Applications are now open for the 2027 Marianne Initiative for Human Rights Defenders. Each year, a group of about fifteen human rights defenders, distinguished by their exemplary work in the fight for fundamental rights in their countries of origin, are welcomed to France. The laureates are selected from among several hundred candidates by a committee of independent experts.
The personalized program includes networking with key actors involved in the field of human rights (State, local authorities, non-governmental organizations, independent judicial and administrative authorities, representatives of international organizations), as well as support for the development of their activist project, aimed at strengthening the effectiveness of their action.
Benefits
The program offers a unique platform for international exposure and professional growth.
Participants gain access to a broad network of human rights professionals and European institutions, fostering connections that last long after the program ends.
The core benefit of the initiative lies in the specialized skill-building workshops provided during the stay in France.
This immersive experience aims to expand the operational capacity and strategic networks of frontline defenders.
Eligibility
To be eligible, candidates must demonstrate a proven and distinguished commitment to promoting fundamental rights within their local communities.
The initiative specifically looks for individuals who have already distinguished themselves through concrete actions on the ground.
Prospective applicants should be motivated to expand their professional skills and be willing to collaborate with international peers.
The program serves as a vital bridge between local grassroots activism and global human rights standards.
Benefits
The winners follow a comprehensive program consisting of:
Training courses to strengthen cross-cutting skills to implement their projects: negotiation, leadership, advocacy, project engineering, association management, etc.;
Training to improve working conditions in the country of origin: security, mechanisms for the protection of human rights defenders, etc.;
Courses to consolidate their theoretical knowledge: transitional justice, international law, etc.;
Meetings and networking with individuals and partner organizations committed to human rights and development issues;
Conferences and cultural activities;
Individual interviews to support the activist project;
Visits to international institutions and organizations;
Exchanges with the Marianne Alumni network of the program, within the framework of the mentoring program between laureates of the different cohorts.
Now criticism within European football circles of FIFA has intensified after the president of the Norwegian Football Association, Liz Klavenes, called for the cancellation of the ‘Peace Prize’ arguing that the move constitutes a clear breach of the principle of political neutrality. Klavénes, who also sits on the Executive Committee of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), confirmed that she would raise this issue during the FIFA Congress, stressing the need for world football’s governing body to maintain a “distance” from political leaders.
In a notable escalation, Klavenis announced her support for an ethics complaint filed against FIFA President Gianni Infantino, over his role in awarding the trophy, amid accusations of breaching neutrality rules. According to The Athletic, the complaint — filed by the human rights organisation Fair Square — alleges that Infantino politically promoted a public figure whilst in office, as well as awarding a politically charged prize without a clear institutional process and bypassing official structures within FIFA, including the Congress. These findings suggest a possible breach of FIFA’s Code of Ethics, which requires its officials to maintain complete neutrality regarding political matters.
Klavinis believes that introducing politically charged awards into the global football system threatens the independence of the game, stressing that such initiatives must be carried out within clear institutional frameworks and free from personalisation or political agendas. She also stressed that FIFA’s credibility is linked to the extent of its commitment to the principles of transparency and governance, particularly in light of increasing international scrutiny of its decisions..
This issue is becoming increasingly sensitive as the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Canada and Mexico approaches, placing the relationship between politics and football under the microscope.
Australian footballer Jackson Irvine said football’s credibility as a force for good has been undermined by FIFA, accusing it of making a mockery of its own Human Rights Policy. Irvine took aim at FIFA’s decision to give the Peace Prize to US President Trump. “As an organisation, you would have to say decisions like the one that we saw awarding this peace prize make a mockery of what they’re trying to do with the human rights charter and trying to use football as a global driving force for good and positive change in the world,” Irvine told the Reuters news agency.
The White House has pushed back strongly against criticism of Donald Trump receiving FIFA’s inaugural Peace Prize, awarded in December for what FIFA described as “exceptional and extraordinary actions for peace.” Spokesperson Davis Ingle declared that “no one else is more deserving” and dismissed detractors as suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
On April 22, 2026 United Nations special rapporteurs raised serious concerns about Turkey’s use of counterterrorism laws to judicially harass and criminalize human rights defenders and lawyers, including what they described as the misuse of the terrorism financing law, the Stockholm Center for Freedom reported.
In a letter sent to the Turkish government on February 23, 2026, but published only recently, the rapporteurs said authorities were pursuing charges including membership in a terrorist organization and terrorism financing against rights defenders and lawyers, singling out the Human Rights Association (İHD) as a particular target.
The rapporteurs pointed to the case of İHD member Hatice Onaran, who was convicted in 2024 of “violating the law on financing terrorism” after sending small amounts of money to poor and sick prisoners. They also cited the cases of four other members —Osman Süzen, Suna Bilgin, Tuğba Kahraman and Mehmet Acettin — who were charged with membership in a terrorist organization. Süzen was subsequently acquitted at a January 2026 hearing.
A fifth İHD member, İsmail Boyraz, was investigated on accusations of participating in an unlawful assembly after taking part in a teachers’ union protest. The rapporteurs also cited the case of lawyer Sabri Güngen, who was allegedly assaulted by police while meeting with a client.
The rapporteurs expressed concern over what they described as Turkey’s “apparent misuse” of terrorism financing laws in Onaran’s case, noting that providing small sums of money to support the basic needs of ill and financially disadvantaged prisoners, in line with prison regulations and under prison administration supervision does not constitute terrorism financing under international law. Onaran, who is undergoing cancer treatment, was released in February 2025 after his sentence was suspended for six months on health grounds.
