?

VK: I was already a police officer when I came to Essex to study on the MA in in the Theory and Practice of Human Rights. I realised after joining the police that there is a deep connection between human rights protection and policing practice and this needs to be studied in detail. I was on a study leave from my job in the Indian police service, and I went back to the Indian police when I completed my studies to contribute to the mainstreaming of human rights in policing practice.

The human rights MA taught me how to see my police work and policing in general from a human rights perspective. I was able to appreciate what state accountability boils down to, how it affects both the encroachment on individual and community rights and the restoration of those rights. It helped me to better understand how the police service can deliver outcomes that make a direct contribution to state accountability.  

Accountability is the most important thing I could understand through my police work after completing this degree. I could see the context of the law enforcement agency as the primary duty holder representing and working through the authority it derives from the state. It also helped me to understand the practical implications of civil and political rights and how police actions or inactions affect how human rights are enforced. It also helped me to understand economic, social and cultural rights from the perspective of police service delivery and how the interface between development and human rights can be affected by the quality of police service delivery. In particular, police services will be ineffective if insecurity, inequality and incompetence are allowed to prevail over strong governance practices. This is why development must be seen from a human security angle. There is a crucial connection between development and freedom, between human security and human development and poverty, inequality, corruption, intersectionality, gender-based and caste and class-based discrimination. The minority and vulnerability-related implications to police service delivery became clear to me as a police officer working in a democratic, developing country.

Over the two decades since my MA degree, I directed my services to improve police accountability by transforming police syllabi and police training mandates. I was instrumental in first changing the state syllabi of my native state of Madhya Pradesh to mainstream human rights and improve training and human rights pedagogy to make the training more relevant and impactful. Impressed with this achievement, I was invited by the national government to make a standardised syllabi for the civilian police for the entire country, which embedded human rights into the syllabi for all police ranks. I have also been responsible for bringing gender justice and child rights-based improvements in police practice and accountability standards through training, mentoring and monitoring approaches. 

During the past five years, I have been involved in mainstreaming human rights norms into community policing. This has resulted in the incorporation of human rights, child rights, women’s rights, elderly people’s rights, cultural rights into community police-based public safety work. I have also implemented police reforms with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) enabled work, especially SDG 5 for women’s security, SDG 11 for urban safety and most importantly SDG 16 which covers peace and safe institutions where police have a crucial role to play.

HRC: What were your impressions of the work on police reforms and human rights-based policing when working with the UN?

VK: In the conflict zones where I served, I found that when the police services are no longer neutral and when political actors become partisan, life, liberty, community safety, peace and development are negatively impacted, and humanity can become dangerous to its own self. This context of lawlessness taught me the value of good governance and human rights-embedded police work and why and how I should devote my energies to mainstream human rights in police training and police public interface and in police accountability through monitoring mechanisms.

HRC: You also received a PhD in Police Training Culture and Organizational Development. Can you provide some details of the focus of your research?

VK: I realised that there is an endemic problem of human rights compliance in police practice. Through my exposure to UN peacekeeping as well as my Essex MA degree where I studied the sociological and criminological aspects of human rights, my understanding of what I had to do in my research became clearer. As a police officer myself, I could understand how police personnel think and act and how the police organizational culture promotes a particular version of police and how this culture undermines human rights as a norm. This enabled me to understand the theoretical and practical aspects of organizational cultures and subcultures in the police and draw inferences to improve police education and capacities to serve with an ethical and human rights orientation. 

I studied five police training academies in five states in India, examined police training cultures and subcultures. I drew patterns of the organizational socialisation of the police in the training institutions and examined the capacities of the trainers to impart human rights education. This was done by finding gaps and then drawing inferences to improve training design, training content and training pedagogy – all of which make a crucial difference to human rights capacity building and promoting human rights as a professional value. This later helped me to improve my police training syllabi designed and the government asked me to work on drafting syllabi based on this research. The research had a field-based relevance, practice-based value as well as clear impact.

……

​​The need to press on with human rights data collection

September 29, 2026

Collecting and disseminating data on transitional justice mechanisms can help lay the foundation for a more just future.

Open Global Rights Logo

In 2024, Transitional Justice Evaluation Tools (TJET), a project Geoff Dancy has co-directed for five years, released a global database of human rights accountability mechanisms dating from 1970 to 2020. The project’s website has attracted tens of thousands of users, many seeking background information on cases of interest or exploring processes used in different contexts. 

