Secondary menu
Feed aggregator
Mali Opposition Politicians Feared Forcibly Disappeared
In Mali on Thursday, two political opposition leaders went missing, sparking fears they may have been forcibly disappeared.
Abba Alhassane, 68, is the secretary general of the opposition party Convergence for the Development of Mali (Convergence pour le développement du Mali, or CODEM). His colleagues said that on May 8, 2025, masked gunmen claiming to be gendarmes arrested him at his home in the capital, Bamako, and took him away in an unmarked car.
The same day, unidentified men took El Bachir Thiam, a leader of The Change party (Le changement, or YELEMA) off the streets of Kati town, about 15 kilometers from Bamako, according to party members and local media.
Alhassane and Thiam’s colleagues said they have searched for them in police and gendarmerie stations across Bamako and Kati to no avail. Authorities have not provided any information on their whereabouts, nor have they indicated if their cases are being investigated.
Both leaders’ parties were involved in a large gathering that Mali’s political opposition organized on May 3 to protest the military junta’s April 30 decision to dissolve all political parties and name the junta’s leader, Gen. Assimi Goïta, as president until 2030.
General Goïta, who took power in a 2021 coup, has repeatedly promised to hold elections but has continued to delay the restoration of civilian rule. The military authorities have also jailed and forcibly disappeared political opponents, activists, and dissidents, and severely restricted freedom of expression and association.
During the May 3 gathering, hundreds of people took to Bamako’s streets. At least 80 political parties and 2 civil society organizations drafted a declaration calling for the junta to return Mali to civilian rule by December 31, 2025, create a timetable for the return to the constitutional order, and release political prisoners.
The Malian Council of Ministers responded by suspending all political activities in the country, citing the need to maintain public order.
International human rights law defines enforced disappearance as the detention of a person by state officials or their agents and a refusal to acknowledge the detention or to reveal the person’s fate or whereabouts. “Disappeared” people are at high risk of grave abuse.
The disappearance of Alhassane and Thiam sends a chilling message to the political opposition in Mali. The junta should immediately disclose their whereabouts and release them.
UK: Court Ruling Threatens Trans People
(London) – A United Kingdom Supreme Court ruling on April 16, 2025, threatens the rights of trans people, Human Rights Watch said today. In For Women Scotland v. The Scottish Ministers, the court ruled that “sex” in UK law refers to a person’s sex assigned at birth.
The UK has issued gender recognition certificates since 2005, recognizing legal gender changes and enabling people to change documents such as birth certificates and passports. But the court decision, and the UK authorities’ reaction, have undermined the gender recognition certificates. Authorities’ interpretations of the judgment effectively forced trans people to use sex-segregated public services and facilities according to their sex-assigned at birth, and contrary to their identity and appearance. Trans people can also avoid using these services and facilities altogether, or be forced to use segregated facilities, posing risks to their safety and human rights.
“The judgment in For Women Scotland v. The Scottish Ministers is severely regressive,” said Yasmine Ahmed, UK director at Human Rights Watch said. “While implementing this ruling, authorities across the UK should protect trans people’s rights by ensuring that services and facilities remain accessible, inclusive, and safe for everyone.”
The case concerned the Scottish Government’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which aimed to simplify the process for individuals to obtain legal recognition of their gender by removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis of “gender dysphoria.” The Supreme Court concluded that the only acceptable legal definition of “sex” is the biological sex assigned to a person at birth, and that no adjustments to that legal designation should be recognized by law, even if the person has a gender recognition certificate. The Supreme Court said that the rights of trans people are separately protected from discrimination under the Equalities Act 2010, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate, but it failed to enumerate how that protection can be effectively implemented.
In effect, the court ruling has led to authorities prohibiting trans people from entering single-sex spaces that align with their gender identity even if they have received official recognition of their gender from the government. The Equality and Human Rights Commission issued guidance on the judgment without adequate consultation, further entrenching the idea that trans people should only be treated according to their sex assigned at birth. The ruling has led to authorities excluding trans people from single-sex spaces that align with their gender identity and treating them in such circumstances as having the gender that corresponds to their assigned sex at birth.
The ruling also comes in the context of an often toxic debate about trans rights in the UK, in which trans people are portrayed as a threat to the safety of others and their views and lived experience are ignored, Human Rights Watch said.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the UK is a party, provides for everyone’s right to recognition before the law, and the right to privacy. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in charge of interpreting the ICCPR, has called on governments to guarantee the rights of transgender people, including the right to legal recognition of their gender, and for countries to repeal abusive and disproportionate requirements for legal recognition of gender identity.
In 2002, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Goodwin v. United Kingdom that the “conflict between social reality and law” that arises when the government does not recognize a person’s gender identity constitutes a “serious interference with private life.” Since then, the court has ruled that various abusive requirements for gender recognition, like sterilization and other medical interventions, violate trans people’s human rights. Momentum around legally recognizing people’s gender identity based on self-declaration has been growing, with 20 countries now enshrining a rights-based process in law.
Other high courts around the world have considered the issue of legal recognition of transgender people and issued rulings that protect their rights. For example, the Supreme Court of Nepal in 2024 ruled that Rukshana Kapali, a transgender woman, should be legally recognized on all documents as a woman without having to submit to medical verification. In 2015, the Colombian Constitutional Court overturned a previous decision that had found sex to be an objective matter of fact that could be determined by external authorities. Instead, the court held that there was no “true” or objective gender: it is a matter for individuals to autonomously decide and for states to recognize.
The rights of intersex people are also threatened by the UK Supreme Court ruling. Intersex people are born with sex characteristics that fall outside of classical definitions of “male” and “female,” often leading to abusive non-consensual surgical interventions in infancy. Some intersex people grow up to identify as their birth-assigned sex, others do not. “Sex testing” methods, most often used in sports, to determine which people are women have proven to be rife with abuse, discrimination, and racism, while being based on spurious scientific claims.
The British Medical Association (BMA) condemned the For Women Scotland v. The Scottish Ministers ruling, saying it was “reductive, trans and intersex-exclusionary and biologically nonsensical.” The BMA noted “the existence of intersex people and their right to exist in the gender identity that matches their sense of self, regardless of whether this matches any identity assigned to them at birth” and that “sex and gender are complex and multifaceted aspects of the human condition and attempting to impose a rigid binary has no basis in science or medicine while being actively harmful to transgender and gender diverse people.” University centers working on gender and sexuality across the UK joined in their condemnation of the judgment.
“It is now up to Parliament to amend the Equalities Act to make clear that sex-based protections apply to trans people with a gender recognition certificate,” Ahmed said. “The UK once was a global leader on LGBT rights, and that reputation is now blemished by a regressive court ruling and its implementation that assaults the dignity of trans and intersex people.”