They also warned that physical assault and intimidation reportedly faced by lawyers Bilgin, Süzen and Güngen while carrying out their professional duties may have been acts of retaliation for their human rights work.
The rapporteurs raised the same concern in a following statement on March 31, which warned that Turkey’s counterterrorism legislation is being used to criminalize legitimate rights advocacy and restrict fundamental freedoms.
The letter was signed by Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders; Gina Romero, the special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Tlaleng Mofokeng, the special rapporteur on physical and mental health; Margaret Satterthwaite, the special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; and Ben Saul, the special rapporteur on protection of rights and freedoms while countering terrorism.
Every day, human rights defenders risk their lives to safeguard the freedoms we often take for granted. They face threats, violence, and relentless pressure simply because they choose to stand on the side of justice. Every year, different NGOs monitor the situation for human rights defenders globally and publish evidence of the attacks they are facing. Yet behind the headlines and statistics are real people – exhausted, targeted, and often left without adequate protection. For many, a safe space to take a break is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. It is the difference between burnout and resilience, between silencing and survival.
Human rights defenders work under constant pressure, facing political hostility, economic hardship, and systemic threats. The risks are severe and growing. Globally, Front Line Defenders reported at least 324 killings across 32 countries in 2024. These are not merely numbers; they reveal great risks and ongoing rights violations. Such realities underscore the urgent need for temporary relocation programs to offer defenders safety and space to continue their work.
Beyond the physical risks, defenders also face severe burnout and psychological strain. The emotional toll of their work is immense: constant exposure to threats and stories of violence can lead to secondary trauma, chronic exhaustion, and deep isolation, especially for those working without strong support systems. Temporary relocation programs help address these often‑invisible harms by offering a protected space for rest, reflection, and psychological support. As one participant from the Oslo as a Breathing Space City (Oslo Breathing Space City) program explained,
“The learnings related to well-being, stress management, and sustainable engagement have influenced how I interact with colleagues and community members. I have helped normalise conversations around mental health and burnout within my professional circles”Naghma Iqtidar, Pakistani human rights defender and Oslo Breathing Space City guest during Spring 2023.
This is precisely where temporary relocation initiatives play a crucial role. Similar to other rest and respite temporary relocation programmes, Oslo Breathing Space City offer defenders a three‑month stay in Oslo tailored to their individual needs. These initiatives provide psychosocial support, opportunities to connect with other organisations, and a safer environment in which defenders can continue their activism. Importantly, they take a holistic approach to protection, addressing not only immediate security needs but also the emotional, psychological, and relational dimensions of a defender’s wellbeing in the long term. Because of this broader focus, they can create different forms of impact, which are complementary to more traditional protection tools. They not only offer safety but also create the conditions for sustainable, long‑term resilience...
Finally, the impacts of supporting individual human rights defenders with a holistic and long-term approach can have great benefits for their organisations, movements and communities at home, as the learnings and networks on an individual level can lead to concrete initiatives that are positive for many people or be passed on to colleagues and ultimately impact the organisational or community resilience. Some examples have been shared by previous participants of Breathing Space City:
Why are temporary relocation programs for human rights defenders essential?
They serve as an essential fallback when other protections fall short, giving defenders the space to step away from immediate danger, regain perspective, and gather the clarity and energy they need to continue their work more effectively once they return home.
They help prevent burnout and psychological harm, allowing them to sustain their activism with greater resilience over the long term.
They strengthen global networks and solidarity, creating long-term impact beyond the relocation period.
They contribute to stable and resilient human rights communities in regions where defenders face systemic violence and persecution.
Expanding relocation support as a lifeline for human rights defenders
Supporting them through relocation programs is not just an act of solidarity; it is a lifeline that enables them to continue their vital work with even more impact, resilience and sustainability.
There are currently numerous temporary relocation programmes worldwide, each with its own focus and reach. They need continuous funding and political support to be able to keep hosting human rights defenders. While programmes in safe countries of the Global South should be expanded, so that defenders facing stricter visa barriers can also access temporary protection, there is also a strong need to sustain programmes in the Global North. These locations often offer unique added value to guests, including access to international networks, advocacy spaces, and specialised resources. In addition, locations like Oslo support rest by providing security, easy access to nature, and a welcoming environment.
According to the latest report from ProtectDefenders.eu, about 30% of protection investment now goes to temporary relocation programs, showing that donors see relocation as a key mechanism within human rights defender protection efforts. While overall public funding for defenders remains very low relative to need, around 0.10% of total Official Development Assistance, the portion dedicated to protection, including relocation, has grown noticeably. This suggests donors recognise the urgency of investing in safety as a priority, even as broader funding remains constrained. Nonetheless, as the need is growing, more funding efforts are necessary to maintain and develop existing and new programmes. The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights recommends broadening relocation programs, increasing awareness about defenders’ work and risks, providing more adequate support during stays, and revising legal instruments to address their specific needs.
On 23 April 2026 Anamaría Martinez and Elizabeth Moses for WRI explain how environmental defenders help prevent deforestation and protect ecosystems critical to climate stability. Yet many face severe and sometimes lethal threats while remaining underrecognized in climate policies that often depend on their work but fail to protect them.
Image by VaLife/Shutterstock
Benitha Bompendju grew up in Tshuapa province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, surrounded by the dense rainforests of the Congo Basin. The world’s second-largest tropical forest, it plays a critical role in regulating the global climate, conserving biodiversity and sustaining local communities like Benitha’s. Yet when she was growing up, industrial logging was constant.
