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.“
In this episode of Democracy Tomorrow, Scott Leckie celebrates the life and legacy of Theo van Boven, a pioneering international human rights lawyer and former head of the UN Centre for Human Rights. Joined by Professor Cees Flinterman and Hans Thoolen, they reflect on van Boven’s courageous defence of victims, his role in advancing international human rights law, and his commitment to justice, accountability and human dignity. The discussion also explores the future of the human rights movement, the United Nations, global democracy and the importance of defending our shared humanity.
The late Honduran environmentalist Juan Lopez sits on a rock on the outskirts of Tocoa, Honduras, on September 28, 2021 [AFP]
On 12 May 2026 Al Jazeera reported that the Honduran authorities have arrested three people, including a powerful politician, accused of plotting the 2024 assassination of an environmental leader, an incident that became a symbol of government corruption. Adan Funez, former mayor of the city of Tocoa, was captured at his home on Tuesday on suspicion of masterminding the killing of Juan Lopez, following years of accusations by religious and environmental leaders.end of list
Lopez was an anti-corruption crusader who led a community effort against an iron oxide mining project in Colon, a rural region of northwestern Honduras, which activists said endangered the area’s dense jungles and crystalline waters, including protected reserve areas.
Accusations also emerged against Funez, a power-broker in the region’s decades-long bloody agrarian conflict. The death brought back stark memories of the global outcry over the 2016 murder of Honduran environmentalist Berta Caceres.
Funez’s arrest on Tuesday comes more than a year after Lopez’s assassination.
On 12 May 2026 PEN America sounded the alarm on a deepening global crackdown on free expression, reporting in its Freedom to Write Index that more than 400 writers are behind bars for the first time since the Index launched in 2019.
In 2025, a total of 401 writers were jailed across 44 countries – up from 375 writers in 40 countries the year before. Over the past seven years, the number of jailed writers worldwide has risen by 68 percent, underscoring a steady and alarming escalation in the suppression of dissent.
China remains the world’s leading jailer of writers, with 119 cases – making it the only country to exceed 100 writers held behind bars. The sharpest increase came from Iran, where authorities carried out 17 new arrests, driving numbers back toward the peak levels seen during the 2022 ‘Woman, Life, Freedom’ protests. The spike signals a renewed and aggressive campaign to silence critical voices. The escalating suppression in Iran intensified in the aftermath of the June 2025 war with Israel, sweeping up both newly targeted writers and long-persecuted dissident voices. Among those arrested were online commentator Hossein Ronaghi, who was detained in June; a group of scholars and translators detained in November, including economists Parviz Sedaghat and Mohammad Maljoo, sociologist Mahsa Asadollanejad, and writer and translator Shirin Karimi; and human rights defenders and authors Narges Mohammadi and Sepideh Gholian, who were violently re-arrested while speaking at a memorial service in December.
Iran was one of three countries among the top 10 jailers of writers that were simultaneously engaged in armed conflict in 2025, along with Russia and Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory. Authorities in these three countries repeatedly targeted writers who used anti-war language or themes in their poetry, music, scripts, commentaries, articles, or literary output, a key pattern that emerged in the 2025 data.
In Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory, six writers have been detained by the Israeli government over anti-war statements. Palestinian writers and commentators Mohamed Al-Atrash, Nawaf El-Amer, Radwan Qatanani, Rula Hassanein,and scholar Anwar Rostom were detained on charges of incitement or with no charges at all, in addition to Jewish-Israeli journalist and commentator Israel Frey who was investigated for terrorism, because of their commentary on the war, the genocide, and the occupation.
