Secondary menu
IHRP external news feeds
Hungary: Blocking Lawsuits Undermines Rule of Law
Hungary’s government dealt a severe blow to the rule of law by issuing a decree that terminates ongoing court cases challenging a tax on municipalities, Human Rights Watch said today. The move sets a dangerous precedent for executive interference with the courts and the separation of powers.
“Shutting down court cases by decree is not how a democracy functions,” said Benjamin Ward, deputy Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “This is the government telling the courts what they can address simply because it does not like the legal challenge or those bringing it.”
The government used emergency decree powers on February 3, 2026, to immediately dismiss all lawsuits filed by at least four municipalities, including Budapest, against the central government over aspects of the so-called solidarity contribution tax for 2023-2025. All legal challenges were filed by municipalities led by opposition parties or independents. The new decree overrides all pending court cases and requires payment of the taxes in full, regardless of the unresolved legal questions. At least one judge has postponed hearings.
This latest authoritarian overreach deepens serious concerns under Hungary’s Fundamental Law and European Union law, Human Rights Watch said.
This rights-violating move is the latest in a lengthy legal battle between the central government and affected municipalities. Hungary’s Supreme Court, in a 2025 ruling, clarified that ordinary courts are competent to review disputes over the solidarity tax. Similarly, courts have ruledthat imposing the tax constitutes an administrative act subject to judicial review.
The new decree directly contradicts these rulings by declaring that the determination and collection of the contribution are merely “technical processes” and not administrative acts, thereby excluding them from court review and ordering an immediate end to ongoing cases.
The Budapest Metropolitan Court on February 5 stated the decree violates the principle of legal certainty, the principle of the rule of law, the right to an effective remedy, and the principle of judicial independence, as well as the prohibition of retroactive legislation. The court said it will initiate an individual constitutional review procedure and request a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the EU, adding that the next hearing in the case will be held as scheduled in March. The Supreme Court in a statement on February 5, said that judges assigned these cases must issue decisions.
By intervening in pending cases, the government has blatantly overridden judicial decisions and positioned itself as judge in its own dispute, Human Rights Watch said. This violates core constitutional principles including the separation of powers and judicial independence.
Under Hungary’s Fundamental Law, courts are exclusively empowered to decide disputes over the legality of administrative acts. The Constitutional Court has previously held that the solidarity tax can only be constitutional if imposed following a fair administrative procedure that respects municipal rights, and that ensuring compliance with this requirement falls within judicial competence. The new decree removes the courts’ ability to assess whether such safeguards were met.
The government has ruled by decree for nearly six years, using various states of emergency, including mass migration, the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, to justify its actions. The government invoked Hungary’s ongoing state of emergency linked to the war in Ukraine to justify this measure. The state of emergency has enabled the government to sidestep parliamentary debate and to rule by decree, without meaningful scrutiny or challenge.
Intervening to terminate lawsuits obliterates the separation of powers and erodes confidence that courts can operate free from political interference, Human Rights Watch said. EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights require effective access to courts and respect for judicial independence.
The move comes amid a broader pattern of democratic backsliding in Hungary and in the run-up to April’s national elections. Over the past year alone, the government has adopted constitutional and legislative changes restricting peaceful assembly, including banning LGBT-related events, introduced measures threatening civil society organizations, and continued its war on independent media and journalists. These developments point to a steady hollowing out of institutional checks and balances.
The EU has already raised serious concerns about the rule of law in Hungary, including under the ongoing article 7 rule of law scrutiny procedure and through setting conditions for EU funding. The solidarity tax decree adds to the growing body of evidence that these concerns remain acute and unresolved.
The Hungarian government should revoke the decree, restore access to judicial review for municipalities, and ensure that emergency powers are not misused for political ends. EU institutions and member states should closely scrutinize the move and consider its implications in ongoing rule of law proceedings.
“Right-respecting governments argue their case in court,” Ward said. “This one shuts the courts down by decree, a clear sign of how deeply the rule of law has been eroded.”
Hong Kong: Conviction of Activist’s Father a Grim Milestone
(New York) – A Hong Kong court’s conviction of the father of a prominent US‑based democracy activist on February 11, 2026, reflects the Chinese government’s escalation of its campaign of transnational repression, Human Rights Watch said today.
The West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court convicted Kwok Yin-sang, 68, of a national security offense. He is the father of Anna Kwok, 28, the former executive director of the Washington DC-based Hong Kong Democracy Council. It is the first time Hong Kong authorities have convicted a family member for an overseas activist’s peaceful advocacy.
“The conviction of Anna Kwok’s father is both cruel and unjust, and highlights the lengths the Chinese authorities will go to pressure activists abroad,” said Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Prosecuting a democracy advocate’s parent is an unlawful form of collective punishment as well as an afront to basic decency.”
The Hong Kong authorities should immediately quash the case against Kwok and release him. The sentencing hearing is scheduled for February 26; Kwok faces up to seven years in prison.
Kwok Yin‑sang was arrested on April 30, 2025, under section 90 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (also known as Article 23), which criminalizes direct or indirect financial dealings with an “absconder,” a person living abroad accused of a national security offense. The case centers on the ownership of an AIA International insurance policy Kwok opened for his daughter when she was two years old. The judge ruled that when Kwok had tried to cancel the policy, he was aware that he was handling funds belonging to his daughter.
In July 2023, Anna Kwok was among the first group of eight overseas activists that the Hong Kong authorities targeted with arrest warrants and HK$1 million (US$129,000) bounties under the city’s China-imposed National Security Law. Since then, Hong Kong police have issued similar baseless arrest warrants and bounties against 19 exiled Hong Kong activists.