Concessionaires licensed by the government to harvest timber promised to bring benefits like schools and health centers. But these projects often did not materialize, and local authorities rarely got involved. Instead, companies stripped trees from the land and left local communities — who have long stewarded and relied on the rainforest — with little in return.
“As children, we watched the concessionaires leave with the wood and our parents received nothing,” Benitha recalls. “That was injustice.” This experience shaped Benitha’s future work. In 2016, she began monitoring forest-use contracts and documenting violations, working with partner organizations and government agencies to hold violators accountable. Since then, these joint efforts have helped curb illegal logging, enforce environmental regulations and deliver promised investments to communities.
Yet this critical work can be dangerous — lethally so. Benitha and other environmental defenders like her are often caught in the crosshairs of commercial interests and corruption. Many face threats, intimidation, physical assault, kidnapping and deadly violence. Global Witness documented 146 defenders killed or missing in 2024. The total number killed or missing from 2012 to 2024 is over 2,200 — and because many cases go unreported, the true toll is likely higher.
Research consistently shows that forests managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities have lower deforestation rates and greater carbon sequestration than those managed under other regimes, making their contribution a measurable climate outcome. But without necessary protections — from access to climate justice to the systems and law enforcement needed to prevent threats and tragic loss of life — environmental defenders can’t safeguard vital ecosystems. And such protections can’t materialize or become institutionalized if environmental defenders aren’t accurately recognized and reflected in climate and nature policies.
The UN defines environmental human rights defenders as “individuals and groups who, in their personal or professional capacity and in a peaceful manner, strive to protect and promote human rights relating to the environment, including water, air, land, flora and fauna.” This includes those who defend the collective right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as well as traditional lands and livelihoods, through actions ranging from community organizing and legal advocacy to protesting, public campaigning and journalism. Many come from Indigenous and tribal groups with deep ancestral ties to the land.
Our research focuses specifically on frontline environmental defenders — those who live in, and defend, resource-rich areas experiencing what the UN Environment Programme describes as “abuse of environmental rights which affects a growing number of people in many parts of the world.”
To understand how defenders are represented in the gray (unpublished) and peer-reviewed literature on climate change under the UNFCCC, we examined 170 peer-reviewed documents from 2015 to 2025, including journal articles, books and reports, to map how defenders’ actions and contributions are reflected. The literature we surveyed both reflects trends in policymaking and serves as a source decision-makers might draw on to develop global and national climate and nature policies. Download
We found that groups such as Indigenous Peoples, women, local communities and youth are increasingly acknowledged as “agents of change” with decision-making capacity, rather than portrayed as victims or passive recipients of project benefits.
However, only 5% of the literature explicitly identifies members of these groups as “defenders” working to protect ecosystems and resources. This represents a crucial gap. Climate literature (and wider climate governance frameworks) tends to recognize who these people are — such as Indigenous Peoples, women-led organizations and youth activists — but without recognizing what they do, such as monitor deforestation and challenge extractive industries, or the risks they face as a result.
This difference may seem subtle, but is crucial. Recognizing someone’s identity alone doesn’t necessarily translate into protection or funding for the stewardship and advocacy these groups engage in. Not all identity groups (for example, Indigenous Peoples) are environmental defenders, and not all defenders belong to these groups, even if there is often an overlap. Recognizing defenders’ on the ground contributions, on the other hand, is important because it highlights their role in delivering concrete climate actions — and the need for institutional support and protection, not just their inclusion as stakeholders.
Protection can include early-warning and rapid-response systems that trigger protective action when defenders report threats or surveillance. It also means access to legal aid and judicial remedies, such as fast-track investigations, special counsel and public defenders trained in environmental and land-rights cases.
Meanwhile, governments are missing out on more effective and equitable climate solutions. Defenders bring unique perspectives, knowledge and lived experience — from agroforestry practices rooted in local traditions to stronger data collection and monitoring for more accurate NDC reporting — and help ensure policies are carried out more effectively. Yet threats to defenders weaken both national and global climate action by deterring those who risk their lives to safeguard ecosystems and enforce laws and policies.
What Would It Take to Support Environmental Defenders?
Frameworks like the Paris Agreement and the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP) under the UNFCCC already aim to integrate rights-based climate action into national and global goals. But they lack clear definitions and guidance on how defenders should be recognized and supported. To truly support environmental defenders, they must be incorporated into climate policy, reporting and finance.
Here are three ways this can happen:
1) Defining ‘Defenders’
The first step is defining what defenders are — not by identities, but by the concrete actions they take for climate protection and community resilience. Many don’t self-identify as “defenders.” They are individuals and communities that contribute to climate action and environmental protection. This would capture these de facto roles.
Adopting a practice-based definition in national and multilateral policymaking, alongside indicators that track defenders’ contributions to climate action, would allow policymakers to systematically recognize the people protecting ecosystems on the ground. Indicators could include community monitoring results, forest protection metrics or the number of co-designed adaptation plans.
This formalization would have three practical implications: First, recognizing defenders as a group would allow implementation of protection measures by identifying and addressing the risks they take. Second, it could enable governments to allocate budget to support defender-led initiatives. Third, it could strengthen their participation in decision-making at national and international levels by giving them space to share their knowledge on climate action and local ecosystems.
2) Protecting Defenders
Without safety guarantees, defenders cannot participate or contribute effectively. Protection requires two key elements: physical safety and legal resources.