In Russia the government held 18 writers in prison or detention in 2025, most targeted for their anti-war expression or suspected involvement in anti-war activity. In March, a Russian military court sentenced historian and columnist Alexander Skobov to 16 years in prison for his anti-war posts on social media. Other writers opposed to the war have fled into exile to avoid prosecution or jailing for their dissenting viewpoints.Overall, the top 10 top jailers of writers are China and its autonomous regions, including Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong (119); Iran (53); Saudi Arabia (27); Vietnam (24); Türkiye (22); Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (21); Russia (18); Belarus (17); Egypt (13); and Myanmar (10). [https://iranfocus.com/human-rights/57848-record-number-of-imprisoned-writers-worldwide-iran-ranks-second-with-53-jailed-writers/]
Several countries appeared in this year’s Index for the first time including Togo, Mozambique, and the United States. The U.S. case centers on the weeks-long detention of Sami Hamdi, a British opinion writer and columnist, who was detained in what PEN America views as part of the U.S. government’s weaponization of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Hamdi, an outspoken critic of Israel, was on a speaking tour and had just attended a conference when ICE officers stopped him at San Francisco International Airport and held him in custody for two weeks.
“The fact that the United States is in our Freedom to Write Index for the first time should be a sharp wake-up call for everyone in the country who claims to value free expression,” said Liesl Gerntholtz, managing director of the Freedom To Write Center. “No government can misuse its own detention and immigration systems to silence or intimidate independent voices and call itself a democracy.”
The First European Forum on Environmental Human Rights Defenders (EHRDs) invites individuals and organizations committed to the promotion, protection, and respect of environmental and human rights across Europe to express their interest in participation. This landmark Forum represents a significant opportunity for Environmental Human Rights Defenders, civil society organizations, institutions, policymakers, and advocates to engage in meaningful dialogue, collaboration, and knowledge exchange on pressing environmental and human rights challenges affecting the European region.
The Forum will be held on 3–4 June 2026 at the headquarters of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. The event is jointly organized by the Council of Europe, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, and the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention. Additional collaboration is provided by the UNECE Aarhus Convention Secretariat, several Human Rights Council Special Procedure mandate holders, and a range of civil society organizations actively working throughout Europe.
Purpose of the Forum
The Forum aims to strengthen networks among Environmental Human Rights Defenders and supporting organizations while fostering regional cooperation and advocacy. Participants will have the opportunity to:
Share experiences and best practices
Discuss emerging environmental and human rights issues
Explore strategies for protection and advocacy
Build partnerships across sectors and countries
Contribute to discussions on policy and accountability mechanisms
The gathering is expected to attract a diverse range of participants from across the Council of Europe member states, including grassroots defenders, activists, indigenous representatives, youth leaders, academics, legal experts, international organizations, and civil society actors.
Event Format and Languages
The Forum will be conducted exclusively as an in-person event. Online participation or virtual attendance options will not be available. Participants are therefore encouraged to prepare for travel and related logistical arrangements should their participation be approved.
Registration and Selection Process
Submitting an Expression of Interest does not automatically guarantee participation in the Forum. All applications will undergo a comprehensive review and selection process conducted by the organizers. Applicants whose participation is approved will receive an official registration confirmation letter. The review process will take place on a rolling basis to allow selected participants sufficient time to make necessary arrangements, including:
Visa applications
Travel planning
Accommodation bookings
Administrative preparations
Interested individuals are therefore strongly encouraged to submit their applications as early as possible.
Funding and Financial Support
Due to limited available resources, the organizers will only be able to provide financial support to a select number of Environmental Human Rights Defenders. Funding decisions will be based on several factors, including:
Resource availability
Geographic diversity
Gender balance
Inclusion and representation criteria
Nature of environmental and human rights work
Applicants who meet the general participation criteria but are not selected for financial support may still receive an invitation to attend the Forum through self-funded participation.
The organizers anticipate that the majority of participants will need to finance their own attendance. Institutions, donor organizations, and networks that support Environmental Human Rights Defenders are encouraged to assist participants financially where possible.
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.”
and also: Fifty members of the European Parliament are demanding that FIFA investigate its president, Gianni Infantino, over alleged violations of the football federation’s own political neutrality rules.
FairSquare announced a major public campaign tin July aimed at serious reform of football’s world governing body, offering the public the opportunity to add their names to an updated ethics complaint against the federation’s president.