The Hong Kong authorities have also sought to intimidate dozens of their family members, primarily by interrogating them. The authorities confiscated HK$800,000 (US$103,000) from the Australian-based former legislator Ted Hui, and his family for allegedly violating the National Security Law.
Collective punishment—penalizing individuals for the actions of others—violates international human rights law protections of the rights to liberty and security of person and to a fair trial.
The 19 wanted activists have faced a range of harassment. The Hong Kong government has cancelled 13 of their passports, including Anna Kwok’s. Unidentified individuals have targeted them with anonymous harassing and defamatory letters, including sexually explicit deepfakes depicting them and their families. The activists have also experienced online harassment campaigns, including rape and death threats.
The activists live in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In 2025, the US government sanctioned six Hong Kong officials for using the National Security Law “extraterritorially to intimidate, silence, and harass” activists. The other three governments have issued statements condemning the warrants but have taken no meaningful action to hold Hong Kong officials accountable. The US is also the only country to arrest an individual for allegedly harassing a Hong Kong activist on its soil, though that person was later acquitted.
Australia, Canada, the UK, and the European Union—each with its own human rights sanctions regime—should impose targeted sanctions and visa restrictions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials responsible for serious rights violations, including transnational repression, Human Rights Watch said.
Since 2020, when Beijing imposed the National Security Law on Hong Kong, over 200,000 Hong Kongers have left the city, including many activists who have continued their advocacy from abroad. Governments should strengthen protections for these activists, including by expediting their and their families’ asylum applications, and by establishing national mechanisms to counter transnational repression.
Transnational repression can be defined as government actions beyond national borders to suppress or stifle dissent by targeting critics—including human rights defenders, journalists, academics, and political opponents—particularly those from that country.
“Beijing’s acts of repression beyond its borders will continue until governments forcefully push back,” Pearson said. “Affected governments should send a strong signal to the Chinese government that it cannot silence dissent and manipulate global conversations about China with impunity.”
Hong Kong: Conviction of Activist’s Father a Grim Milestone
(New York) – A Hong Kong court’s conviction of the father of a prominent US‑based democracy activist on February 11, 2026, reflects the Chinese government’s escalation of its campaign of transnational repression, Human Rights Watch said today.
The West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court convicted Kwok Yin-sang, 68, of a national security offense. He is the father of Anna Kwok, 28, the former executive director of the Washington DC-based Hong Kong Democracy Council. It is the first time Hong Kong authorities have convicted a family member for an overseas activist’s peaceful advocacy.
“The conviction of Anna Kwok’s father is both cruel and unjust, and highlights the lengths the Chinese authorities will go to pressure activists abroad,” said Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Prosecuting a democracy advocate’s parent is an unlawful form of collective punishment as well as an afront to basic decency.”
The Hong Kong authorities should immediately quash the case against Kwok and release him. The sentencing hearing is scheduled for February 26; Kwok faces up to seven years in prison.
Kwok Yin‑sang was arrested on April 30, 2025, under section 90 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (also known as Article 23), which criminalizes direct or indirect financial dealings with an “absconder,” a person living abroad accused of a national security offense. The case centers on the ownership of an AIA International insurance policy Kwok opened for his daughter when she was two years old. The judge ruled that when Kwok had tried to cancel the policy, he was aware that he was handling funds belonging to his daughter.
In July 2023, Anna Kwok was among the first group of eight overseas activists that the Hong Kong authorities targeted with arrest warrants and HK$1 million (US$129,000) bounties under the city’s China-imposed National Security Law. Since then, Hong Kong police have issued similar baseless arrest warrants and bounties against 19 exiled Hong Kong activists.
The Hong Kong authorities have also sought to intimidate dozens of their family members, primarily by interrogating them. The authorities confiscated HK$800,000 (US$103,000) from the Australian-based former legislator Ted Hui, and his family for allegedly violating the National Security Law.
Collective punishment—penalizing individuals for the actions of others—violates international human rights law protections of the rights to liberty and security of person and to a fair trial.
The 19 wanted activists have faced a range of harassment. The Hong Kong government has cancelled 13 of their passports, including Anna Kwok’s. Unidentified individuals have targeted them with anonymous harassing and defamatory letters, including sexually explicit deepfakes depicting them and their families. The activists have also experienced online harassment campaigns, including rape and death threats.
The activists live in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In 2025, the US government sanctioned six Hong Kong officials for using the National Security Law “extraterritorially to intimidate, silence, and harass” activists. The other three governments have issued statements condemning the warrants but have taken no meaningful action to hold Hong Kong officials accountable. The US is also the only country to arrest an individual for allegedly harassing a Hong Kong activist on its soil, though that person was later acquitted.
Australia, Canada, the UK, and the European Union—each with its own human rights sanctions regime—should impose targeted sanctions and visa restrictions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials responsible for serious rights violations, including transnational repression, Human Rights Watch said.
Since 2020, when Beijing imposed the National Security Law on Hong Kong, over 200,000 Hong Kongers have left the city, including many activists who have continued their advocacy from abroad. Governments should strengthen protections for these activists, including by expediting their and their families’ asylum applications, and by establishing national mechanisms to counter transnational repression.
Transnational repression can be defined as government actions beyond national borders to suppress or stifle dissent by targeting critics—including human rights defenders, journalists, academics, and political opponents—particularly those from that country.