Physical safety includes strengthening safeguards to reduce social and environmental risks and exploitation, for example, when concessionaires undertake projects in resource-rich areas. One way this can be supported is by creating early warning systems that allow defenders to report threats to the authorities and receive support, ensuring formal grievance mechanisms exist to ensure defender safety (with international backing, if needed). Another is by integrating defender protection requirements into climate funding, including zero-tolerance policies for violent reprisals.
Legal protection includes access to resources and courts. However, many defenders lack access due to prohibitive costs, limited connections and a poor understanding of the system. Where corruption is entrenched and governance weak, domestic legal systems can be used against defenders, leading to their criminalization as a way to silence them and stop their work. International accountability mechanisms — including UN human rights bodies, transnational legal networks and climate finance conditions tied to defender safety — can create external pressure where national systems fail. But they can only function if defenders are formally recognized. Without this, accountability is nearly impossible to demand.
Some progress has been made in different parts of the world. The Aarhus Convention, adopted in 1998, requires parties to “ensure that individuals exercising their rights to environmental information, participation and justice are not penalized, persecuted or harassed.” And Article 9 of the Escazú Agreement, adopted in 2018, calls for “a safe and enabling environment for persons, groups and organizations that promote and defend human rights in environmental matters.”
At the national level, climate justice laws and policies in Colombia, Mexico, Indonesia and the Philippines enshrine protection mechanisms that cover defenders and their work, while aiming to provide access to legal support.
Environmental defenders can include anyone that protects human rights related to the environment, including rights to a safe, clean and sustainable environment. They often face threats to their well-being and lack access to legal systems that could help support them. Photo by Eric Isselee/Shutterstock
However, significant implementation gaps remain.
Colombia’s law has stalled due to limited accessibility, the absence of a clear definition of who constitutes a human rights defender and a reshuffling of funds during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Mexico, a backlog caused in part by insufficient staffing prevents cases from being addressed in a timely manner, and protection measures are not always adequately implemented.
Indonesia recognizes defenders explicitly, but in practice, continued criminalization and intimidation prevent them from accessing the legal protection the mechanism provides. In the Philippines, financial and cultural barriers to filing cases, limited legal knowledge among defenders and slow processing times hinder the widespread implementation of legal framework protecting them.
Yet when defenders can access justice, legal action can drive accountability and tangible outcomes. In 2018, 25 Colombian youth aged seven to 26 years old filed a lawsuit against the government, alleging that climate change and failure to reduce deforestation threatened their fundamental rights. While a lower court initially ruled against them, Colombia’s Supreme Court overturned the decision and ordered the government to devise and implement action plans to address deforestation in the Amazon.
Defenders need legal support and safe, inclusive access to the processes behind these laws and regulations. Rights-based climate cases and stronger rule of law systems provide essential recourse when other accountability channels fail.
3) Integrating Defenders into Climate Plans
Protecting Defenders Is Essential for Climate Action
Protecting environmental defenders is a question of safeguarding human rights and life, ensuring climate justice and strengthening climate action.
People like Benitha, who put their lives on the line to defend the forests and other ecosystems that sustain them and the world, should not face these high-stake risks alone. Governments, multilateral institutions and finance bodies share the responsibility of formally recognizing and protecting environmental defenders within climate, nature and other policies.
Doing so is a matter of equity — and a climate imperative. When defenders are safe and supported, forests stay standing, emissions stay out of the atmosphere and frontline communities can continue building resilience for their own futures and the world’s.
Mette Meyknecht on 21 April, 2026, makes us meet up Zuzanna Nowicka Lawyer (Freedom of Expression Programme) at the Polish Helsinki Foundation For Human Rights.
Meet Our Members is a series where Liberties introduces you to our network of human rights defenders. We hear the stories of the people behind the organisations and why they do the work they do. Liberties is an umbrella network which coordinates campaigns with its expanding network of national civil liberties NGOs in 18 EU Member States.
Zuzanna speaks about her work with quiet defiance. No grand declarations or sweeping ideals, but with persistence in the daily decision, to keep going. “I just think it’s important,” she says simply. “I couldn’t imagine doing something that is not for the public good.”
Zuzanna is a lawyer at the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Poland, where she focuses on freedom of expression and strategic litigation. But her path into human rights law wasn’t linear. After studying law and working in various law firms, she realised something wasn’t quite right. “I was simply not feeling it,” she recalls. “I did not find myself comfortable working in those conditions.”
Despite early exposure to human rights work through internships, NGO roles, and advocacy campaigns, it took time to fully embrace it as a career. A formative moment came after graduating, when, uncertain about her next steps, a position at the Helsinki Foundation appeared unexpectedly. Her interview, she admits with a laugh, did not go well. “The internet connection was really bad… I couldn’t hear half of the things,” she says. “But for some reason, they trusted me, and I got hired.”
That was four years ago. She has been there ever since.
Zuzanna’s work today, defending freedom of expression, is deeply personal. She grew up surrounded by journalists: her parents, grandparents, and extended family all worked in the media. She explains that, from an early age, “I was a direct witness of the worsening situation in the media.” Although she initially wanted to study journalism, her parents encouraged her to pursue law instead. Today, her work spans litigation before national courts and the European Court of Human Rights, legal advocacy, training, and public engagement. She drafts opinions on legislation, contributes to coalitions, and even hosts a podcast discussing pressing issues in Poland. It’s everything,” she says of her role. “Litigation, advocacy, writing, training – all of it.”
When asked about her proudest achievement, Zuzanna does not point to a specific case. Instead, she speaks about endurance. “I think what I’m most proud of is the persistence,” she says. “I just keep going.” It is a job that demands constant adaptation, from juggling multiple areas of law, responding to rapidly changing political developments, and managing a heavy workload. At any given time, she may be handling around 20 ongoing cases, alongside urgent advocacy work.