Belarus: Political Retaliation against Businesses
(Berlin, May 9, 2025) – Belarusian authorities have retaliated against companies and their workers that supported peaceful anti-government protests or spoke out about human rights violations, Human Rights Watch said today. They also targeted exiled Belarusian entrepreneurs who denounced repression or participated in the Association of Belarusian Business Abroad.
In June 2025, the International Labour Organization (ILO) will hold its annual conference, including a special session on Belarus to follow up on recommendations from the ILO Governing Body in June 2023 under Article 33 of the ILO Constitution in response to Belarus’s failure to comply with its human rights obligations as an ILO member. This includes requesting Belarus to receive an ILO mission and to demonstrate how, particularly in light of the current arbitrary arrests and other repression of workers and employers, it is upholding its obligations under ILO conventions on freedom of association, the right to organize, and collective bargaining (Conventions 87 and 98). ILO constituents (states, employers, and workers) will also be asked to consider what appropriate measures they have taken or could take with respect to Belarus to ensure it cannot take advantage of relations—whether economic, social, cultural, sporting—with other ILO constituents to perpetuate or extend the violations of workers’ rights.
“Representatives of the governments and employers’ organizations at the ILO Conference should continue to pay close attention to the government’s crackdown on Belarusian businesses, employers, and workers,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Freedom of association is one of the ILO’s fundamental principles, and freedom of expression goes hand in hand with it; both are being decimated in Belarus.”
When mass protests followed the contested August 2020 presidential election, the Belarusian goverment unleashed an unprecedented assault on opponents of all kind. The authorities also targeted Belarusian businesses that supported protesters.
In the first months after the election, workers at state enterprises and private companies held mass work stoppages, often supported or initiated by their companies’ management or owners. On October 26, 2020, thousands of Belarusian businesses respected the call for a work stoppage by Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, the exiled leader of the opposition. Some also supported the opposition movement financially, sold products with protest symbols, or provided their premises for activist gatherings.
The authorities retaliated against many of those business entities with arbitrary inspections, raids, searches, administrative fines, arrests, and criminal prosecution on bogus economic crimes charges. The authorities forced employers to lay off hundreds of workers over their participation in protests.
Three former Belarusian business owners told Human Rights Watch that law enforcement and other officials instructed them to talk their employees out of protesting and to fire dissenters.
On February 24, 2024, an address by Tsikhanouskaya denounced the unfair presidential vote and Russia’s war against Ukraine, which Belarus supports. The video was shown on more than 2,000 screens used for advertisements across Belarus, in the streets, shopping malls, and public transportation.
Pro-government Telegram channels claimed that Legion 104, a company that provides software for remote content management on screens, and its head, Andrei Smoliak, were responsible. One Telegram channel published a video showing four detained employees of Legion 104 “repenting” on camera for their alleged involvement in the 2020 protests. Human Rights Watch was not able to determine whether the “confessions” were coerced or where and when the video was filmed.
Smoliak, who was on a personal trip to Poland at the time and chose not to return to Belarus for fear of prosecution, said that Legion 104 had been hacked.
Smoliak said in an interview that about 10 of his employees had received short-term jail sentences. Some were beaten by law enforcement officers, and one was sentenced to three years of house arrest because officials allegedly found photos from the protests on his phone. Smoliak also said that the authorities ordered other businesses selling similar software in Belarus to suspend their services.
In spring 2022, reportedly in retaliation against doctors providing medical assistance to injured protesters in August 2020, the authorities annulled the licenses of several medical centers, forcing them to shut down.
Numerous entrepreneurs closed their businesses in Belarus and relocated abroad as a result of the government’s pressure.
One entrepreneur, whose company sold medical products, had volunteered with the team of presidential contender Viktar Babaryka prior to the 2020 elections. Babaryka was subsequently arrested and is serving 14 years on politically motivated charges. The entrepreneur told Human Rights Watch that he faced threats from the authorities, closed down his business, and left the country.
He has since traveled to Belarus on short visits, and every time the border guards and State Security Committee (KGB) officers have questioned him about his business abroad, his past work for Babaryka’s team, and his political views. They threatened him with arrest and repeatedly had his phone scanned.
Some private companies that operate in Belarus faced pressure for their alleged former or current affiliation with exiled entrepreneurs.
In August 2020, Mikalaj Murziankou, the co-founder and former CEO of a Belarusian IT company, Iomico, recorded a video addressed to Usevalad Yancheuski, then-director of High-Tech Park, a group of IT companies that has a favorable legal and tax status in Belarus. In the video, Murziankou criticized Yancheuski for calling on IT companies to stay away from the protests. Murziankou has since transferred ownership of the company to a former partner and left Belarus because of threats from the authorities.
Murziankou said that in March, the authorities detained five of his friends and former business partners, one of whom remains in detention. KGB officers questioned them about their affiliation to Murziankou and threatened to charge them with “funding terrorism” and planning a coup as a part of a criminal group with Murziankou.
On March 26, authorities also detained five Iomico employees. Law enforcement officers raided the company’s office and seized computers, servers, documents, and its seal, effectively preventing the company from taking part in any legal activities, including filing tax-related documentation.
Murziankou is a California ambassador of the Association of Belarusian Business Abroad (ABBA), an organization aiming to unite and support Belarusian business abroad that the Belarusian KGB declared an “extremist formation” in October 2023. Soon after, the authorities searched and seized Murziankou’s apartment, apparently due to the case against ABBA.
The authorities have also designated ABBA’s co-founders, Yauheni Bury and Marina Girin, as “extremists” and in December 2023 put them on wanted lists. Girin said that she and the group had also faced smear campaigns online.
In May 2024, the authorities issued an order to confiscate the assets of another former IT business owner and member of ABBA, Philip Daineka, as a suspect in a related criminal investigation into the “creation of or participation in an extremist formation.” In August 2020, Daineka had sent a letter to High-Tech Park, urging it to restore internet access restricted by the government during the protests. After being questioned by the KGB, Daineka fled the country and closed his company in Belarus.
In January 2025, law enforcement officers searched Daineka’s mother’s apartment in Belarus and questioned her about his participation in ABBA.
In December 2024, Raman Tsimafeyeu, another member of ABBA who sold his business in Belarus after the 2020 protests and relocated abroad, learned that the authorities had opened a criminal case against him in connection to his participation in the group.
“The ILO Conference should continue its scrutiny of Belarus and support the right of Belarusian workers and entrepreneurs to operate in an environment free of governmental persecution,” Williamson said.