“Beijing’s acts of repression beyond its borders will continue until governments forcefully push back,” Pearson said. “Affected governments should send a strong signal to the Chinese government that it cannot silence dissent and manipulate global conversations about China with impunity.”
Next UN Secretary-General Should Champion Rights
United Nations member countries will select a new UN secretary-general this year to succeed António Guterres in January 2027. The change in leadership comes at a time when human rights and democracy, as well as the international organizations created to uphold those principles and provide lifesaving assistance, are under unprecedented attack.
So far member countries have formally nominated only two candidates: former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Grossi from Argentina.
The threats to the global human rights system demand a courageous leader at the UN who will put human rights at the heart of its agenda. Yet the selection process gives veto power over any candidate to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council: Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States.
But human rights are clearly not a priority for China, Russia, or the United States.
Human Rights Watch and others have long documented attempts by China and Russia to defund and undermine the UN’s human rights pillar. More recently, the United States, which played a key role in creating the UN and its human rights architecture in 1945, has rejected and defunded dozens of UN programs promoting rights and humanitarian assistance. The Trump administration has also withheld billions of dollars in UN dues, which has been a major factor in the organization’s crippling financial crisis. While Washington recently announced an initial payment toward its arrears, its actions have nonetheless seriously affected the UN’s ability to do its work.
US President Donald Trump has also been trying to sideline the UN by establishing a “Board of Peace,” modeled after the Security Council, with himself as chairman for life. Invited leaders include serial rights abusers from China, Belarus, Hungary, and Saudi Arabia, along with two men—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin—facing International Criminal Court warrants.
The UN needs a leader willing to stand up to major powers and abusive governments to defend victims of abuses and marginalized communities, and aggressively support accountability for serious crimes.
As member states nominate additional candidates, they should put forward a diverse pool, especially women and others with proven track records on human rights, and ensure a competitive and transparent process that places an exceptional individual committed to human rights atop the UN.
US-Nigeria Security Cooperation Should Prioritize Rights
The United States Africa Command has recently disclosed a small troop deployment to Nigeria to support the country’s security forces. This announcement follows the establishment of a US-Nigeria working group focused on enhancing security and counterterrorism cooperation.
Increased collaboration may be a legitimate way to address escalating violence in Nigeria, including Islamist insurgency and banditry, but transparency and accountability concerns remain paramount. The disclosure, which sparked critical debate in Nigeria, was accompanied by few details about the force’s size, mission, or deployment. Nigerian authorities said that the troops’ activities were limited to intelligence support and training, without further elaboration. Media outlets, citing anonymous US government officials, have since reported that an additional 200 troops will be deployed to provide further support.
The working group was established in response to Nigeria’s designation by the United States as a Country of Particular Concern in 2025 under the International Religious Freedom Act, citing serious violations of religious freedom. While the announcement highlights Christians as a vulnerable group, many other communities across northern Nigeria have also been affected by violent abuses, reflecting the broader and indiscriminate nature of insecurity in the country.
The working group aims to bolster accountability and law enforcement capacity by combating money laundering, disrupting terrorist financing, and improving investigative capabilities.
These goals unfold against a troubling backdrop: Nigeria’s security operations have long been marked by abuses, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, and unlawful deaths, with airstrikes often killing ordinary people without credible investigations or accountability.
These violations have fueled grievances, eroded public trust, and given rise to concerns about how new security cooperation agreements are being carried out.
Security cooperation between the US and Nigeria should ensure adherence to international human rights and humanitarian law, with safeguards firmly embedded in the working group’s framework, supported by measurable benchmarks and robust oversight to guarantee effective implementation. Transparency, harm prevention, and prompt investigation should be central elements of government policy, alongside public reporting and compensation for victims of any violations by government forces.
The US government should ensure regular reporting to Congress and strict enforcement of the Leahy Laws, which prohibit US military support to forces implicated in gross human rights violations.
Acquittal of Palestine Action Protesters Spotlights UK’s Protest Crackdown
Last week, six people linked to Palestine Action, a direct action protest group, were acquitted of aggravated burglary in connection with an alleged break in at Elbit Systems, a defense firm with close ties to the Israeli military, in August 2024. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on charges of criminal damage.
The six individuals had experienced lengthy pretrial detention, some of over 500 days, more than double the maximum limit set by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). In response to a January 2026 letter by Human Rights Watch expressing concern about pretrial detention, CPS shared that its limits “can be extended by the court where it considers that there is “good and sufficient cause” for doing so and that the prosecution has acted with “due diligence and expedition.”
More than 20 Palestine Action members are still awaiting trial and many have been held beyond maximum detention limits. These include Heba Muraisi, a 31-year-old former lifeguard and florist who engaged in a 72-day hunger strike to protest the United Kingdom’s actions with respect to Gaza and her treatment in prison.
Last year, several United Nations experts expressed concern about these prisoners as well as the application of counterterrorism legislation to police political protests. They warned against the criminalization of conduct that falls within the protected exercise of the rights to freedom of assembly, association, and expression, and the suppression of legitimate political dissent, including advocacy related to Palestine.
In July 2025, the government proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organization. Since then, over 2,700 peaceful protestershave been arrested under counterterrorism legislation, most for peacefully holding signs reading “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” This proscription is currently subject to a judicial review at the High Court, with a verdict expected in the coming weeks.
These arrests occur against a backdrop of repeated crackdowns on protest in recent years, which have been documented in Human Rights Watch’s report Silencing the Streets: The Right to Protest Under Attack in the United Kingdom. The government has not only failed to repeal legislation introduced by the last administration that restricted lawful protest but has introduced new measuresthat will further restrict protest rights. This undermines the rule of law and is already having a chilling effect.