The Frank Jennings Fellowship 2026–2027, offered by Front Line Defenders, is a prestigious early-career opportunity designed for individuals seeking practical experience in the human rights sector. This 12.5-month fellowship combines training, field exposure, and institutional engagement across Dublin, Ireland, and Geneva, Switzerland.
The programme is structured to provide hands-on experience working with human rights defenders (HRDs) and international human rights mechanisms, particularly within the United Nations system.
Programme Structure and Learning Experience
The fellowship is divided into three distinct phases, offering a blend of training and applied experience:
Initial Phase (3.5 months in Dublin) Fellows begin at the headquarters of Front Line Defenders, where they receive training on:
Human rights defenders and their protection needs
The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders
The mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur
International protection mechanisms and advocacy strategies
International Placement (6 months in Geneva) Fellows transition to an internship with Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, gaining direct exposure to UN processes and global human rights monitoring systems.
Final Phase (3 months in Dublin) Fellows return to Dublin to consolidate learning and contribute to ongoing organisational work.
This structure ensures a comprehensive understanding of both grassroots advocacy and high-level international human rights systems.
Fellows will undertake a variety of responsibilities depending on their placement phase.
While in Dublin
Supporting Protection Coordinators in communication with human rights defenders
Assisting in drafting urgent appeals on behalf of at-risk individuals
Maintaining and updating internal databases
Contributing to reports, briefings, and documentation
Supporting follow-up on ongoing human rights cases
While in Geneva (OHCHR)
Monitoring global human rights situations, especially concerning defenders
Drafting communications and urgent appeals to governments
Analysing government responses to human rights allegations
Supporting preparation of reports for the Human Rights Council and General Assembly
Assisting in preparations for official missions of the UN Special Rapporteur
Liaising with NGOs and civil society organisations
This dual exposure enables fellows to develop both operational and analytical expertise.
Benefits and Compensation
The fellowship offers a competitive and supportive package designed to enable full participation:
Annual stipend of €30,629
13 days of annual leave during the Dublin phase
Flights between Dublin and Geneva
Health and travel insurance coverage
Access to an Employee Assistance Programme
Monthly well-being support while in Dublin
During the Geneva placement, conditions are governed by OHCHR internship regulations.
Eligibility Criteria
Applicants must meet strict academic, professional, and language requirements.
Academic and Professional Requirements
Recent graduates or candidates within one year of completing a degree
Fields of study include:
Human rights
Social sciences
Development studies
Humanitarian studies or related disciplines
Skills and Competencies
Strong written and verbal communication skills
Excellent drafting and analytical abilities
Ability to synthesise complex information into concise outputs
Solid administrative and organisational skills
Computer literacy
Language Requirements
Native or near-native English proficiency
Fluency in either Spanish or French (mandatory)
Additional Requirements
Basic knowledge of the UN system and international human rights law
Legal eligibility to work in both Ireland and Switzerland for the full duration of the fellowship
Application Process and Deadline
Interested candidates must submit:
A detailed Curriculum Vitae (CV)
A tailored cover letter
Applications must be submitted via the official recruitment platform of Front Line Defenders.
Key deadline:
14 April 2026 (midnight Irish time)
Late or incomplete applications will not be considered, and candidates are encouraged to apply as early as possible due to the competitive nature of the programme.
A woman holds up a blank sheet of paper during a demonstration against China’s strict COVID-19 lockdown measures following the deadly apartment fire in Urumqi, Xinjiang. (Photo by Frederic J. BROWN / AFP via Getty Images)
Democracy activists often face arrest, exile, harassment, or retaliation against their families. This essay explains why NED protects sensitive information about grantees, how that duty of care supports the people advancing freedom, and how NED balances discretion with accountability.
Imagine living in a place where a knock at the door in the middle of the night could mean imprisonment, or worse. This is the daily reality for countless democracy and human rights activists around the world. Their bravery makes their work not only meaningful, but also deeply consequential.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) supports those working to strengthen fundamental freedoms in transitional and fragile democracies, as well as those bravely advancing freedom in closed societies. Our grantmaking focuses on the building blocks of democratic life—free elections, independent media, and the freedoms of association, speech, and belief. Just as important, however, is our responsibility to protect the individuals who make that work possible.
This primer offers an overview of why NED carefully manages information about its grantees, including what is shared publicly, what is provided to Congressional oversight bodies, and how discretion underpins the safety and viability of those we support. Activists face vastly different risks depending on their location, visibility, and the tactics of the regimes they confront. Supporting democracy means protecting those who fight for it, including respecting their choices about public visibility to ensure their safety.
Why Public Exposure Can Be Dangerous
Speaking out in many parts of the world can mean risking arrest, exile, or death. According to Freedom House, only about one in five countries around the world is rated “free,” while The Economist’s Intelligence Unit has found that only 25 countries today qualify as full democracies. For the vast majority living under authoritarian or hybrid regimes, even symbolic acts of dissent, like holding up a blank piece of paper, can lead to life-disrupting consequences.
Authoritarian regimes understand the power of dissent and the threat posed by those who dare to speak. That’s why they’ve developed increasingly sophisticated methods to target activists, journalists, human rights lawyers, and civil society leaders, both inside their borders and abroad. Their reach extends across continents, threatening those in exile through transnational repression and those at home through direct prosecution.
The following stories from grantees illustrate why NED’s approach to protection must adapt to the risks posed by both transnational repression and direct prosecution.
