Ms. Awa Dabo has extensive experience in human rights, crisis recovery, peacebuilding and prevention, humanitarian affairs and development. She has held several senior level positions within the UN, at country and headquarters levels, most recently as Director and Deputy Head of the UN’s Peace Building and Peace Support Office (DPPA/DPO), where she has been leading and managing efforts to develop peacebuilding strategies and initiatives, and building a strong interface with internal and external partners.
Ms. Dabo previously served as Chief of Country Oversight and Support, for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Regional Bureau for Africa, Senior Adviser and Head of the Crisis and Fragility Policy and Engagement Team for the Crisis Bureau of UNDP, Country Director for UNDP in Tanzania, and Regional Programme Manager and Team Leader at UNDP’s Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery.
Ms. Dabo, who started her UN career as a UN Volunteer (UNV), also worked with other UN and non-UN entities, including the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and the African Society of International and Comparative Law.
Ms. Dabo holds an LLM in International Human Rights Law from the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom. In addition to her native English, Krio and Mandinka, she is fluent in Pidgin and Wolof.
On 3 June 2026 UN experts expressed dismay at the death in custody of Indigenous Miskitu leader and lawmaker Brooklyn Rivera, and the allegations of enforced disappearance of seven members of his family who had come to claim his remains.
“It is outrageous that repeated warnings and calls for protection have gone unheeded. We consider it an act of cruelty that the Nicaraguan Government is reportedly not allowing Brooklyn Rivera’s family to make decisions about funeral rites and the burial of his remains,” the experts said. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2026/03/14/where-is-nicaraguan-indigenous-leader-brooklyn-rivera/]
They called for a prompt, effective, thorough, independent, impartial and transparent investigation into the circumstances of Rivera’s death in line with international standards, in particular the Minnesota Protocol, and for those responsible to be held accountable.
UN human rights mechanisms have followed this case since 2023 and have repeatedly raised concerns for Brooklyn Rivera’s life, physical integrity, health, and well-being. On 22 August 2025, the human rights experts wrote to the Government of Nicaragua about Rivera’s alleged arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance. They also requested proof of life from Nicaraguan authorities, following rumours of his death in custody. There was no response.
“The reported serious violations committed against Brooklyn Rivera and his family must stop. The Nicaraguan Government must reveal the fate and whereabouts of the seven missing family members and release them immediately,” the experts said.
They urged authorities to immediately respect the rights of Rivera’s family, including granting them access to all relevant information and records, ensuring their participation in decisions regarding his remains, and allowing funeral rites to be carried out in accordance with the family’s wishes and Miskito traditions.
The case of Brooklyn Rivera comes against the backdrop of a grave and sustained deterioration of the human rights situation in Nicaragua. On 1 May 2026, Human Rights Council’s experts warned of a pattern of enforced disappearances, incommunicado detention and detention conditions that could amount to torture or other cruel treatment. In March 2026, the report of a Group of Experts on Nicaragua described repression and persecution by authorities as systematic, amounting to, prima facie, crimes against humanity.
“Rivera’s case cannot be separated from the broader and deeply troubling human rights context in Nicaragua, including the repression of dissent, attacks on civic space, and the persecution of Indigenous leaders, human rights defenders and those perceived as opponents,” the experts said.
The arrest and subsequent enforced disappearance of Rivera occurred after his return from participation in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2023, the experts noted.
ISHR introduces a new on-line course on advocacy for environmental human rights defenders, a practical, self-paced resource for activists, community leaders, and allies to defend the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment using UN and regional mechanisms.
Environmental human rights defenders are those who protect our planet and defend the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. They are Indigenous Peoples, farmers, scientists, journalists and young activists from all over the world.
Despite their vital role, more than 2,253 of them were killed, harassed, or persecuted between 2012 and 2024 according to Global Witness. More recently, the Business and Human Rights Centre found that the most dangerous sectors in which to pursue activism to defend rights are mining, agribusiness and fossil fuels.
Behind those numbers are stories of resistance and solidarity.
Why a new course for environmental human rights defenders?
The past few years saw an increased number of positive developments for the protection of the environment and environmental human rights defenders.
This includes the recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, the Human Rights Council’s Resolution 40/11 recognising the role of environmental defenders, the Escazú Agreement enshrining the latter’s rights in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the creation of the Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention. All these developments also require defenders to understand how and when to use these mechanisms.