US: Don’t Forcibly Transfer Migrants to Libya
(New York) – The United States should not forcibly transfer migrants to Libya, where inhumane detention conditions are well-documented, including torture, ill-treatment, sexual assault, and unlawful killings, Human Rights Watch said today. Based on numerous media reports citing US officials, the Trump administration may be poised to imminently deport an unknown number of detained migrants to Libya. A US judge ruled that the government cannot immediately proceed with deporting people to Libya.
The Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU) and its Foreign Ministry issued statements denying reports of a deal with the Trump administration. Its rivals, the Eastern-based Libyan Arab Armed Forces (LAAF), and its affiliated Foreign Ministry also issued statements refuting claims of a deal. When asked about the plans, US President Donald Trump said:“I don’t know.”
“It is dystopian to strong-arm a fractured country like Libya with a well-documented history of horrific detention conditions by unaccountable armed groups to take in more detainees,” said Hanan Salah, associate Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “Libya’s ill-treatment of migrants is notorious, its detention centers are hellholes, and refugees have nowhere to turn for protection.”
At the request of immigrant rights advocates, a US federal judge on May 7, 2025, ruled that any effort to deport migrants to Libya would “clearly” violate a prior court order barring officials from swiftly deporting migrants to countries other than their own without first weighing whether they would face persecution. Court filings say that Trump administration officials gave detainees held in a center in Texas oral notice and in at least one case paperwork to sign notifying them of their expulsion to Libya. They include nationals of the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, and Mexico.
Human Rights Watch has for two decades documented inhumane conditions and serious abuses in migrant detention centers and prisons in Libya. Most are controlled by abusive, unaccountable armed groups. Such violations include severe overcrowding, beatings, torture, lack of food and water, forced labor, sexual assault and rape, and exploitation of children.
Human Rights Watch and other groups have also documented pervasive long-term arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances of both men and women, killings under torture, and unlawful killings in places of detention.
The abuses and violations of detainees’ rights are systematic and widespread, and the United Nations has said they amount to crimes against humanity. Major humanitarian organizations including UN agencies and experts do not have regular access to Libya’s prisons and detention centers.
Every annual report on human rights practices in Libya published by the US State Department since at least 2011 highlights patterns of abuse against migrants and refugees, including arbitrary detention, abduction and kidnapping, inhumane detention conditions, and torture and ill-treatment by armed groups and criminal gangs.
Libya’s judiciary is fragmented and overwhelmed, with a lack of adequate judicial review and due process rights. Armed groups and quasi-security forces who control detention facilities do not always carry out release orders or comply with court summonses of detainees.
Deep divisions persist in Libya with two the rival authorities vying for control. The GNU, appointed as an interim authority through a UN-led consensus process, and affiliated armed groups control western Libya. Their rivals, the LAAF and affiliated security apparatuses and militias, control eastern and southern Libya. A civilian LAAF-affiliated administration is known as the “Libyan Government.” Armed groups and security agencies operate detention facilities across the country, while the GNU Justice Ministry exercises nominal oversight over prisons.
GNU-affiliated security forces in March conducted raids in several western cities including Tripoli, violently arresting migrants and refugees amid a resurgence of discriminatory and racially motivated statements by authorities in both the eastern and western parts of the country. The Tripoli Internal Security Agency on April 2 further escalated its repression, shutting down the headquarters of 10 international nongovernmental organizations that provided support to migrants and refugees.
One court filing also references a Lao detainee verbally informed that he would be imminently removed to Saudi Arabia on a military flight. Human Rights Watch has documented Saudi Arabia’s deplorable rights record for years, including detention conditions migrants have experienced such as torture, beatings, serious allegations of deaths in custody, and extreme overcrowding, as well as past cases of torture and ill-treatment of Saudi detainees.
The Trump administration has used the Alien Enemies Act as a run around basic due process and human rights protections to carry out mass deportation of migrants, including to remove at least 137 Venezuelan men to El Salvador, where they are being held arbitrarily, indefinitely, and incommunicado in a notorious prison.
It has carried out mass expulsions of 299 third-country nationals to Panama, subjecting them to harsh detention conditions and mistreatment, while also denying them due process and the right to seek asylum. It has also summarily expelled 200 third-country nationals, including 81 children, to Costa Rica.
The European Union and member states are already complicit in serious violations against migrants and asylum seekers intercepted at sea and sent back to Libya. Their continued cooperation with abusive and dangerous Libyan Coast Guard forces, providing supplies, technical support, and aerial surveillance to help them intercept Europe-bound migrants at sea, has increased the crisis. Migrants and asylum seekers who are returned to Libya by these abusive forces are detained arbitrarily and face the risk of serious harm.
Collective summary expulsions from the United States would violate international law. There is no provision in Libyan law to detain a third-country national deported from the United States. Detention of migrants in Libya is also arbitrary and violates due process rights because there is no remedy or right to appeal. Libya is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and has no asylum law or procedures whatsoever.
“Expelling people to countries known to have appalling detention conditions shows the Trump administration’s utter disregard for due process,” Salah said. “Expelling people to Libya would raise the question of whether there is any country on earth where the Trump administration would not send someone.”
Sweden Should Stop Detaining and Deporting Sex Workers
So far this year, police in Sweden have detained at least 13 women—including several foreign nationals, some who were subsequently deported—allegedly because they are sex workers, according to a news report. However, selling sex is not a crime in Sweden.
The actual number of such cases may be higher, as they are difficult to track and the deportations can occur quickly.
Though police referenced other possible immigration-related reasons for some deportations, in some of the decisions to deport sex workers, the police stated that the women posed “a threat to public order” because “prostitution is an activity that promotes and gives rise to serious crime.”
Selling sex is not criminalized in Sweden, where only the purchase of sexual services or other third-party involvement is a crime. However, vague provisions in Swedish immigration law have been used to find selling sex a ground for deportation. In practice, the policing of commercial sex in Sweden “focuses on migrants, especially on people of colour,” according to the Centre for Women, Peace and Security, with police often treating sex workers like criminals.
In a recent report documenting sex workers’ experiences with police across Europe, several women said their work is heavily stigmatized and the police were unhelpful: “When I speak with police officers, I think that … they will put me in prison,” a sex worker in Sweden said. Another stated: “I’m so much more afraid of the police than I am of my clients.”
In a recent move to further restrict sex workers’ rights, Sweden is considering a bill to criminalize the purchase of sexual acts performed remotely, such as webcamming and erotic modeling. This would further marginalize women who rely on online work for safety and economic survival, pushing them into riskier conditions and threatening their rights to livelihood, privacy, and bodily autonomy.
Our research in countries like Greece, Tanzania, China, Colombia, and South Africa shows that criminalizing all aspects of sex work drives the industry underground, increases violence, and limits access to health, legal, and social services. It also hinders efforts to identify and support trafficking victims by silencing sex workers, who are often best positioned to report exploitation.