Rushan Abbas at the 2025 Democracy Awards. (Photo: M.K. Mindful Media)
Case Study: Rushan Abbas and the CCP’s Hostage Diplomacy
Rushan Abbas, founder of Campaign for Uyghurs and a NED grantee, gave her first public speech about China’s abuses in Xinjiang in 2018. Her husband’s entire family had already vanished in the 2017 crackdown. Just six days after her speech, her sister, Dr. Gulshan Abbas, a retired medical doctor with no political ties, also disappeared.
“She was being targeted because of my advocacy,” Abbas said. “Every day I wake up with her eyes in my mind. Of course, I feel guilty. Speaking out in the United States as an American citizen cost my sister her freedom.”
To this day, Dr. Gulshan Abbas remains missing in China’s vast detention system—her only ”crime” being related to someone who exposed the CCP’s abuses. This brutal form of hostage diplomacy forces exiled activists into an impossible choice: stay silent or risk their loved ones’ safety.
Case Study: Natalia Arno and the Kremlin’s Transnational Reach
Natalia Arno (Photo by THOMAS SAMSON/AFP via Getty Images)
Natalia Arno, president of the Free Russia Foundation and a longtime NED partner, was forced into exile from Russia in 2012. Since then, she’s been a leading voice in exile activism, advocating for political prisoners, supporting democratic leaders, and coordinating programs to hold the Putin regime accountable.
But in May 2023, after a private event in Prague, she returned to her hotel to find the door ajar and a strange scent inside the room. Hours later, she experienced numbness, pain, and blurred vision. Doctors in Washington, D.C. confirmed exposure to nerve toxins.
“I never could have believed the scale and brazenness and how long the Kremlin tentacles are into the West,” she said. Despite years of surveillance and intimidation, Arno continues her work. “You could lose your life,” she said, listing examples of poisoned, tortured, and murdered activists. “I have been in this game for 20 years, and I can write a book about all the kinds of attacks against me in Russia.”
Activism in Exile and Under Authoritarian Rule
Authoritarian regimes target democracy advocates in two primary ways. Activists working inside authoritarian states face direct repression: denial of employment, education or housing to surveillance, interrogation, imprisonment, or death. Activists living in exile, such as members of the diaspora, confront transnational repression: intimidation, harassment, cyberattacks, and retaliation against relatives still living under dictatorship.
While both forms of courage are vital to the cause of freedom, they require different kinds of protection. For activists in exile like Abbas and Arno, visibility can be both a tool and a vulnerability—they use their public platforms to build international support while enduring harassment and threats from afar. For those working quietly inside repressive states, even the faintest association with democracy support can result in severe consequences. NED’s Duty of Care and Do-Not-Disclose policies reflect this spectrum of risk, providing flexible protections appropriate to different contexts, roles, and levels of exposure.
Visibility and Risk in Democracy Activism
Activists face difficult decisions about how visible they can afford to be. For some who live in exile, like Abbas and Arno, activism is essential to raising awareness and building international support. As public figures in free societies, they can testify before lawmakers, engage journalists, and speak on behalf of silenced communities. But even in freedom, visibility comes with the danger of transnational repression.
Abbas has faced smear campaigns, online harassment, and death threats requiring FBI involvement. Her family in China has been targeted. “Those kinds of things actually became so normal because we face this almost weekly or monthly,” she said. “And we just laugh at it and take it as the impact of our work.”
Arno’s risks didn’t end after fleeing Russia. “Being in NATO or EU countries doesn’t save us from this huge Kremlin machine,” she said. “Surveillance is still huge, cyberattacks are huge, but also physical attacks.”
These cases illustrate the first front of transnational repression: authoritarian regimes projecting power beyond their borders to intimidate, threaten, or attack critics abroad.
Iran has become one of the clearest examples of how far authoritarian regimes are willing to go to silence dissent beyond their borders. Iranian democracy activists, journalists, and human rights defenders living in exile have faced kidnapping plots, assassination attempts, surveillance, and harassment across Europe and North America. Multiple Western governments have linked Iranian intelligence services to plots targeting exiled dissidents, leading to disrupted operations, criminal prosecutions, and sanctions. Iran’s efforts to pursue critics abroad underscore the growing reality of transnational repression and the need for democracy organizations to extend duty-of-care protections even to partners living in open societies.
At the same time, this external pressure is inseparable from the repression activists face at home. For those still inside authoritarian states, the threat is direct and unrelenting. These activists continue their work at great personal risk, operating under surveillance, harassment, and the constant threat of arrest or imprisonment while pushing for democratic change.
In response to these dangers, many activists adopt a lower profile. How public they are in their work is an intentional choice to protect themselves, their families, and their networks from retaliation. While the steps they take to remain safe in authoritarian environments may mean their activism lacks the visibility of public campaigns, it is no less vital. Activists in authoritarian environments take great risks to build the infrastructure of democracy movements—documenting abuses, organizing communities, and informing international action.
In China, the Chinese government has systematically stigmatized international democracy funding. Even tenuous connections to external support and collaboration can carry severe consequences. As one activist working with international human rights and democracy organizations explained, “Me, myself, my family members, were interrogated by police officers in China.” Others have been detained and prosecuted for similar work. The Chinese government has also targeted the family members of human rights defenders in an effort to deter continued activism.
As a result, discretion is essential. “We prefer NED to not mention our names publicly,” the activist said, “in order to protect staff members and board members and even former colleagues, former members, and our families.”