On 20 April 2026, DW has awarded its 12th Freedom of Speech Award to Jimmy Lai. A prominent advocate for press freedom & democracy in Hong Kong, the founder of the Apple Daily newspaper has been detained in solitary confinement since 2020.
Image: Anthony Wallace/AFP
On honoring Jimmy Lai, DW Director General Barbara Massing said: “Jimmy Lai has stood unwaveringly for press freedom in Hong Kong at great personal risk, even as space for independent journalism became increasingly limited. With Apple Daily, he gave journalists a platform for free reporting and a voice to the democracy movement in Hong Kong. His commitment reminds us that press freedom is never a given – it must be constantly defended. With the DW Freedom of Speech Award, we honour his indispensable dedication to democratic values.”
The DW Freedom of Speech Award will be presented on June 23, 2026, at the DW Global Media Forum, DW’s international media conference, in Bonn.
Jimmy Lai was born in southern China in 1947 and, as a young child, fled to Hong Kong in 1960. The British citizen founded the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily in 1995 and later became one of the city’s most prominent advocates for democracy, financially supporting democratic parties and politicians and taking part in the mass protests of 2019 and 2020. Following the introduction of China’s national security law in Hong Kong in June 2020, Lai was later arrested and has remained in custody, and in prolonged solitary confinement, since December 2020. Regardless of his British citizenship, the Hong Kong authorities continue to deny the United Kingdom consular access to him.
In early 2026, a Hong Kong court sentenced Jimmy Lai to 20 years in prison. He had been convicted in December 2025, following a two-year trial, on charges including “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and conspiracy to publish “seditious material.”
“One of the reasons why they put you in solitary confinement, of which my father has been for more than five years now, is to tell you that nobody cares about you, that you’re going to die alone. And all the support and this award show that that is not the case. That people who fight for freedom, people who fight for the freedom of others, are never alone,” Jimmy Lai’s son Sebastien told DW in an exclusive interview.
Indigenous environmental human rights defenders (IEHRDs) across Latin America face disproportionate levels of violence for protecting land, water, and territory. Of the 146 environmental defenders killed or disappeared in 2024, approximately one-third were Indigenous. This overrepresentation reveals the structural risks faced by Indigenous Peoples at the forefront of environmental defense.
A study by Nefeli Poulopati, Ezihe Chikwere and Paulina Macías Ortega for Kennedy Human Rights Centre published on 30 April 2026 explores who IEHRDs are, the legal protections available to them, the challenges they face, and cases that reflect their ongoing resistance and struggle across Latin America.
The study looks at Legal Frameworks, Violence against IEHRDs, Impacts of Extractivism, and looks Ahead: A Differentiated Approach…
States must adopt an intersectional approach in all measures taken to protect the rights of IEHRDs. A differentiated, preventive, and collective approach to protecting IEHRDs requires applying a gender, ethno-racial, and cultural perspective when determining the level of risk faced by an IEHRD. The ethnic reality of the territory and the traditional ways of Indigenous peoples need to be taken into account when designing protection schemes, to ensure they align with these communities’ practices. The special relationship of Indigenous Peoples to the land reinforces States’ obligation to protect IEDHRs.
One way to fulfill this obligation is to decide on protective measures for IEHRDs in consultation with Indigenous communities, a practice that is often not followed by States. It is particularly important for governments to consider the heightened risk that IEHRDs face when they oppose development megaprojects. States should adopt the necessary measures to establish or strengthen systems to monitor and control these practices in a manner consistent with their legal obligations.
However, as the cases above illustrate, formal recognition does not equal protection. Instead, it is the first step to rethink the colonial origins of the extractivist system that perpetuates power imbalances, thereby weakening safeguards at the regional and local levels.
To learn more about this work, visit the Civic Space Case Tracker, which maps leading ongoing judicial cases litigated by local organizations and lawyers in Asia, Africa, and the Americas.