An important opportunity to address widespread concerns raised by politicians and civil society will be the government’s independent review of Public Order and Hate Crime Legislation; however, the review does not cover the use of counterterrorism legislation. This is a huge missed opportunity and indicates this government is intent, at least in part, on continuing to try to silence the streets.
To safeguard democratic participation, the UK government needs to end its crackdown on the right to peaceful assembly and abandon its misuse of terrorism legislation.
Mexico City: Create Care Law Grounded on Disability Rights
(Mexico City) – The Mexico City Congress should seriously consider a proposal submitted by a coalition led by people with disabilities during its new session, Human Rights Watch said today. That proposal urges lawmakers to adopt a rights-based framework grounded in autonomy, participation, and independent living for care and support legislation.
The Coalition, Cuidados Sí; Apoyos También (Care Yes; Supports Too), is made up largely of people with disabilities. It includes organizations such as Mexicanas con Discapacidad, Women Enabled International, Movimiento de Personas con Discapacidad as well as human rights organizations including Yo También, Human Rights Watch, and Documenta. The coalition has submitted a proposal calling on legislators to include a dedicated chapter on support for independent living in the care and support bills currently under review by the Congress of Mexico City.
“Care and support policies developed without the meaningful participation of the people who will rely on them risk reinforcing the very dependence and exclusion they are meant to address,” said Carlos Ríos Espinosa, associate disability rights director at Human Rights Watch. “People with disabilities are not passive recipients of care and support. They are rights holders, with expertise grounded in lived experience, and their proposals deserve serious consideration.”
The coalition submitted its proposal as the Mexico City Congress moves from pre-consultations toward drafting formal care and support legislation. Members urged lawmakers to seize the opportunity to build a care and support system that expands choice, autonomy, and inclusion, in line with Advisory Opinion 31/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Tlatelolco Commitment, a regional agreement.
The proposal seeks to shift the focus of Mexico City’s care and support system away from narrow, charity-based approaches and toward a comprehensive, rights-based framework aligned with international human rights law, Human Rights Watch said. It outlines a broad range of support that people with disabilities may require to exercise their rights on an equal basis with others. These include support to access information, exercise legal capacity, prevent and report violence, ensure personal mobility, participate in education and employment, and engage fully in community and public life.
The proposal also emphasizes the central role of personal assistance and community-based services, such as centers for independent living, to prevent institutionalization and forced dependence on families.
Diana Velarde, executive director of Mexicanas con Discapacidad and a member of the coalition, said the proposal reflects what people with disabilities have long demanded in their daily lives. “For many of us, support is not an abstract legal concept—it is what makes it possible to leave our homes, participate in our communities, and live with dignity,” Velarde said. “This proposal puts into law what international standards already recognize: that care and support are rights, and that states have an obligation to ensure they are available, accessible, and centered on people’s autonomy.”
Coalition members also emphasized the often invisible costs of relying on unpaid family care and support. Sara Villanueva, a member of the coalition who requires intensive support, said the absence of adequate public systems places an unsustainable responsibility on families, particularly as the parents of people with disabilities grow older.
“In many cases, the support that allows us to live day to day is provided by our families, without pay, without rest, and without alternatives,” Villanueva said. “My parents—both in their 80s—continue to provide essential support so that I can live my life. This is not a solution that can last forever.”
Villanueva emphasized that the proposal is especially significant because it reflects the realities of people with disabilities themselves. “This coalition is made up almost entirely of people with disabilities, most of us women,” she said. “Our proposal responds to real needs and real barriers, not assumptions about our lives.”
“Aligning care and support policies with international human rights standards is both possible and effective to ensure rights for care and support providers and people with disabilities,” Ríos Espinosa said. “Mexico City has an opportunity to ensure that its legislative proposals on care and support are consistent with these standards and recognize supports for independent living as a core component of equality and dignity for people with disabilities.”
Workers Unpaid for Renovating Saudi Prince’s Tangier Palace
(Beirut) – At least 50 Moroccan companies and hundreds of their workers have not been compensated for at least US$5 million worth of renovation and maintenance work at a palace in Tangier owned by a Saudi prince, Human Rights Watch said today.
Moroccan company representatives said that their efforts to get compensation have been futile despite repeated assurances by Saudi companies and palace representatives that they will provide payment. It remains unclear which entities or companies are responsible for nonpayment.
“It is unconscionable for Saudi companies overseeing a luxury palace project to drive Moroccan businesses and their workers to the verge of economic ruin,” said Michael Page, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The complete disregard for the rights of hundreds of workers to be paid for their work, including through unfair contracting practices, should be urgently rectified.”
In 2023, the office of Saudi Prince Turki bin Mohammed bin Fahd bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, minister of state, member of the Council of Ministers, and a relative of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, contracted two Saudi companies, Modern Building Leaders (MBL) and Innovative Facility Management and Services (IFAS). They were to renovate and repair a palace owned by the prince in Tangier.
Based on documents and interviews with representatives of affected Moroccan businesses, the Saudi companies contracted work to at least 50 Moroccan subcontractors but allegedly stopped paying for labor, materials, and service since October 2024 that amounted to at least $5 million. Human Rights Watch could not independently verify these figures. Saudi companies made several partial payments to some subcontractors in January, April, and May, based on interviews and documents Human Rights Watch reviewed.
As a result, at least 11 Moroccan companies say that they are facing bankruptcy, and that hundreds of workers have lost their livelihoods. Saudi and Moroccan authorities should work together to ensure that any outstanding dues are paid in full, Human Rights Watch said.