Sweden should stop detaining and deporting sex workers based on vague and unsubstantiated claims of “public order,” which violates international obligations under human rights law, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), possibly due process rights and EU citizens’ rights to free movement. Authorities should instead take steps to protect sex workers rights and uphold their security.
Social Media Companies Should Resist Turkish State Censorship
As of Thursday morning, internet users in Türkiye can no longer access the Turkish-language X account of jailed Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu. This comes after a Turkish court arbitrarily ordered X to block the account, which has 9.7 million followers. Though X initially complied, the company later said they are challenging the order in court.
Click to expand Image Screenshot showing Jailed Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu's X page, currently blocked in Türkiye. © 2025 Human Rights WatchTurkish authorities have again ramped up efforts to clamp down on online free expression. The latest escalation follows İmamoğlu’s March 19 detention and the ensuing nationwide anti-government protests. In such a climate, social media companies increasingly risk becoming an apparatus of state censorship.
Human Rights Watch, Article 19, and the Freedom of Expression Association (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği, İFÖD) wrote to social media companies urging them to resist government pressure and uphold their users’ right to freedom of expression in Türkiye.
Amid the protests, the Information and Communication Techologies Authority (Bilgi Teknolojileri ve İletişim Kurumu, BTK), the Turkish communications watchdog, issued blocking orders indiscriminately targeting hundreds of social media accounts from grassroots student and women’s groups to high profile journalists and even accounts with no followers. According to İFÖD’s EngelliWeb project, at least 471 X accounts were blocked in Türkiye between March 19 and April 12.
In March, Meta published a case study stating that it received court orders to block content related to the protests. The company says it took no action on the protest-related requests but restricted access to content critical of the government or related to LGBTQ and feminist organizations, among others.
Meta, TikTok, YouTube, and X have faced increased pressure in Türkiye, especially since draconian amendments to the country’s internet law were introduced in 2022. While companies’ compliance with content removal requests during and after the March 2025 protests is still unclear, a look at their 2024 transparency reports paints a worrying picture. In 2024, Tiktok complied with 91.8% of Turkish government removal requests. In the second half of that year, Türkiye ranked second globally in government removal requests received by X, and the company complied with 85.66% of them.
Companies have a responsibility to resist pressure to restrict freedom of expression. However, rather than challenging censorship requests where they violate international human rights standards, social media companies have been showing greater willingness to succumb to Turkish authorities’ demands.
Amidst a broadening crackdown on free expression in Türkiye, it is more crucial than ever for social media companies to take a firm and united stance against censorship.
Indonesian Court Restricts Criminal Defamation Lawsuits
In an important step towards protecting online speech, Indonesia’s Constitutional Court on April 29 issued two rulings that provide important clarifications to the country’s Electronic Information and Transaction Law, used to regulate the internet.
For decades, government officials and powerful private actors, including companies and religious groups, have brought criminal defamation lawsuits under the internet law to silence their critics. According to the advocacy group Safenet, hundreds of cases have been filed, with 170 defamation claims in 2024. But the court’s recent rulings restrict how the law’s defamation clauses can be used going forward.
The first ruling said that the law’s definition of “public unrest” is limited to physical space, not “digital/cyber space,” rejecting lawsuits involving online posts. The second saidthat government agencies, companies, or “groups with specific identities,” including religious groups, can no longer file criminal defamation complaints under provisions designed to protect an individual’s reputation.
The petition to review the internet law’s criminal defamation clause was filed by environmental activist Daniel F.M. Tangkilisan. Tangkilisan was convicted in 2003 for “defaming” shrimp farmers operating in protected waters. He appealed and was acquitted in May 2024. In July, Tangkilisan and his lawyer, Todung Mulya Lubis, petitioned the Constitutional Court to revoke provisions of the internet law, including article 27 on criminal defamation.
The government defended the law, saying it “emphasizes the importance of accountability in freedom of speech and prevents the abuse of such freedom in the digital era.”
The court has not revoked article 27 but said that by restricting complaints only to individuals, it was preventing “arbitrariness by the law enforcer.” Lubis told Human Rights Watch that the ruling falls short because “powerful public figures” can still file lawsuits against activists who lack the resources to defend themselves.
International human rights law allows for restrictions on freedom of expression to protect the individuals’ reputations so long as such restrictions are necessary and narrowly drawn. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has said that governments should consider the decriminalization of defamation and that “imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty” for defamation. Human Rights Watch considers criminal defamation laws to be incompatible with the obligation to protect freedom of expression.
Indonesia retains several criminal defamation laws, including in the new 2022 criminal code, that do not meet international standards. In March 2024, the Constitutional Court found three defamation articles in the criminal code to be unconstitutional.
The government should review these laws and repeal all criminal defamation articles.
Justice Vital for Durable Peace in Africa’s Great Lakes Region
United States-led efforts to end the current armed conflict in Africa’s Great Lakes region appear oblivious to one of the key drivers of the hostilities: the region’s history of failing to punish those responsible for atrocities in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.
So far, talks have resulted in the governments of Congo and Rwanda signing a “declaration of principles,” promising to craft a draft peace deal. The US mediation attempts to tie peace and security to economic integration and development for the region. The principles acknowledge Rwanda’s and Congo’s “shared interest” in limiting the proliferation of armed groups and their “commit[ment] to refrain from providing state military support to non-state armed groups.”
If genuine, this could be an important step, given that states supporting abusive armed groups are facilitating war crimes.
US President Donald Trump's senior advisor for Africa, Massad Boulos, also made clear that any peace deal will be accompanied by a minerals deal, enabling US and multinational companies to invest in Congolese mines and infrastructure projects. Given how competition for resources drives human rights abuses in mineral-rich areas throughout Congo, it is imperative that the link between conflict, abuse, corruption, and resource exploitation be properly addressed.
What has so far been absent from the peace negotiations, however, is the question of who is responsible for abuses in Congo, and how they should be held accountable.
Both the Rwandan and Congolese armed forces have committed numerous grave abuses in eastern Congo and have backed armed groups that have murdered, raped, and looted. Commitments to cease military support for these groups show no sign of materializing, and no one has yet been brought to justice for providing such support.
Congolese victims and their families, activists, church leaders, and justice practitioners continue to call for an end to abuses. They also reaffirm an unequivocal demand for justice. Domestic justice efforts – which the current crisis has severely hampered – along with the International Criminal Court’s renewed investigation in Congo and other initiatives aimed at closing the accountability gap need strong, consistent support.
Any peace deal for Congo should support efforts to deliver justice for the victims of the devastating crimes committed during this conflict, as well as conflicts over previous decades.