I became an environmental human rights defender by coincidence. I need practical tools like this to help me navigate spaces for my advocacy. The ISHR Academy is really a useful one! Christopher Opio, Uganda
Chapter 1 examines the legal and conceptual foundations of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, the role of environmental human rights defenders in addressing the triple planetary crisis, including accountability of States and non-State actors.
Chapter 2 provides strategic and practical guidance to advance environmental justice through UN human rights mechanisms like the Human Rights Council, the Special Procedures, the Treaty Bodies or the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and translate local defence into international advocacy.
Chapter 3 dives into regional mechanisms and other tools, in particular, for the protection of environmental human rights defenders. This includes rapid response mechanisms in Europe and Latin America, and other options designed for African and Asia-Pacific defenders through regional institutions and tools.
Free, self-paced, modular and flexible, each chapter can be taken independently, enriched with case studies, videos, and additional resources. You set the pace according to your needs.
How do I know if this is for me?
You know that bringing international attention could create pressure for change, but you don’t know where to start? You have an idea of who the Special Rapporteur on climate change is, the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights does, but don’t know the steps to engage with them?
The pathway walks you through exactly this.
Whether you are a community leader facing displacement, an environmental lawyer seeking international leverage, a representative of a grassroots organisation whose government has stopped listening, a young advocate learning to navigate international spaces, or an NGO supporting defenders on the frontline — this pathway was built for you.
Environmental human rights defenders are often the first to raise the alarm. I often meet people who face pressure or harassment for defending environmental rights and without knowing that international tools can support them. In this module, I will explain what my mandate can do and how defenders can engage with it.
Astrid Puentes Riaño, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to a healthy environment
By the end of this pathway, you will be able to:
Understand who environmental human rights defenders are, the contexts they operate in, and the legal frameworks for their protection
Identify international and regional advocacy avenues, within the UN and beyond, to advance the right to a clean, healthy environment
Plan strategic engagement with mechanisms based on your context, and hold governments and non-State actors accountable.
The shock of the cancellation of RightsCon in Zambia this year is still reverberating amongst human rights defenders who are grappling with the implications for their advocacy work. Like other networks across the globe, APC was impacted by this turn of events that disrupted the plans of many of its members, as well as staff; it wasn’t just a financial blow, but the loss of an opportunity to meet and strategise face-to-face, to network with donors and other organisations, and raise awareness about key advocacy issues that needed to be pushed forward on the global digital rights agenda.
While RightsCon 2025 was hosted in Taipei, Taiwan, AccessNow attributed the cancellation at least in part to behind-the-scenes pressure from China for Taiwanese participants to be excluded from the event in Zambia. This wasn’t necessarily something new for civil society. APC member in Taiwan Open Cultural Foundation (OCF) explained that Taiwanese civil society has seen China react strongly even to seemingly non-political international events when it believes its sovereignty claims or geopolitical interests are being challenged. JCA-NET, a member based in Japan, also pointed to several similar restrictions on participation in events in the past: “It is not uncommon for major powers to block foreign participation in important international conferences,” the organisation’s Toshi said. “Last year, the United States blocked PLO Chairman Abbas from attending the UN General Assembly. Japan also refused to issue visas to some participants for the 2023 IGF in Kyoto.”
But having an international event of this size “postponed” by a government just days before it was due to start – which the Special Rapporteur Gina Romero called a “clear violation of the rights to freedom of assembly, association, and expression” – was, for many, unprecedented. It was, as one APC member from South Asia summed up, a “sobering reminder that digital rights work does not happen in a neutral space.”….
“Political deviations have become extreme and a consensus over the universality of human rights no longer exists,” said Pavel Antonov from Bluelink, an organisation based in Bulgaria and advocating for digital rights in the European Union. “National governments can no longer be trusted on their commitments. It’s a wake-up call for human rights defenders around the world.”
…“This happened to Zambia now, but this could easily happen in the US or an EU member state,” warned Antonov.
And the signs are there. “I work in the private sector for economic reasons but also for political reasons,” said one anonymous APC associate also based in the EU. “I do not work in the NGO space or in human rights anymore as I am an immigrant in an EU country with a very restricted civic space. If I expressed my views about Palestine and certain other conflicts I might lose funding and residence. I am not happy to be a victim of chilling effects, but my family and children are currently more important. A talk at the University in my city was cancelled today and raided by the police.” The question then becomes: Where do activists find a sense of certainty, of at least something they can rely on? Who can they trust?