In November and December, Human Rights Watch interviewed four representatives of the affected Moroccan subcontractors, three affected workers, and another informed source. Human Rights Watch wrote to the Office of Prince Turki and the Saudi contractors on December 10 but has not received responses. Representatives and workers interviewed wished to remain anonymous to avoid retaliation.
Human Rights Watch reviewed email correspondence between the Moroccan subcontractors and Moroccan authorities, MBL, IFAS, and the Office of Prince Turki, letters that subcontractors sent to the Saudi Embassy in Morocco and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, media reports, and a written record of a meeting between the representatives of Moroccan subcontractors, MBL, IFAS, and the Office of Prince Turki detailing the claims on unpaid dues.
People interviewed said that the last time the Saudi companies paid their Moroccan subcontractors in full was in October 2024. This was followed by partial payments to some subcontractors, including in January, April, and May 2025. Four subcontractors are owed up to $75,000, three between $75,000 and $150,000, and four more than $150,000.
“Each company’s capital [share capital] is barely 1 million Moroccan dirhams [$107,900],” a subcontractor said. “Even if they paid us now, it will not fix all the damages that have been done to our businesses and our lives.”
Those interviewed said that subcontractors have been unable to pay off or retain hundreds of employees, and that they face burgeoning loans and mental stress. Based on interviews, four of the contractors have had to lay off a total of at least 113 workers.
“I was laid off because there is no money,” said a worker who worked in the palace for a year. “I borrowed money from friends to pay rent, but it is causing problems because I cannot pay it back.” An employee who is owed four months’ salary said: “We have responsibilities and families and need the money.... How will I feed my family? How will I buy food?” A subcontractor representative who laid off over two dozen staff in 2025 said he has used up all his savings and sold assets like his car and shop to pay off his suppliers and workers. “In one or two months I will declare bankruptcy,” he said in November.
Another subcontractor representative said: “Many affected companies such as mine gave guaranteed checks to [their] suppliers that cannot be cashed, and the company managers were taken to the police because of that [for summoning due to checks that did not have sufficient funds to be paid out].”
Moroccan subcontractors have also peacefully protested and conducted sit-ins in front of the palace and IFAS offices in Tangier, including in November, based on mediareports and interviews. It remains unclear which entity is responsible for the non-payment, which has left Moroccan subcontractors in limbo. According to subcontractors, palace representatives claim that they have fully paid MBL and IFAS. However, subcontractors said that MBL and IFAS representatives claim they have not been paid, as indicated in written correspondence to the Office of Prince Turki. Human Rights Watch has sought clarification from the prince’s office, IFAS and MBL but did not receive a response.
In notes Human Rights Watch reviewed from an April 9 meeting between representatives of IFAS, MBL, Prince Turki’s office and Moroccan subcontractors, IFAS had committed to pay all remaining dues by April 30, including “all the companies in the groups” and “with no need for further negotiations.”
Human Rights Watch also reviewed letters received by the affected Moroccan subcontractors on June 27, from IFAS representatives assuring them that they were “working on securing the rest of the contractor’s dues for phase one of the project. The payments or parts of it will commence within three weeks of the date of this email.” Moroccan subcontractors said that those payments were never made.
Under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, companies have a responsibility to avoid causing or contributing to human rights violations. Companies should address unfair business practices that contribute to rights violations, including delayed contractual payments or nonpayments that fuel labor abuses and adopt fair contracting practices with business partners, including timely payment that will ensure the rights of workers.
Companies should remediate any human rights impact that they have caused or contributed to. Saudi companies’ failure to pay Moroccan subcontractors is causing immediate harm to workers’ rights to fair remuneration and an adequate standard of living, interviews showed.
A senior employee of a subcontractor said, “I was paid for four months but not for the remaining six months.... What do I do? Give the workers [I supervise] their salary or take my dues or pay the suppliers?” He said he had to move out of his home. “I had to borrow money from my family members so I can live and take care of my family... I still have not been able to pay it back.”
Human Rights Watch research in Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, has found that workers employed in companies at lower levels of subcontracting chains are vulnerable to abuses such as wage theft. Human Rights Watch also has documented for years a range of companies in Saudi Arabia individual and group cases of alleged wage abuses by Saudi companies.
“Hundreds of workers in Morocco and their families are in financial distress because they aren’t being paid what they are owed,” Page said.
Australia: Excessive Force Used Against Herzog Protesters
(Sydney) New South Wales police used apparent excessive force against people protesting Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit to Australia, Human Rights Watch said today.
Video footage verified by Human Rights Watch from a rally in Sydney on February 9, 2026, shows police punching protesters lying on the ground, violently dispersing people kneeling in prayer, and charging at and pepper spraying protesters. The New South Wales government should investigate the alleged use of excessive force by police and appropriately discipline or prosecute those responsible.
“The New South Wales authorities’ adoption and use of unnecessary restrictions on legitimate protest doesn’t increase safety, but opens the door to abuse,” said Annabel Hennessy, Australia researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The police use of excessive force against protesters is a further erosion of rights in Australia.”
President Herzog was officially visiting Australia after being invited by the Australian government following the December attack on Jewish holiday celebrants at Sydney’s Bondi Beach. The visit sparked widespread protests in Sydney and across Australia against Herzog, whom a United Nations Commission of Inquiry accused of “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” in Gaza. Police enforcing special orders from the New South Wales government prevented the demonstrators from marching, leading to clashes and dozens of arrests.