Public activism draws global attention and builds coalitions, but it also brings heightened risk. Regimes often target public figures to intimidate or silence them—and to send a warning to others.
Activism that seeks to engage in quieter and less confrontational forms of engagement, by contrast, can provide greater security and sustainability, particularly in repressive settings. “While of course it’s much more dangerous for those activists who are inside Russia to speak out,” one Russian activist explained, “it’s much safer for those working in exile and most continue their work quietly.”
Human rights work in authoritarian environments demands different operational and political strategies. While the work often seeks to expose gross human rights abuses and expose corrupt networks, the ability to gather and verify the information requires close cooperation between groups that are in exile and networks that are in country.
In Tibet, NED-supported partners have documented China’s campaign to erase Tibetan identity through colonial-style boarding schools. In Venezuela and Cuba, investigative journalists have exposed corruption and human rights violations while keeping low profiles to stay safe. While international and exile organizations are often the face of the work, the networks on the ground are equally essential to what they achieve.
As Arno put it, “People are our biggest value, our biggest treasure. When activists are facing such dangerous things like imprisonment, torture, murder, we have to protect them with all possible measures.”
Supporting Activists Safely and Effectively
Since its founding in 1983, NED has supported democracy activists and citizen leaders—whether operating in exile or inside closed societies—to advance human rights and democratic values in some of the world’s most repressive contexts. NED’s Founding Statement of Principles and Objectives notes that in “societies where even [these] independent institutions are prohibited or severely restricted, the immediate objective is to enlarge whatever possibilities exist for independent thought, expression, and cultural activity. … [The Endowment] will not neglect those who keep alive the flame of freedom in closed societies.”
As a congressionally mandated independent nonprofit, NED was designed to provide support to its partners in a way that is impactful, secure, and accountable. Few donors are structured to do this work with the same level of care and discretion, which is why frontline democracy advocates consistently place their trust in NED.
Key to NED’s approach is the principle of protection through discretion. As NED’s Board of Directors approve grantmaking strategy and individual projects, the identifying details of grantees are made available to them. However, we avoid public disclosures that could expose partners to government reprisal. This is not only an ethical commitment—it is a key operating principle rooted in NED’s Duty of Care and Public Disclosure Policies, which obligates the organization to do no harm.
Without this policy of protection, many activists could not safely engage with international support. “It’s very difficult to build reputation and trust” one democracy activist said. “How you treat your grantees, with special care and understanding of the particularities of each region, should be the gold standard that all donors take as an example.”
NED’s Approach to Public Disclosure of Grantees
NED publishes listings of its current grantees twice a year on its website and includes a comprehensive listing of grantees in its annual report, complete with grant descriptions, grant amounts, and grant durations, organized by country and region. However, we do not publicly disclose personally identifiable information in these listings to avoid placing individuals at risk, now or in the future.
Some have asked why NED does not publish the personally identifying details of its grantees on its website. The reason is simple: in many cases, doing so would put a target on the backs of those we support and compromise their ability to do their work.
NED’s Duty of Care and Public Disclosure policies seek to balance the ability of our partners to operate as freely and securely as possible with our transparency requirements. At the same time, our relationship with our grantees is fully transparent. Organizations must take the initiative themselves to seek support from the Endowment. They know who we are, where our funds come from, and the values that guide our support. Activists seek out NED’s assistance precisely because it is open, accountable, and trusted.
NED respects the agency of its grantees to decide whether it is safe to publicly disclose their relationship with NED. Organizations regularly and proudly share their partnership with NED as a mark of credibility and support. Others, particularly those operating in hostile environments, often request confidentiality to safeguard their security and effectiveness. In all cases, NED ensures our partners are aware of our policies and procedures so that they can make informed decisions about their own public posture.
This approach is an ethical obligation as much as it is a matter of organizational policy. We know about the persecution of Uyghurs and underground Christians in China, the protests in Cuba and Iran, the continued repression in Belarus and Nicaragua, and human rights abuses in Burma and North Korea because courageous individuals risk their lives to report them. Supporting democracy means more than funding programs or issuing statements—it means protecting the people behind the work.
With that responsibility comes a duty: to minimize risk, not add to it through careless exposure. In a world where authoritarian regimes are increasingly sophisticated, coordinated, and ruthless in targeting dissent, discretion becomes an essential safeguard.
Transparency and Accountability
Even as NED protects grantee confidentiality in public settings, it maintains rigorous transparency and accountability to the NED Board, Congress, and U.S. oversight bodies. The NED Board reviews and approves both grantmaking strategy and individual grants. As outlined in our Duty of Care, we submit comprehensive annual plans and updates to congressional committees that outline our strategy and grantmaking priorities. We maintain active communication with Members and their staff, respond promptly to official requests for information, and create opportunities for elected officials to engage directly with our grantees—both in Washington and abroad—to better understand the real-world impact of NED-supported efforts. We likewise provide an annual report to the executive branch as a formal accounting of our work, priorities, and impact. NED consults regularly with representatives of the legislative and executive branches on our work, both in Washington and in the field, and responds to Freedom of Information Act information requests.
NED upholds strict due diligence and financial oversight procedures to ensure that resources are used responsibly and for their intended purpose. Our grantmaking is governed by the standards of all federal spending, with clear agreements, financial reporting requirements, and independent audits to ensure funds are used for their intended purpose.
In addition, the Endowment is subject to comprehensive oversight, including Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigations, State Department Inspector General reviews, and annual independent audits.