For many in APC, the answer lies in putting faith in their own political commitment to building bottom-up structures driven by communities. “As a fundamental principle, we should not equate the state with the diverse people living within its borders,” said Toshi. “It is important to prioritise these diverse people above all else, rather than the state.”
Part of this re-thinking how solidarity could best be actualised also raises the question of how expensive it is to participate in conferences such as RightsCon – especially in the context of the currently strained funding environment.
“The cancellation of RightsCon imposes a significant financial burden on civil society organisations across the board, but in particular the ones in the Global South,” said Betancourt. It is not only organisations in the Global South who are struggling to find the resources to participate in the many forums that happen each year. While JAC-NET had competing advocacy priorities, and the language of the event was a barrier, RightsCon was simply too expensive for them to attend in-person despite being based in Japan.
For some this offered a moment to pause and reflect, a chance to ask: Can things be done differently? There was a need to “become more collaborative within the digital rights movement itself, particularly in how limited resources are used,” said Ramanujam.
“As civil society organisations, we must work to avoid duplicating efforts, build on each other’s strengths, and work more strategically based on our different positions and capacities within the broader ecosystem.”
“I would like to see international and regional digital rights organisations and networks come together and figure out how regional and global rights convenings can build on each other,” said Chat Garcia Ramilo, APC’s Director. She mentioned several annual regional convenings “spearheaded by like-minded civil society organisations” to illustrate her point. Apart from the Digital Rights Asia-Pacific Assembly, which attracts activists, academics, techies and policy makers in that region, three of them were held in Africa alone: the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAFRICA), the Digital Rights and Inclusion Forum, and Bread & Net, which bills itself as the leading digital rights ”unconference” in West and North Africa. …
Most in the APC community nevertheless also emphasised how important forums such as RightsCon amongst others including the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) were for organising around digital rights.
“We need to continue finding, creating and advocating for these spaces, acknowledging and supporting the range of expressions and reactions, even if we don’t fully agree with all parts of it,” another member from the region said. “These spaces are crucial to exchange ideas, learn from each other, get inspired but also to demonstrate collective power.”
As we assess the impact of this year’s RightsCon cancellation, the APC network is also reflecting on the lessons learned and the tools already at our disposal to help us move forward. Overall, a call to share learnings and strengthen joint action emerged as a common thread across many reflections within the APC network.
Sharing a glimpse of what the APC community would have brought to RightsConIn a push to create alternative spaces for community exchange, when we reached out to our network for this article, we also asked: ”If RightsCon had gone ahead, what key message would you have highlighted in your sessions/interventions?”While we will not be able to reflect the full, compelling agenda and APC’s priorities for this year’s event, here we present some of the insights shared:https://www.canva.com/design/DAHKtmLB-cA/6UrGaUUEYVmbrqCoFmq10Q/view?em
On 15 April 2026 The ICJ condemned the continued deprivation of liberty of Serbian lawyer Cedomir Stojkovic and the criminal proceedings against him on charges of incitement to violent overthrow of the constitutional order and disclosure of official secrets, which appear to constitute reprisals for the exercise of his right to freedom of expression. On 4 April 2026, Serbia’s Bar Association (Advokatska komora Srbije) expressed concern that the political nature of the charges against him and the three-year period covered by the indictment “give rise to the suspicion that his detention, along with other measures imposed against attorney Stojkovic, are being used as a means of coercion, rather than as a means of ensuring the unobstructed conduct of criminal proceedings.” The Bar Association demanded that Stojkovic be released pending trial.
“The prosecution of a lawyer for social media posts expressing criticism of the authorities is incompatible with Serbia’s obligations under international human rights law and standards,” said Temur Shakirov, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme Director. “The Serbian authorities must release Stojkovic and ensure that lawyers can exercise their right to freedom of expression without fear of reprisal.”
The political nature of the charges, the breadth of the indictment covering social media posts over a three-year period, and the severity of the restrictive measures imposed on him, including pre-trial detention, house arrest and a prohibition on posting on social media and on participating in public life, give rise to serious concern that he is being prosecuted to punish him for his public criticism of the Serbian authorities.