Human Rights Watch spoke to two journalists who covered the Sydney protest and two legal observers, independent monitors who help protect people’s rights during public assemblies. Human Rights Watch also verified videos of the protests posted on social media or shared directly with researchers. The New South Wales government had granted police additional powers in response to planned protests over Herzog’s visit, including increased authority to issue “move-on” orders. In December, the state parliament also passed anti-protest laws that restrict protests in most of Sydney’s central business district. The actions follow years of successive New South Wales governments restricting the right to peaceful assembly.
The police had sought to prevent protesters from marching following a rally outside of Sydney Town Hall. The Assistant Police Commissioner, Peter McKenna, said that police officers had been “threatened, jostled, and assaulted,” and that they needed to enact special powers to direct the protesters out of the central business district. Police said they had arrested 27 people and charged a number of people, including for violating public order and assault. Human Rights Watch has not been able to verify the cases against people who were arrested and charged. However, Human Rights Watch verified footage that shows police punching individuals while restraining them. In two verified videos taken from different angles near the Town Hall, two police officers are seen repeatedly punching a pinned protester in the head and torso. In one video, red marks can be seen on the protester’s torso and a voice is heard shouting “Stop it! Stop it!”
Four additional videos posted online and verified by Human Rights Watch show scores of police lined up on Bathurst Street chasing a group of protesters. One officer is seen repeatedly spraying a protester in the face with what appears to be pepper spray.
Two journalists who covered the event said that while the crowd was angry that police were restricting them from marching, they did not observe any protesters committing violence. Nabil Al-Nashar, one of the journalists, said he had covered at least two-dozen protests in Sydney over the past two years and this was the first time he had witnessed this level of police violence. “I’d witnessed arrests at other protests, but they were few and far between and never violent,” he said.
The other journalist, Andrew Quilty, who has also extensively covered Sydney protests, said the police were “definitely more aggressive than I'm accustomed to seeing from police in Sydney.” He said he saw police using what appeared to be pepper spray but had “not seen any particular physical provocation from protesters that caused them to use it.”
Rebecca Payne, a legal observer, said police had pepper sprayed her and others before they charged crowd near Sydney Town Hall. She said she had been videoing the protest when police sprayed the crowd and “started punching, shoving, pushing, and charging” at protesters.
The pepper spray blinded her when police were shouting at protesters to move. They pushed the protesters into an area that was difficult to traverse and required going underneath a physical barrier. She said she ended up sheltering in a convenience store and later received hospital treatment for her eye. She shared footage of the incident and a photograph of her injury with Human Rights Watch. In the video, a police officer is seen spraying what appears to be pepper spray toward Payne and others in the crowd.
Another legal observer, Alison Whittaker, said police had repeatedly punched, pushed and pepper sprayed her. She said a police officer had grabbed her phone and thrown it into the crowd, and removed Whittaker’s goggles, worn to protect against pepper spray, and threw those away. Both legal observers were wearing high-visibility vests that identified their role.
The New South Wales government contends that its new laws are necessary for public safety. However, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Saul, has warned that the laws “clearly violate international law” by indiscriminately restricting the rights of law-abiding protesters. He also said the laws impede constructive collaboration between police and organizers that can mitigate risks. Other recent protests in Sydney that the authorities facilitated largely took place without major incident.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a party, upholds the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly. Any law enforcement response to protests must meet international standards. The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials state that security forces should apply nonviolent means before resorting to the use of force. Where it is required for a legitimate law enforcement purpose during an assembly, only the minimum force necessary may be used.
Pepper spray is a hand-held chemical irritant used to incapacitate a violent assailant or to help arrest a suspect who is violently resisting. According to the UN Guidance on Less-Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement, chemical irritants should only be used when a law enforcement official has reason to believe there is an imminent threat of injury.
“The New South Wales police’s use of excessive force in Sydney shows the anti-protest laws are not making the community safer,” Hennessy said. “Instead of restricting people’s right to peaceful assembly, the New South Wales government should reform its laws to ensure it is meeting international human rights standards.”
Australia: Excessive Force Used Against Herzog Protesters
(Sydney) New South Wales police used apparent excessive force against people protesting Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit to Australia, Human Rights Watch said today.
Video footage verified by Human Rights Watch from a rally in Sydney on February 9, 2026, shows police punching protesters lying on the ground, violently dispersing people kneeling in prayer, and charging at and pepper spraying protesters. The New South Wales government should investigate the alleged police use of excessive force and appropriately discipline or prosecute those responsible.
“The New South Wales authorities’ adoption and use of unnecessary restrictions on legitimate protest doesn’t increase safety, but opens the door to abuse,” said Annabel Hennessy, Australia researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The police use of excessive force against protesters is a further erosion of rights in Australia.”
President Herzog was officially visiting Australia after being invited by the Australian government following the December attack on Jewish holiday celebrants at Sydney’s Bondi Beach. The visit sparked widespread protests in Sydney and across Australia against Herzog, whom a United Nations Commission of Inquiry accused of “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” in Gaza. Police enforcing special orders from the New South Wales government prevented the demonstrators from marching, leading to clashes and dozens of arrests.
Human Rights Watch spoke to two journalists who covered the Sydney protest and two legal observers, independent monitors who help protect people’s rights during public assemblies. Human Rights Watch also verified videos of the protests posted on social media or shared directly with researchers. The New South Wales government had granted police additional powers in response to planned protests over Herzog’s visit, including increased authority to issue “move-on” orders. In December, the state parliament also passed anti-protest laws that restrict protests in most of Sydney’s central business district. The actions follow years of successive New South Wales governments restricting the right to peaceful assembly.