By combining discretion abroad with transparency at home, NED fulfills its dual responsibility: protecting those who advance freedom in repressive environments while remaining transparent and accountable. As authoritarian threats grow more complex and far-reaching, we will continue strengthening our Duty of Care so those who defend democracy can pursue their work safely, effectively, and with confidence in the support behind them.
Front line Defenders on 27 March 2026 shared an update on human rights defender Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy:
On 23 March 2026, the Leninskii District Court of the City of Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, ordered the release of a woman human rights defender Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy from prison. At the preliminary session of the retrial in her case, the Court changed the measure of restraint and granted her release from the penal colony where she had been detained. Her release is conditional upon an order not to leave the country. The retrial is scheduled to begin on 7 April 2026.
Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzyis a woman human rights defender and journalist. She is the director of Temirov Live and Ayt Ayt Dece. Temirov Live is a YouTube-based media outlet that investigates and reports on corruption by state and non-state actors in Kyrgyzstan, founded in 2020 by Bolot Temirov, a prominent Kyrgyzstani human rights defender and journalist. Ayt Ayt Dese is a YouTube-based project aimed at popularising human rights issues through the performance and publication of folk songs on human rights topics. Among other topics, Ayt Ayt Dese has covered investigations by Temirov Live.
On 23 March 2026, Leninskii District Court of the city of Bishkek commenced the retrial of the case of Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy with a preliminary session. The retrial was set following a decision of the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan on 10 March 2026. Based on Opinion No. 52/2025 by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial and overturned the previous rulings that sentenced the woman human rights defender to six years in prison.
At the preliminary session, Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy’s lawyers filed three motions. First, the defence attorneys requested the Court to declare the expert witness evidence from previous trials as inadmissible, arguing that authorities had pressured the expert witnesses into giving false testimonies. The issue of evidence tampering by the authorities was previously highlighted in the case of human rights defender and whistleblower Zhoomart Karabaiev, who was on trial for reporting that authorities pressured expert witnesses to provide statements supporting the prosecution. The second motion requested that the Court immediately and unconditionally ceases all judicial proceedings against Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy. The third motion sought a change in her measure of restraint, from detention in the penal colony to release under the condition that she remains in the country. While the Court denied the first two motions, it agreed to change the measure of restraint for Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy, leading to her release later that day.
Upon her release, Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy expressed gratitude for the support she has received since the beginning of the prosecution against her in 2024. However, she also shared that she was subjected to psychological pressure and violence from the authorities in the penal colony, which aimed at exacerbating her isolation from the community supporting and defending her rights.
Front Line Defenders welcomes the Court’s decision to release Makhabat Tazhibek Kyzy, who has been targeted solely for her peaceful and legitimate human rights work. The organisation continues to call upon the authorities in Kyrgyzstan to immediately and unconditionally cease all types of persecution targeting the woman human rights defender and drop all charges against her.
The March 2026 Watchlist from the CIVICUS Monitor highlights five countries where civic freedoms are deteriorating at an alarming pace: Ecuador, Georgia, Iran, the Philippines and Benin. Each faces escalating restrictions on fundamental rights, including freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly. The Watchlist draws on research findings, partner input and testimony from activists on the ground, and signals where urgent international attention is needed.
CIVICUS MONITOR CIVIC SPACE RATINGS:
OPEN
NARROWED
OBSTRUCTED
REPRESSED
CLOSED
Ecuador Civic space rating:Obstructed Ecuador’s government has increasingly relied on militarised security measures, invoking an “internal armed conflict” to justify exceptional powers. Indigenous-led protests in 2025 were met with lethal force, arbitrary detentions and internet disruptions. Environmental and Indigenous leaders face criminalisation, with more than 200 social leaders investigated or prosecuted. A 2025 law has expanded state control over civil society organisations, enabling account freezes and burdensome reporting. Journalists face killings, attacks and suspensions of media outlets, all unfolding amid a broader erosion of judicial independence.
Georgia Civic space rating:Repressed Georgia has seen a dramatic decline in civic space, marked by mass protests since late 2024 and heavy-handed police responses. Hundreds have been detained, tortured or investigated. New laws restrict protests, impose “foreign agent” requirements on civil society and media, and threaten criminal penalties for receiving foreign funding. Opposition parties and leaders face politically motivated charges, and new rules bar many civil society actors from political participation for years.
Iran Civic space rating: Closed Iran’s civic space, already severely restricted, has worsened following mass protests over economic and political grievances. Security forces killed thousands of protesters in January 2026 during a nationwide internet blackout, and tens of thousands were arrested. After regional airstrikes in February 2026, authorities imposed another shutdown and intensified censorship. Journalists and activists face extreme risk, and some detainees now face the death penalty. Despite repression, demonstrations continue following the death of the Supreme Leader.
The Philippines Civic space rating:Repressed Civic space in the Philippines remains under pressure, with police violence and mass arrests during anti-corruption protests in 2025. Dozens of protesters face sedition charges under cybercrime laws. Human rights defenders are frequently targeted, including through fabricated terrorism-financing cases. Red-tagging—accusing critics of communist links—remains widespread. Journalists also face prosecution, including the conviction of reporter Frenchie Mae Cumpio after years of pre-trial detention.
Benin Civic space rating:Obstructed Benin approaches its April 2026 presidential election with shrinking democratic space. Strict electoral rules have limited the field to two approved candidates, and the January 2026 legislative elections produced a parliament without opposition representation. Authorities increasingly use the Digital Code to prosecute journalists and critics, while media outlets face suspensions and mandatory government messaging. Protests are routinely banned or dispersed, and fear of reprisals has led to widespread self-censorship.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 