For Mother’s Day, Ugandan Moms of LGBT People Speak Out
(Nairobi) – Ahead of a soon-to-be-released Human Rights Watch report examining the impact of Uganda’sdraconian Anti-Homosexuality Act on the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, a group of Ugandan mothers of LGBT people are gathering on May 8, 2025, to call for protection, dignity, and equal rights for their families, Human Rights Watch and Chapter Four Uganda said today.
The mothers, who have been outspoken in Uganda and even wrote a letter to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni asking him not to sign the law, will be meeting other mothers of LGBT people from elsewhere in Africa to shore up support for LGBT rights across the continent. To honor their bravery for standing up for their children in the face of social stigma and legal threats, Human Rights Watch and Parents of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG-Uganda) released a short documentary and narrative about the mothers’ struggle to protect their children.
“Ugandan mothers are speaking out to demonstrate that supporting the rights of LGBT people is not incompatible with family or African values,” said Larissa Kojoué, researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The Anti-Homosexuality Act does not just endanger LGBT individuals, it places serious strain on their families, particularly mothers, who are usually the primary caregivers and often bear the emotional and social consequences of their children’s pain.”
In the short film and accompanying narrative, the women describe the impact of the law on their lives, families, and communities and explain why they continue to support their children despite threats and stigma. All have experienced verbal attacks and harassment. Some have experienced domestic abuse by their partners and have even had to relocate.
Based on interviews Human Rights Watch conducted in 2024 with seven mothers of LGBT individuals in Kampala and Wakiso districts, the new video and witness account aim to challenge stereotypes and stigma, humanize LGBT experiences through a family lens, and provide guidance for more acceptance, Human Rights Watch and Chapter Four Uganda said. The interviews were conducted in Luganda and English.
The Anti-Homosexuality Act, signed into law in May 2023 and upheld by Uganda’s High Court in April 2024, includes the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality” and up to 20 years in prison for “promoting homosexuality.” In 2023, the seven mothers publicly petitioned President Museveni not to sign the bill. In the letter, they wrote: “We are not promoters of any agenda; we are Ugandan mothers who have had to overcome many of our own biases to fully understand, accept, and love our children.”
The law, which violates numerous human rights norms and puts Uganda in violation of its international legal obligations, is damaging people’s lives, the groups said. After the law came into force in May 2023, local groups reported that LGBT people in Uganda were experiencing increased attacks and discrimination by both government officials and other people. The upcoming Human Rights Watch report will address these rights violations extensively.
Despite the risk of criminal penalties for “promotion of homosexuality,” the mothers describe their engagement with PFLAG-Uganda as part of their role as parents. PFLAG-Uganda is a social intervention project under Chapter Four, a nonprofit organization promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in Uganda. It offers a safe space and emotional support to parents of LGBT people who want to understand LGBT issues. “We did not choose our children’s identities, but we can choose how we respond,” one mother said.
Mothers should not face discrimination or criminal charges for affirming and supporting their LGBT children, the groups said. Parliament should instead repeal all discriminatory laws and provisions, including the Anti-Homosexuality Act, and instead implement laws that protect LGBT people, their families, and those who advocate for their rights from discrimination or other forms of punishment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Media and political authorities should also avoid language or imagery that demeans, stereotypes, or exposes LGBT individuals to hate and violence.
“These mothers are showing what courage and care look like under repression,” said Clare Byarugaba, founder of PFLAG-Uganda. “Their experiences highlight how Uganda’s anti-LGBT law harms not only individuals, but entire families, which the country is mandated to protect under article 19 of Uganda’s Constitution. Their message is rooted in hope, that their resistance will inspire others in Africa to stand in solidarity and create a safe environment for all.”
Greece: Media Freedom in Crisis
(Athens, May 8, 2025) – Greece faces a media freedom crisis as a result of actions and failures by the Greek government, threatening democracy and the rule of law, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
The 101-page report, “From Bad to Worse: The Deterioration of Media Freedom in Greece,” documents the hostile environment for independent media and journalists since the New Democracy government took office in July 2019, including harassment, intimidation, surveillance, and abusive lawsuits, all of which contribute to self-censorship and chill media freedom. Human Rights Watch also found the use of state funds to sway coverage, and editorial influence over public media, further exacerbating this climate. These conditions undermine freedom of expression and the public’s right to information.
May 8, 2025 From Bad to Worse“The pervasive and deliberate constraints on journalism in Greece are creating an environment in which critical reporting is stifled and self-censorship becomes the norm,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The EU needs to recognize this as a serious threat to democratic values and the rule of law, and press Athens to change course.”
The research is based on interviews with 26 journalists from a variety of media outlets, together with academics, legal, and media experts. Human Rights Watch spoke to journalists working in print media, electronic media, television, and radio, for public, private, and independent outlets, to foreign correspondents and freelancers. Few journalists were willing to be identified, fearing reprisals. We also analyzed reports and other documents and consulted with relevant stakeholders.
Greece’s media landscape is characterized by a high concentration of ownership, with a few powerful individuals controlling many outlets. Many of them have ties to the governing party.
Twenty-two journalists described an increasingly hostile environment for their work, while six reported specific instances of harassment by high-ranking government officials related to their reporting.
One freelance foreign correspondent said: “Now I am considering leaving the country. In a real way. I just don’t see the point of putting myself through this level of anxiety. The stories do matter but the level of violence seems to have gotten worse.”
One reporter with over 25 years of experience at a major Greek private TV channel said: “What you say on TV is so controlled that you have no freedom. The control is done by those high up.... Everything is controlled. What you will say, how you will say it.”
In 2022, the government was strongly suspected to have used Predator spyware to target journalists, among others, resulting in a major surveillance scandal. Seven of the journalists indicated having evidence or strong suspicion of state surveillance, whether through more “traditional” means such as wiretapping or by being targeted with commercial spyware. This raises serious privacy and free expression concerns, and risks chilling reporting, as both sources and journalists fear for their safety.
Stavros Malichudis, an independent reporter who discovered in 2021 that Greece’s intelligence service had spied on him, said: “For many months I was in fear. In fear of meeting people, my sources, and exposing them. It took me a lot of time to disengage from what happened and start doing reporting again.”
Human Rights Watch also found that the government had exerted undue influence over state media like ERT and the Athens-Macedonian News Agency (AMNA), undermining their independence. The government also used state advertising funds to favor pro-government outlets.
Another major concern is the weaponization of the legal system against journalists, primarily through abusive lawsuits often known as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). The retaliatory defamation lawsuits filed by Grigoris Dimitriadis, nephew of the Greek Prime Minister and a former high-ranking government official, against journalists who reported on the surveillance scandal, exemplifies this trend.
In addition, while recent amendments decriminalized “simple defamation” (dissemination of a fact, even if true, that can be offensive), the laws still create criminal responsibility for “insult” and “slanderous defamation.”