The police had sought to prevent protesters from marching following a rally outside of Sydney Town Hall. The Assistant Police Commissioner, Peter McKenna, said that police officers had been “threatened, jostled, and assaulted,” and that they needed to enact special powers to direct the protesters out of the central business district. Police said they had arrested 27 people and charged a number of people, including for violating public order and assault. Human Rights Watch has not been able to verify the cases against people who were arrested and charged. However, Human Rights Watch verified footage that shows police punching individuals while restraining them. In two verified videos taken from different angles near the Town Hall, two police officers are seen repeatedly punching a pinned protester in the head and torso. In one video, red marks can be seen on the protester’s torso and a voice is heard shouting “Stop it! Stop it!”
Four additional videos posted online and verified by Human Rights Watch show scores of police lined up on Bathurst Street chasing a group of protesters. One officer is seen repeatedly spraying a protester in the face with what appears to be pepper spray.
Two journalists who covered the event said that while the crowd was angry that police were restricting them from marching, they did not observe any protesters committing violence. Nabil Al-Nashar, one of the journalists, said he had covered at least two-dozen protests in Sydney over the past two years and this was the first time he had witnessed this level of police violence. “I’d witnessed arrests at other protests, but they were few and far between and never violent,” he said.
The other journalist, Andrew Quilty, who has also extensively covered Sydney protests, said the police were “definitely more aggressive than I'm accustomed to seeing from police in Sydney.” He said he saw police using what appeared to be pepper spray but had “not seen any particular physical provocation from protesters that caused them to use it.”
Rebecca Payne, a legal observer, said police had pepper sprayed her and others before they charged crowd near Sydney Town Hall. She said she had been videoing the protest when police sprayed the crowd and “started punching, shoving, pushing, and charging” at protesters.
The pepper spray blinded her when police were shouting at protesters to move. They pushed the protesters into an area that was difficult to traverse and required going underneath a physical barrier. She said she ended up sheltering in a convenience store and later received hospital treatment for her eye. She shared footage of the incident and a photograph of her injury with Human Rights Watch. In the video, a police officer is seen spraying what appears to be pepper spray toward Payne and others in the crowd.
Another legal observer, Alison Whittaker, said police had repeatedly punched, pushed and pepper sprayed her. She said a police officer had grabbed her phone and thrown it into the crowd, and removed Whittaker’s goggles, worn to protect against pepper spray, and threw those away. Both legal observers were wearing high-visibility vests that identified their role.
The New South Wales government contends that its new laws are necessary for public safety. However, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Saul, has warned that the laws “clearly violate international law” by indiscriminately restricting the rights of law-abiding protesters. He also said the laws impede constructive collaboration between police and organizers that can mitigate risks. Other recent protests in Sydney that the authorities facilitated largely took place without major incident.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a party, upholds the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly. Any law enforcement response to protests must meet international standards. The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials state that security forces should apply nonviolent means before resorting to the use of force. Where it is required for a legitimate law enforcement purpose during an assembly, only the minimum force necessary may be used.
Pepper spray is a hand-held chemical irritant used to incapacitate a violent assailant or to help arrest a suspect who is violently resisting. According to the UN Guidance on Less-Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement, chemical irritants should only be used when a law enforcement official has reason to believe there is an imminent threat of injury.
“The New South Wales police’s use of excessive force in Sydney shows the anti-protest laws are not making the community safer,” Hennessy said. “Instead of restricting people’s right to peaceful assembly, the New South Wales government should reform its laws to ensure it is meeting international human rights standards.”
The SAVE Act Threatens Voting Rights
This week, the US House of Representatives will vote on legislation that, if enacted, would create new barriers for millions of eligible voters in the United States.
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, supported by President Donald Trump and many congressional Republicans, claims to address alleged voter fraud. In reality, it echoes the United States’ history of using bureaucratic and sometimes extreme requirements to keep Black, Latino, and poor people away from the ballot box.
The SAVE Act would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, such as a birth certificate or a passport. The many US citizens who do not possess such documents would have to navigate complex hurdles to have any hope of registering. The inevitable result would be to block many eligible people from voting at all.
From literacy tests to poll taxes to grandfather clauses, the United States has a long history of using supposedly neutral rules to achieve racially discriminatory outcomes. The SAVE Act is, on some level, a part of this legacy. Communities of color, immigrants, and low-income people are less likely to have an original birth certificate or passport because of financial and other obstacles to obtain them. For communities already burdened by centuries of exclusion, it would become even harder to participate in political life.
Under international human rights law, the right to vote should be universal and free from discrimination. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States has ratified, requires governments to ensure free and fair elections without unreasonable restrictions. The SAVE Act’s onerous restrictions are not reasonable. In fact, the problem it claims to address—widespread illegal voting by noncitizens—is a fiction the Trump administration has invented for political purposes.
Members of Congress should publicly commit to voting “no” to the SAVE Act and instead work to expand ballot access for all.
Mali’s Military Junta Escalates Assault on Free Expression
An appeals court in Mali’s capital, Bamako, has upheld a two-year prison sentence for former Prime Minister Moussa Mara, the latest demonstration of the military junta’s intent to suppress free expression in the country.
On February 9, the court confirmed the sentence imposed on Mara in October by the national cybercrime court, with one year to be served without parole and one year suspended, along with a 500,000 CFA (about US$907) fine.