Stojkovic was arrested on 29 December 2025 and held in pre-trial detention for 30 days before being transferred to house arrest on 27 March 2026. He remains subject to restrictive measures, including a prohibition on posting on social media and on participating in public life. The charges relate to 17 social media posts published over approximately three years, which the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade has characterized as incitement to violent overthrow of the constitutional order and disclosure of official secrets.
On 24 March 2026, the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers addressed a communication to the Serbian Government expressing concern that several provisions of a series of amendments and newly adopted laws relating to the judiciary and the prosecution authorities “may not be in line with international human rights standards related to the independence of the judiciary and the right to a fair trial, including: the impartiality of the prosecution service, the separation of powers, and the ability of judges and prosecutors to perform their functions free from undue influence, pressure or interference.”
On 3 May 2026, UNHCR published “I am addicted to the truth”: A Venezuelan journalist finds safety and purpose in Canada“, written by Zeba Tasci in Ottawa.
For more than 15 years, Venezuelan journalist Halim Naim built his career on one principle: telling the truth. “I am addicted to the truth,” he says. However, that commitment came at a cost. Reporting in a country where freedom of expression was steadily eroding, Halim faced threats, censorship, and detention. As his visibility grew, so did the risks. Despite the danger, he continued his work—leading political coverage, interviewing senior public and political figures, reporting national events, and defending the public’s right to be informed. But the pressure intensified. After speaking about contested elections and giving a platform to opposition voices, threats extended beyond him to his family.
“I separated from my family to protect them,” he recalls. Soon after, Halim fled Venezuela. He sought refuge in Colombia, where he continued advocating for human rights and supporting fellow Venezuelan refugees. But life remained uncertain. Without secure legal status and amid ongoing safety concerns, he struggled to rebuild. “I felt like I was working in hiding.”
In 2025, after years living in exile, he was identified by UNHCR as a journalist at risk and was referred to Canada’s Human Rights Defenders resettlement program. The program is designed to protect individuals who face threats because of their work defending human rights—journalists, activists, and community leaders whose voices are often targeted. For many, it offers a rare and urgent lifeline: a safe pathway out of danger and a chance to continue their human rights work in freedom.
For Halim, the process moved quickly. Within months, he and his family arrived in Canada. “Canada saved me,” he says simply. Beyond safety, the program also provided recognition. “I never felt like a number. I felt like a professional who could contribute.”
By offering a pathway to safety and a supportive resettlement process, the program allows human rights defenders not only to escape persecution, but to rebuild their lives with dignity and purpose. It also enables them to continue contributing their expertise, whether through journalism or advocacy, in their new communities.
Canada’s Human Rights Defenders program offers safety to people defending human rights and face serious risk because of their work. These individuals may be journalists, lawyers, activists, environmental defenders, people working in women’s rights, LGBTQI+ activists, and community leaders. In 2025, UNHCR identified over 100 cases to be recommended for the program.
Halim hopes to use his experience to contribute both to Canada, and one day, Venezuela. His goal remains the same: telling the truth to defend human rights. For Halim, the program that brought him to safety represents something larger than his own story: a commitment to protecting those who speak out against injustice, and ensuring voices are not lost.
“Exile did not silence us. Exile ignited voices, made them stronger, made them more solid, more secure.”
On Tuesday 12 May 2026 the Guardian reported that more than 110 Nobel laureates have called for the immediate and unconditional release of Narges Mohammadi, the imprisoned Iranian human rights activist and Nobel peace prize laureate, after she was transferred to hospital amid concerns over her rapidly deteriorating health
In a statement 112 Nobel laureates urged the Iranian authorities and the international community to act “without delay” to secure Mohammadi’s release and ensure her continued access to medical treatment.
The human rights activist has experienced severe weight loss, unstable blood pressure and serious cardiac symptoms while in detention, and was found unconscious in her cell after a possible heart attack. Mohammadi’s transfer to hospital is only a temporary respite and her representatives fear she will be returned to prison if her condition improves.
The signatories included 26 Nobel laureates in chemistry, 12 in economics, five in literature, 29 in medicine, 11 peace laureates and 29 in physics, and include the authors Annie Ernaux and JM Coetzee.
Iranian human rights activist and 2023 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi has returned to her home after being discharged from hospital, her foundation said.