Human Rights Watch also found a pattern of efforts by government and other authorities to undermine accountability. This includes invoking national security to block disclosure of information related to the surveillance scandal, investigating whistleblowers, and a reluctance to release details about the distribution of public advertising funds to the media.
There is growing international concern about the state of media freedom in Greece, including in the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index, where Greece consistently ranks at the bottom among EU member states. In February 2024, the European Parliament adopted a resolutionraising serious concerns about media freedom and the rule of law in Greece. The European Commission’s Rule of Law reports have also raised concerns about media freedom in the country, though they have so far failed to acknowledge the gravity of media suppression and its systemic nature.
Human Rights Watch shared its research findings with the government and relevant authorities and media, and their responses are summarized in the report, and available in full online. While the government has pointed to certain initiatives aimed at improving media freedom, it is unclear whether these actions will result in meaningful change. The government’s overall response largely defends the status quo and downplays the severity of the problems Human Rights Watch documented.
Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis dismissed the European Parliament’s resolution, for example, saying the country’s rule of law is “stronger than ever” and that “Greece in the past few years has often been at the center of slander” in response to criticisms of his government’s human rights record.
Greece has clear international obligations to uphold media freedom and the rule of law, principles enshrined in its own constitution as well as in the European Union’s fundamental values enshrined in the EU treaties. The European Union has a responsibility to ensure that Greece as a member state adheres to these commitments and addresses media freedom violations.
“The dismissive response of the Greek government to legitimate criticism by the European Parliament suggest stronger action from the European Commission is needed,” Williamson said. “In particular, the Commission and the EU as a whole need to monitor the situation carefully and ensure genuine progress is made on media freedom in Greece and core democratic values are upheld.”
Hong Kong: 87 Groups Condemn Arrests of Activist’s Relatives
(New York) – Hong Kong authorities’ unjust arrests of the father and brother of the prominent US-based activist Anna Kwok is an escalation of the Chinese government’s use of cross-border repression, 87 international and diaspora rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, said today in two jointstatements.
Anna Kwok’s father, Kwok Yin-sang, 68, was arrested and formally charged under a national security law that carries a punishment of up to seven years in prison. Her brother was also arrested and later released on bail.
“The Hong Kong authorities took an unprecedented action by charging the family member of an exiled activist with a national security crime to try to silence her,” said Yalkun Uluyol, China researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Foreign governments should respond to this assault on basic liberties by imposing targeted sanctions on responsible officials to protect their citizens and residents from the Chinese government’s long arm.”
The groups said that foreign governments should put in place effective measures to protect exiled activists and other critics of the Chinese government from Beijing’s transnational repression.
Guatemala Announces Crucial Water Law Dialogue
Last week, the Guatemalan government initiated a participatory dialogue to inform the creation of a national water law, a crucial first step toward addressing the country’s water and sanitation crisis.
Guatemala has more freshwater per capita than the majority of countries, yet millions of Guatemalans live without reliable access to safe and sufficient water and sanitation services due to poor resource management, insufficient regulation of commercial water use, weak sanctioning of contamination, and inadequate water and sanitation infrastructure.
A national water law should establish a regulatory system that can guarantee and protect the human rights to water and sanitation.
Indigenous people disproportionately lack access to clean water and sanitation services in Guatemala, contributing to poverty and social and economic marginalization. Additionally, women are often responsible for both collecting water and caring for themselves and their families.
Ana Chacaj Mujía, a 50-year-old Indigenous woman from Santa María Chiquimula municipality, Totonicapán department, told Human Rights Watch she walks an hour round trip to a river three or four times a day to collect water. This demanding work limits Mujía’s ability to undertake other activities, like the farming she does to earn income, but she has no choice. “Without water, you die, there is nothing,” she said.
Guatemala’s Constitution, adopted in 1985, declares water a common good and calls on Congress to pass a law regulating it in accordance with the social interest. Yet nearly 40 years later, Congress has failed to do so. Guatemala is also obligated under international law to respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights to water and sanitation.
The water dialogue marks an important step toward meeting these obligations. But for it to succeed, it should be grounded in human rights standards and lead to a law aligned with Guatemala’s international obligations. The government should also facilitate the participation of civil society, scientific and cultural experts, and affected communities, especially rural and under-resourced groups.
In particular, authorities should ensure the meaningful participation of women and Indigenous people, who have long defended Guatemala’s water resources. Under international law, Indigenous peoples have the right to be consulted on laws that affect them.
The government should also implement safeguards to guarantee that identifying information shared through the dialogue process is not used to retaliate against participants, who may fear reprisal following criminalization of other Indigenous leaders and human rights defenders.
UN Needs to Protect its Vital, Yet Underfunded, Human Rights Work
Major-power cutbacks and delayed payments amidst conflict and insecurity are testing the very principles and frameworks upon which the international human rights infrastructure was built nearly 80 years ago. Human rights need defending now more than ever, which is why the United Nations leadership needs to ensure that its efforts to cut costs don’t jeopardize the UN’s critical human rights work.
The Trump administration’s review of US engagement with multilateral organizations and its refusal to pay assessed UN contributions—which account for 22 percent of the UN’s regular budget—have pushed the cash-strapped international organization into a full-blown financial crisis. China, the second biggest contributor, continues to pay but has been delaying payments, exacerbating the UN’s years-long liquidity crisis. With widespread layoffs looming, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been forced to dig deep for cost-saving measures.
A six-page memo seen by Human Rights Watch—entitled “UN80 structural changes and programmatic realignment” and marked as “Strictly Confidential”—outlines proposals for eliminating redundancies and unnecessary costs across the UN.
The proposals include consolidating apparently overlapping mandates, reducing the UN’s presence in expensive locations like New York City, and cutting some senior posts.
While some UN80 proposals have merit, the section on human rights is worrying. It suggests downgrading and cutting several senior human rights posts and merging different activities. But at a time when rights crises are multiplying and populist leaders hostile to rights are proliferating, any reduction of the UN’s human rights capacities would be shortsighted.
Efficiency and cost-effectiveness are important, but the UN’s human rights work has long been grossly underfunded and understaffed. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights gets just 5 percent of the UN’s regular budget. Countless lives depend on its investigations and monitoring, which help deter abuses in often ignored or inaccessible locales. Investigations of war crimes and other atrocities in places like Sudan, Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, and elsewhere are already struggling amidst a UN-wide hiring freeze and pre-Trump liquidity shortfall.
For years, Russia and China have lobbied to defund the UN’s human rights work. There is now a risk that the United States, which has gutted its own funding for human rights worldwide, will no longer oppose these efforts and will instead enable them.
During these trying times, the UN should be reminding the world that its decades-long commitment to human rights is unwavering.