But some commentators question the purpose of collecting data on truth, justice, and reparations in the current moment. For instance, according to the Oxford Handbook of Transitional Justice, we have now arrived at the end-times of transitional justice—just like we arrived at the end-times of human rights over a decade ago. If this claim were true, it would raise a good question: what’s the point of gathering data if the liberal world order is unraveling, and faith in the transitional justice project is waning along with it? 

A commitment to prevention, recognition, and accountability

Critical theorists often presume that a neoliberal obsession with standardizing knowledge and decontextualizing political problems drives the collection of human rights data. This is an oversimplification. The TJET team’s values are not tied to a particular method or way of thinking but by three commitments that have formed through decades of community engagement and research.

Our first commitment is to prevent atrocities. Avoiding catastrophic political violence, while not the sole aim of justice, certainly seems like a necessary precondition for a just society. Our second commitment is to recognize and acknowledge survivors of mass violence. This means centering survivors in the processes and outcomes of transitional justice, even at the risk of disagreement and contestation. And our third commitment is to transparently document not only human rights violations but also efforts at human rights accountability.  With these values in mind, we can return to the question: why, during turbulent times, is it important to publish and update an archival database on transitional justice? 

The first reason is preparedness. We may well stand at the end of a pro-accountability era. For instance, our data show a clear decline in the number of human rights criminal prosecutions since 2010. And truth commissions, while still frequently established, seem to be accomplishing less. Now, states seem keen on fighting wars rather than preventing them. While arms transfers occur at their highest rate since 1990, foreign assistance for governance and institution-building is drying up.

However, there is no reason to suspect that these dismaying trends will last forever. Today’s authoritarian regimes are tomorrow’s transitional regimes, and today’s conflict zones are tomorrow’s post-conflict zones. When global conditions shift back from extremism to moderation, a repository of past experiences—including what did or did not work—may be helpful.

The second reason is remembrance. States do their level best to hide, bury, or erase information on human rights violations. The United States, for example, keeps at best unreliable national data on shootings by police, and in 2025, it cut funding to a Yale University team tracking the Russian abduction of Ukrainian children. China is hiding an enormous series of concentration camps in the country’s west, and Israel is concealing extensive torture of Palestinians detained since 2023 under emergency laws. These are just a few instances of contemporary states suppressing knowledge of the human rights abuses they commit. There are many, many more.

At the same time, data on accountability for violations also regularly disappears. For example, truth commission reports are often very difficult to find—sometimes because governments limit access to them and sometimes because they live on outdated websites. Information on prosecutions can be equally difficult to track. Justice ministries often do not publish updated case files, and older news articles on prosecutions disappear from the public record. Efforts at cross-national or comparative data collection fall into disuse or disrepair when deprived of continued support and attention. This is problematic because knowing what has happened—and what is happening—to hold human rights violators accountable for their actions is a public good. Many transitional justice mechanisms represent hard-won achievements for victims and human rights defenders. To forget those efforts, intentionally or unintentionally, is a form of silencing. 

To cite just one example, Sri Lankans discovered a mass grave of Tamils in Chemmani, near Jaffna, in early summer 2025. They expressed their outrage and demanded justice. What many did not realize is that investigators had previously discovered evidence of this mass grave over two decades ago, during the successful prosecution of a soldier who participated in the 1996 gang rape and murder of 18-year-old Krishanthi Koomaraswamy. Memory of this trial, including the soldier’s mention of the mass grave in his confession, was suppressed and largely forgotten. 

Building a better future by learning from experience

This brings us to a third and final reason for collecting and publishing data on transitional justice: meliorism, or openness to the possibility that we can make the future better. Keeping the most extensive possible record of prior attempts at accountability can provide practitioners and advocates with experiences on which to build. Our project is called Transitional Justice Evaluation Tools, but we do not seek to control these tools or define their use in evaluation. Our job is to provide data for any efforts at benchmarking, impact assessment, or comparison. After all, no one can learn from experience without information. That is why all our data are open, transparently sourced, and freely available.

Yes, we may be living in a new era of renewed impunity. However, that does not mean that the demand for truth and accountability or information on transitional justice will suddenly vanish. Unless we answer these demands with a shrug. 

Geoff Dancy is an associate professor of political science at the University of Toronto and a primary investigator on the Transitional Justice Evaluation Tools (TJET) project. He is a methodological pluralist who studies human rights discourse, the International Criminal Court, and the impacts of accountability mechanisms.

https://www.openglobalrights.org/the-need-to-press-on-with-human-rights-data-collection/