Defenders Coalition executive director Kamau Ngugi during the launch of the organisation’s 2026 Strategic Plan at a Nairobi hotel/HANDOUT
An ambitious initiative aimed at strengthening the protection and capacity of human rights defenders in Kenya has been unveiled amid growing concerns over shrinking civic space and rising threats against activists.
Defenders Coalition, a national organisation that works primarily to protect Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) in Kenya, announced plans to establish Haki Village, a resource hub designed to offer safety, training and support to those championing justice and accountability across the country.
Speaking during the launch, Defenders Coalition Executive Director Kamau Ngugi said the initiative would serve as a safe haven for activists and civil society actors operating in increasingly difficult environments. “It will be a safe space for research, wellness, training and protection,” Ngugi said. The launch comes at a time when concerns are growing over the safety of individuals and groups who speak against injustices, corruption and abuse of power, especially as political activities ahead of the 2027 elections begin to intensify.
Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) chairperson Claris Ogangah, who was the chief guest at the event, welcomed the initiative, saying it comes at a critical moment when many human rights defenders require protection and institutional support. “Anybody who speaks against injustice needs to be protected,” Ogangah said.
She noted that the establishment of Haki Village complements the work already being undertaken by KNCHR and various civil society organisations seeking to safeguard civic space and uphold democratic freedoms in the country. Ogangah warned that the period leading to the 2027 General Election is likely to witness increased political activity, including campaign rallies and demonstrations that may at times turn violent.
Ngugi said the initiative forms part of the organisation’s broader 2026 Strategic Plan, which will guide interventions over the next five years.
According to him, the civic space in Kenya continues to face increasing pressure and could deteriorate further as the country approaches the next General Election.
“The civic space in Kenya is repressed and may narrow towards closed status as we head to the 2027 General Elections and beyond,” he said.
Ngugi observed that threats against human rights defenders are becoming more complex and sophisticated even as both global and local environments for activism grow increasingly uncertain.
He further argued that many countries, including Kenya, often fail to fully recognise and protect the important role played by human rights defenders, exposing them to intimidation,
On 20 May 2026 , Maja Romano wrote a long piece “Better not bigger: Digital services alternatives across our network“.
A recent article in The Guardian highlighted the growing public interest in moving away from dominant corporate platforms such as Amazon, Google, Meta, Apple and X to more rights-respecting and sustainable alternatives, mentioning APC member GreenNet as one example of an ethical internet service provider. The article reflects an increasingly common concern: dependence on a concentrated number of big tech companies leaves communities vulnerable to surveillance, control, political interference and environmental harm. Yet much of the debate in the Global North still frames the issue primarily through market competition, for example, how Europe can reduce dependence on American technology giants by supporting European companies instead.
For many members and partners in the APC network, the challenge runs much deeper than replacing one corporate provider with another and is not as simple as assessing whether technology is headquartered in the United States, Europe or elsewhere, nor is it simply a matter of creating alternatives for individual personal choices. It is about who controls digital infrastructure and services, whose interests it serves, and whether communities have meaningful power and agency over the technologies they use. It means fostering an environment that encourages the development of diverse technologies, grounded in lived experiences, which can reinforce rights rather than undermine them.
Across APC’s network, there are member organisations who have spent years building community-centred and rights-respecting alternatives rooted in social and environmental justice alongside collective care. Their work offers a different vision of the digital future, one where infrastructure is seen not as a profit-driven extractivist commodity, but as a commons. Within this article we connect with several members and APC’s own tech team for their reflections on alternatives to big tech services.
Today was the funeral of one my best friends and, more importantly, one of the most significant architects of the international human rights system as it developed in the last 50 years. Theo (Theodoor Cornelis) van Boven, was born in Voorburg on 26 mei 1934 and died peacefully in Maastricht on 9 mei 2026.
I have had the honor to work with him for many years [our lives intertwined over a long period of time and on different locations] and wrote about him several times. Most recently “Courageous Leaders and NGO Initiatives” in Ramcharan and others (ed), The Protection Roles of Human Rights NGOs, Essays in honour of Adrien-Claude Zoller, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, 2023 (ISBN 978-90-04-51677-9), pp 614-636.