New Canadian Prime Minister Should Prioritize Rights
On April 28th, Canadians voted to elect a Liberal government, led by Prime Minister Mark Carney. The election took place amidst a looming trade war and threats by United States President Donald Trump to turn Canada into the 51stUS state, igniting a debate amongst Canadians on national identity and values. Moreover, the election marks a new opportunity for the Canadian government to uphold human rights at home and abroad.
Canadians chose to elect Carney over his opponent Pierre Poilievre, whose platform drew comparisons to president Trump’s agenda, including promises to slash foreign aid and eradicate “woke culture” in the country. Less than a week later, Australian voters similarly rejected opposition leader Peter Dutton, who many voters also saw as part of the same political currents that produced Trump’s electoral win.
The best way to ensure that candidates see anti-rights agendas as a political liability is to follow through on commitments to enact more rights-centered platforms.
Carney’s platform included a commitment to equality, protecting diversity, and championing rights, democracy, and the rule of law. As a founding member of the United Nations and current president of the G7, Canada should be a leader in defending rights at home and abroad, as well as strengthening international human rights systems and frameworks. Carney should put the promotion and protection of rights at the forefront of his national and international policies.
As attacks on women’s rights escalate around the world, Canada should increase efforts to defend gender equality, including by reinstating a dedicated Minister for Women and Gender Equality (a position Carney recently eliminated). Additionally, the growing threat of transnational repression, a prominent issue during the election, requires a concerted effort to establish a national framework to investigate cases. And on migrant rights, Canada should move toward abolishing immigration detention, starting with immediately ending the use of correctional facilities to hold migrants and asylum seekers, and align its legal capacity framework with human rights standards.
It is also paramount that Canada plays a leadership role in advancing accountability and justice for victims of serious crimes around the world, mobilizes atrocity prevention mechanisms, and acts to protect civilians during crises and conflicts. This includes suspending arms exports and military assistance to governments that would use that assistance to commit grave abuses.
At a time when many countries are stepping back on rights, Canada has an opportunity to be a global leader.
Competition for Minerals Should Respect Rights and the Environment
Governments around the world are increasingly competing for so-called critical” minerals. The United States, the European Union, and China have all recently negotiated agreements with producer countries seeking the lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, and other minerals used in renewable energy technologies, the defense industry, and the chips used to power artificial intelligence.
Many of the world’s mineral deposits, however, are found in conflict-affected countries and states with endemic corruption and weak government regulation. The mining industry also has a track record of human rights abuses, including links to armed conflicts and environmental harms.
On April 28, 2025, Human Rights Watch and Climate Rights International submitted recommendations to the United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, who is compiling a report on best practices for securing minerals for renewable energy while promoting rights and poverty alleviation.
In September 2024, a UN panel stressed both the urgency of phasing out fossil fuels and the need to ensure the energy transition is not used to justify irresponsible practices in the mining and processing of minerals.
Our submission drew on work documenting land loss, deforestation, toxic pollution, and other abuses in the mining industry in Guinea, Indonesia, Panama, the United States, and Zambia. It underscored that robust regulation of mining in mineral producing countries is the most important line of protection for communities and workers and the best way to ensure mining revenue contributes to the fulfilment of economic, social, and cultural rights.
International agreements, including investor-state dispute settlement agreements, should not be used to undermine governments’ ability to rigorously enforce national environmental, human rights, and anti-corruption laws. Investors and purchasers of minerals should require the mining companies they work with to uphold strong human rights and environmental standards.
As the role of minerals in global politics and energy transition grows, governments should ensure that the protection of human rights and the environment, and the need to tackle poverty and inequality, are an essential part of the conversation around whether and how these minerals are extracted.
Civil Rights Watchdog under Assault by Trump Administration
One of the most effective and enduring institutions won by the Civil Rights Movement – the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice – is under assault.
The Trump administration is attempting to remake the department to serve its ideological agenda. Under the new head of the civil rights, Harmeet Dhillon, the division is shifting focus from defending the rights of marginalized groups to targeting what the administration describes as "woke ideology." In one particularly egregious early step towards that goal, the administration has removed senior civil servants working in the voting rights section. It also ordered attorneys to abandon voting rights cases.
Born from Black Americans’ struggle to end Jim Crow laws, the division has long served as a federal check against systemic discrimination at state and local levels. It enforces federal civil rights laws in the areas of housing, education, policing, employment, and voting to protect people from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability, national origin, and other protected traits.
The Civil Rights Division once “precleared” changes to election laws in states with histories of discrimination to stop them from repeating past harms. It also participated in lawsuits to prevent and reverse laws that would infringe upon the right to vote.
Since January, attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have steadily resigned. The exodus accelerated last week with over 100 attorneys leaving because of the office’s shift in core priorities. Dhillon has said that those unwilling to align with the administration’s vision should leave.
Instead of enforcing federal laws that protect against voter suppression, racial discrimination, police misconduct, and barriers to access for people with disabilities, this administration has prioritized ideological battles aimed at dismantling civil and human rights protections. It appears to be hostile to the goals of the civil rights movement.
The recent crisis arrives amid the Supreme Court’s ongoing erosion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the crown jewel of civil rights legislation. With the court striking down the preclearance program and making it harder to challenge racial discrimination in voting cases, the Civil Rights Division is one of the few remaining vehicles for federal enforcement of voting rights. Its weakening is a direct threat to the ability of Black people and other voters to participate freely and fully in our democracy.
Rights Groups Spotlight Russia’s Abuses in Crimea
A series of policy discussions and events in Brussels between May 12-16, 2025, will spotlight the grave violations of international human rights and humanitarian law Russia has committed since it began occupying Crimea in 2014.
These abuses, which Human Rights Watch and other groups have been documenting for 11 years, require urgent attention, particularly in the context of the ongoing negotiations to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.
The initiative, called Crimea Week, should be a moment for diplomats, European Parliament members, and European Union officials to discuss with experts and Ukrainian civil society how to renew EU engagement on Crimea and strengthen the international response to the plight of Crimea’s civilians.
Russia’s abuses in Crimea became a blueprint for its abuses in other areas of Ukraine it has occupied. Russia has violated its obligations as an occupying power under international humanitarian law and obligations under multiple human rights treaties. Starting in 2014, Russia unlawfully imposed Russian legislation and policies on Crimea. Russian authorities relentlessly persecute Crimean Tatars and other residents who have openly and peacefully expressed dissent against Russia’s actions there, bringing trumped-up charges against critics and holding hundreds in arbitrary detention. Russian authorities subject Ukrainian children to military and anti-Ukrainian propaganda and try to erase Ukrainian language, culture, and identity. Russia effectively forced Ukrainian civilians in Crimea to take Russian citizenship, and those who refused faced discrimination. Some of Russia’s abuses in Crimea, such as conscripting men into its armed forces and transferring civilian detainees to prisons in Russia, constitute war crimes.
The EU and its member states have consistently drawn attention to Russia’s grave human rights and humanitarian law abuses on the peninsula. They should now insist on continued investigations into violations of the laws of occupation and other international human rights and humanitarian law.
As part of any peace negotiation, the EU should ensure, in line with international law, that there is no amnesty for grave crimes. The EU should also seek the release of civilian detainees unlawfully held by Russia and the return of all deported Ukrainian civilians.
The protection of Ukrainian activists, journalists, and lawyers should also be upheld in talks, as they fight for the rights of Crimean Tatars and other dissenters at great personal risk.
Crimea Week underscores the urgent need to address the systematic repression endured by the people of Crimea under Russia’s occupation. Negotiations need to ensure the restoration of their rights.
Torture, Death of a Ukrainian Journalist in Russian Custody
Viktoriia Roshchyna, a 27-year-old Ukrainian investigative journalist, disappeared in the Russia-occupied part of the Zaporizka region of Ukraine in August 2023. A year later, she called her family from Russian custody. That was the only time they heard from their daughter after her disappearance.
During that call in August 2024, Roshchyna told her parents she loved them and that she would return home as part of a prisoner exchange by September. Instead, in October her parents received a three-line communication from Russian authorities stating that their daughter had died a month earlier.
Roshchyna’s family received no further information about the circumstances of her death until last week, when Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office reported that Roshchyna’s body was identified among those of Ukrainian servicemen returned to Ukraine in February. The forensic examination found numerous signs consistent with torture and other inhuman treatment on her body, including bruising, a broken rib, and “possible signs of electrocution.”
An investigation by Ukrainian and international media found that Roshchyna had been detained for four months in Russia-occupied Melitopol, where she was held incommunicado and tortured with electric shocks. She was then transferred to a pretrial detention facility in Taganrog, Russia, known as a “hell on earth,” notorious for torturing Ukrainian prisoners of war and civilian detainees alike.
Human Rights Watch and other groups have extensivelydocumented enforced disappearances and torture by Russian forces during their occupation of Ukraine. We have found that Russian occupation forces in Khersonska and Zaporizka regions have arbitrarily detained, and in some cases forcibly disappeared, civilians, and unlawfully transferred many to Russian detention facilities where they were tortured. In March 2025, a United Nations investigation concluded that Russian authorities’ use of torture and enforced disappearances amount to crimes against humanity “as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population and pursuant to a coordinated state policy.”
Russia’s abhorrent treatment of Viktoriia Roshchyna and her subsequent death in Russian custody require urgent investigation and underscore the need for justice for atrocities. As talks continue around ending Russia’s war against Ukraine, all actors involved in negotiations need to ensure that in line with international law, there can be no amnesty for grave crimes, and that the immediate release of thousands of Ukrainian civilians unlawfully held by Russia is prioritized. Remaining in Russian custody means facing torture and other mistreatment.
Top African Rights Court to Consider States’ Climate Obligations
A coalition of African lawyers and civil society groups has asked the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights for an advisory opinion on 55 African Union member states’ human rights duties in the climate emergency.
Led by the Pan African Lawyers Union and the African Climate Platform, an alliance of frontline communities and human rights defenders, the May 2 petition asks the court to interpret states’ human rights obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and related human rights treaties as they regard to the protection of people most affected by climate change, implementing a just transition to clean and renewable energy sources, securing compensation for climate impacts, and enforcing corporate accountability, among other issues.
Although Africa accounts for only a tiny fraction of the global emissions contributing to the climate crisis, the continent is acutely vulnerable to climate impacts, with communities on the front lines facing droughts, desertification, and floods, which are compounded by deforestation and growing fossil fuel developments.
The coalition urges the court to consider how multinational corporations should be held accountable for rights violations related to climate change, asking it to direct states to require third parties to “comply with environmental standards that reduce carbon emissions.”
A 2023 Human Rights Watch report found that land acquisition associated with the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline has devasted thousands of people’s livelihoods in Uganda and will exacerbate the global climate crisis. The inadequate and delayed compensation for land lost to the project has affected many communities’ access to food, health, and education. Despite the industry’s devastating impact on human rights and the climate, investment in fossil fuel development in Africa is set to rise in the coming decades.
Last week’s filing comes amid a surge in efforts to involve international courts in climate justice. Similar decisions building on the nexus between rights and climate change are pending before the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Last year, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea issued a landmark opinion confirming that states must prevent ocean pollution caused by greenhouse gases.
If the African court agrees to consider the coalition’s request, its opinion could hold significant legal and political weight, further putting human rights at the center of climate action.
Bangladeshi Women’s Rights Opposed by Hardline Religious Groups
On Saturday, nearly 20,000 supporters of the Islamist organization Hefazat-e-Islam rallied in the streets of Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, to protest, among other issues, proposed government reforms to support gender equality and women’s rights.
The protesters, who claimed that “men and women can never be equal,” were opposing reforms recommended by the country’s Women’s Affairs Reform Commission. The commission was established by Bangladesh’s interim government, which took office after Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was ousted from power following mass protests in August 2024.
The commission’s recent recommendations include calling for the government to criminalize marital rape; ensure the equal rights of all women regardless of their religion, ethnicity, and class, including by instituting a single family law; provide for equal parental rights for women; protect women’s right to inheritance; increase women’s parliamentary representation; protect the rights of sex workers; build a gender-based violence-free society; and empower women through education and skills development.
The commission aligned these recommendations with the country’s commitment to democracy and secularism, two of the Bangladeshi Constitution’s fundamental principles.
At the rally, Hefazat-e-Islam demanded an end to all activities they deem “anti-Islamic,” including gender equality, a position that contradicts the constitution and international human rights law. The group has lobbied to disband the Women’s Affairs Reform Commission and pledged to organize rallies across the nation on May 23 if their demands were not met.
The interim government, led by Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus, should swiftly denounce these attacks on the fundamental human rights of women and girls in Bangladesh and give full consideration to adopting the commission’s recommendations.
The Bangladeshi government should comply with its obligations under international human rights law to ensure gender equality, including Bangladesh’s obligations as a state party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The government should also withdraw Bangladesh’s two remaining reservations to CEDAW.
Women and girls have played leadership roles throughout Bangladesh’s history, from the fight for independence in 1971 to the 2024 Monsoon Revolution, which saw the most widespread participation of women in the country’s history. Today’s period of political transition is another inflection point and a unique opportunity for Bangladesh’s government to strengthen its commitment to women’s rights. The government should not miss the chance to do so.