So, here a large part of the section on this great man: This section is about a man who was crucial in getting the United Nations and NGO partners to deal with human rights protection. Much has been written about his work and the enormous contribution Theo van Boven made to the UN human rights machinery as we now know it. .. Nowadays the United Nations has an elaborate machinery to deal with human rights violations. The system is far from perfect and still too often subject to political pressures and selectivity but there are now a great many thematic and country mandates, emergency sessions and there is an International Criminal Court against impunity. Wind back 40 years and none of this existed. The violations were there for all to see but not for the United Nations, which preferred to consider this part of the ‘internal affairs of sovereign states’. The man who would make it his life’s mission to change this, Theo van Boven, got in 1977 the position from where to do it: Director of Human Rights in the UN.
His teenage years were eaten up by the second world war. His memories of that period, his strict protestant background and his law studies in Leiden led him to enter an area that was not so obvious at the time: international human rights. He studied in the USA, wrote there a thesis on freedom of religion and soon afterwards, around 1960, he found himself as a young diplomat shaping the human rights policy of the Netherlands. A decade later the protest against the Vietnam war, the violations by the Greek colonels, the coup d’état in Chile and President Carter’s new policy on human rights pushed human rights suddenly higher on the political agenda. Theo had become an expert member of the UN Sub-commission on Human Rights and was one of the engineers of the first UN effort to investigate large-scale human rights violations, namely Chile. I myself met him when he was still a young professor lecturing on human rights in Amsterdam. Then – in the summer of 1977, the same month I started at the ICJ – he was appointed Director of the small human rights secretariat of the UN in Geneva. Here he started his work to bring dictators to accountability and to give the UN a capacity to deal with gross and systematic violations of human rights. Something that is now taken for granted but it would cost Theo his job.
Unlike his predecessors, Theo van Boven did not put all his faith in quiet diplomacy and he regularly talked about the need for the UN to address gross and systematic violations, about the mobilisation of shame and stated that the UN should care about victims. He also started to receive the victims – and the NGOs who represent them – in his office. This led to an incident that would be comic if it was not for the consequences. J. Matarollo was an Argentinean exile lobbying against the generals in his homeland who were killing left-wing opponents by the thousands. Theo agreed to hear him and told his secretary (inherited from his predecessor) to call Matarollo to give him an appointment in the early of hours of the next day. She faithfully called the Argentinean embassy assuming that he was a diplomat as these were the kind of people that normally met with the Director. The next day there was no Matarollo but an angry Note Verbale from Argentinean Ambassador Martinez accusing Theo of meeting with terrorists.
In the UN he did not conform to the image of the traditional diplomat, e.g. by pinning an anti-apartheid button on his suit, but even more so by publicly stating that NGO reports about dead bodies floating down a river in Guatemala were true, or by denouncing disappearances in Chile and Argentina. When in 1980 the government in the USA changed and Ronald Reagan and his team decided to play down violations by right-wing regimes, especially in Latin America, Theo did not flinch and openly criticised their support to these dictatorships. “Naming and shaming” by a UN official was unusual and not easily accepted by the diplomatic community. The Latin American regimes – led by Argentina and silently encouraged by the US – started a campaign to oust Van Boven as Director of Human Rights.
To complicate matters for van Boven, the new UN Secretary-General must have felt little sympathy for this particular Director, as J. Perez de Cuellar had earlier, in 1980, been appointed as Special Representative by the previous Secretary General to go to Uruguay and look into the human rights situation. His report was such a whitewash that it was heavily criticized in the Commission on Human Rights. How correct this reaction had been was shown when the famous pianist Estrella – whom de Cuellar claimed to have visited in the Libertad prison – came to Geneva and told the I.C.J and others that there had been no such visit.
In the meantime in 1980 Theo had put great energy – together with some key NGOs in creating a Working Group on Enforced Disappearances. As a mechanism focusing only on Argentina was politically not feasible, the new idea was to create a thematic mandate on the phenomenon of disappearances in the knowledge that Argentina was going to be the main target. At the decisive session the tension was enormous as the outcome of the vote was very uncertain. The Jordanian Chairman of that session had to deal with endless procedural issues, many of them proposed by Uruguay (egged on by Argentina which was only an observer). Finally, late at night the Chair felt that the resolution creating the mandate could be passed without a vote and moved to do so, but the Uruguayan Ambassador again started to put up his name plate as a sign that he wanted the floor. The Chairman quite unusually interrupting, looked directly at the Uruguayan Ambassador and said: “I URGE my brother from Uruguay NOT to do this..” The name plate slowly turned downwards again and the Chair immediately declared the resolution adopted. The NGOs and tens of Mothers and Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo in the public galleries started a spontaneous applause and quite a tear was shed. ..
In early 1982 the issue of Theo van Boven’s tenure as Director came to the fore. His contract had to be renewed which normally was a routine matter, but not this time. The issue came to an explosion when Theo’s opening speech to the Human Rights Commission was sent on a Friday evening to the UN Secretariat in NY for information and at the same time given to the UN Office of Information in Geneva for distribution at the time of delivery the next Monday morning. The UN Office of Information decided to make the statement available to the media that very Friday evening (with the usual proviso: “check against delivery”). The Representative of Guatemala in Geneva obtained a copy of the statement and vehemently objected to the statement. The SG’s office demanded that Theo should refrain from mentioning countries by name – which Theo refused not only out of principle but also because the press would notice the difference on Monday and assume that there had been pressure to remove the names.
As a family friend bringing the kids back from a ski outing, I happened to overhear Theo on the phone to New York agreeing to a ‘compromise’: he would mention at the beginning of his speech that certain passages were done in his ‘personal capacity’. A few days later Theo was suddenly informed that his contract would anyway not be prolonged. His announcement at a dramatic session of the Human Rights Commission grew quickly into an international diplomatic incident.
As I was on the verge of leaving the ICJ, I had some time on my hands. So I got the idea – warmly supported by Niall McDermot – to publish a book with a selection of Theo’s major speeches from the last five years. One of his Special assistants, Bertie Ramcharan, who had written a good part of them, was very helpful and we managed to get a book out within only 6 weeks. The first copy was flown in to Geneva by the publisher and presented to Theo at a public farewell which the ICJ had organised for him. NGOs, some UN staff and students showed up in such large numbers at the university hall that the fire brigade had to refuse access to late comers. Speech after speech – including by Saddrudin Aga Khan – cantered on Theo role in getting the UN machinery on human rights to deal with violations more concretely and on his support for human rights NGOs…
With Ian Guest and many others, I remain convinced that Theo’s dismissal from the UN was the result of pressure by Latin American dictatorships with support from the Reagan administration. As stated in People Matter, he was “hired and fired for the same reason: his deep commitment to human rights”.
After his dismissal Theo and his family returned to the Netherlands where many were very disappointed that there was no real interest in giving him an equivalent position in the foreign affairs department and he ‘ended up’ in the new University of Maastricht as professor of international law, where together with others such as Cees Flinterman he bent the research programme into his favourite direction: human rights. He continued his involvement in international activism in a variety of functions: with NGOs (e.g. European Human Rights Foundation, IMADR, International Alert), and with the UN (e,g. the Sub-commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Compensation 1990 -1993, Special Rapporteur on Torture 2001-2005, first Registrar of the UN Yugoslavia Tribunal). In 1998 he became the Head of the Dutch Delegation to the Rome Conference which created the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In 1985 he was called to Buenos Aires as a witness to testify against the nine military leaders (including Videla) for their human rights violations in the period 1976 en 1983. The UN had advised him not to go but he felt that he should do anything to end the impunity of these perpetrators. Theo’s testimony – he was called already on the 2nd day – was seen as crucial in establishing that the leaders of the Junta must have known about the massive violations. Theo took the same position with regard to the father of princess Maxima Zorreguieta (the wife of the king of the Netherlands). As Minister of Agriculture Jorge Zorreguieta must have known about the atrocities and should at least have taken distance instead of denying any knowledge. A position which Theo took in 2001 and was still heard defending in 2012.
In the light of Theo van Boven’s recurring clashes with Argentina it must have given him great moral satisfaction when on 26 November 2009 he received a degree honoris causa from the University of Buenos Aires as well as the highest decoration from the Government.
ICTJ stated: “Van Boven’s commitment to the pursuit of justice was relentless. He spoke up about impunity and accountability in contexts of repression such as the military dictatorships in Argentina and Chile, where he also championed the cause of the disappeared, even when political pressure limited others from doing so. Today, ICTJ honors his voice, his perspective, and his deep-rooted legacy. Inspired by his resolve, we will continue our commitment to uphold human dignity above all else in the pursuit of justice and lasting peace all over the world, however long it takes.“
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 