The authorities arrested Mara in August 2025 for expressing his “solidarity with prisoners of conscience” on social media after he visited imprisoned junta critics and charged him with “undermining state authority” and “inciting public disorder.” The court rejected his lawyers’ requests for provisional release throughout the investigation.
Mara’s legal team said the prosecution presented no evidence of any criminal offense and considers the court of appeal’s ruling an attack on the right to freedom of expression. The team said Mara would pursue a further appeal to the Court of Cassation, Mali’s highest court.
Mara, who was prime minister from 2014 to 2015 and leads the opposition party Yéléma, is being prosecuted under the 2019 cybercrime law, which has been criticized for enabling authorities to curb free speech under the guise of national security. Last week, the junta jailed prominent journalist Youssouf Sissoko under the law for writing an article criticizing Niger’s junta leader.
A Yéléma member said that he holds cautious hope for Mara’s release but is concerned about the judiciary being biased: “I fear judicial arbitrariness [and] the fabrication of new accusations without evidence that would extend the detention.”
Since taking power in a 2021 military coup, Mali’s junta has cracked down on political opposition and dissent, banning all political parties and intimidating, jailing, and forcibly disappearing journalists and rights activists.
Mara’s conviction and sentence heighten concerns for free speech under Mali’s military rule. The authorities should immediately quash all charges and release Mara and uphold the right to freedom of expression.
Hungary's Prosecution of a Pride Organizer is a Warning to All Protesters
Hungarian prosecutors are charging Géza Buzás-Hábel, the organizer of the 2025 Pécs Pride, for doing what democracies are supposed to protect: organizing a peaceful march. He faces up to one year in prison. His charges follow those of Budapest mayor Gergely Karácsony, who was charged in January for organizing the June 2025 Budapest Pride.
The 2025 Pécs Pride event was banned by police, later upheld by the Supreme Court, under Hungary’s amended assembly law, which empowers authorities to ban assemblies they deem harmful to children. Despite the ban, the march went ahead peacefully and with record attendance, organized under the slogan “We will not bow to fear.”
When a government rewrites the constitution to elevate vaguely defined “child protection” above fundamental rights, and amends assembly laws to effectively outlaw LGBT events, it cannot be argued it is about regulating protest: it is about criminalizing dissent.
Buzás-Hábel is a teacher, a human rights activist, and a respected member of Pécs’ civic community. He is also gay and Roma. For years, he helped organize Hungary’s only rural Pride march without incident. His prosecution sends a clear message: peaceful assembly is tolerated only when it does not challenge government policy.
The implications of his arrest extend well beyond Pride events. Once the state normalizes prosecuting peaceful assembly on political grounds, the same tactics can be used against any protest it deems undesirable, whether focused on corruption, social policy, or the rule of law.
Hungary is bound by its domestic law, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to protect freedom of assembly. Prosecuting a Pride organizer for leading a peaceful march flies in the face of these obligations and further undermines judicial independence and democratic accountability.
The authorities should immediately drop charges against Buzás-Hábel and Karácsony.
European Union institutions should treat the charges for what they are: violations of the freedom of assembly and the principle of equality; the European Commission should use all available legal tools to react urgently, including infringement proceedings, in view of the criminal changes; and EU member states should move forward with concrete steps to address Hungary’s ongoing rule of law violations.
Criminalizing peaceful protest is not the act of a confident democracy: it is the reflex of a government increasingly intolerant of scrutiny and dissent.
Azerbaijan Expands Crackdown on Activists in Exile
Courts in Azerbaijan have handed down further politically motivated in-absentia convictions against journalists, bloggers, and other critics of the government living abroad, expanding the authorities’ campaign of transnational repression.
In January, a Baku court convicted several government critics residing in the United States. Sevinc Osmangizi, a journalist, was sentenced in absentia to eight years in prison on charges of “calling for mass unrest” and “overthrow of the state.” The video blogger Vagif Allahverdiyev was also sentenced to eight years: prosecutors cited a 2017 YouTube video as “encouraging the use of force against” the authorities. And blogger Murad Guliyev received a six-year sentence for his social media posts.
These cases reflect a broader crackdown documented by Human Rights Watch. In 2025, Azerbaijan authorities secured in-absentia convictions against several exiled critics, including Ganimat Zahid, sentenced to seven years, and pursued criminal cases against others, including academic Altay Goyushov, and political analyst Arastun Oruclu. Similar proceedings targeted activists Tural Sadigli, Ordukhan (“Temirkhan”) Babirov, Elshad Abdullayev, Rafael Piriyev, Gurban Mammadov, Elshad Mammadov, and Gabil Mammadov, on charges including fraud and forgery, incitement to mass unrest, and “public calls against the state.”
The Azerbaijani authorities’ reach has extended beyond legal proceedings to apparent cross-border abductions. In March 2025, the Talysh historian Zahiraddin Ibrahimov, a Russian citizen barred from Azerbaijan since 2014, went missing in Yekaterinburg, Russia. He later resurfaced in the custody of Azerbaijan’s State Security Service, facing charges of treason, “public calls against the state,” and incitement of hatred. State-aligned media alleged Ibrahimov had close ties with Armenia. He has been in pretrial detention since.
That month, Kamal Isayev, an ethnic minority activist and Russian citizen, was detained in Türkiye while seeking medical care and forcibly transferred to Azerbaijan. Prior to his apprehension, Isayev had publicly advocated for minority rights and criticized government policies affecting ethnic communities. He remains in pretrial detention facing charges of “public calls against the state” and incitement.
These cases reflect an expanding pattern of transnational repression against Azerbaijani critics abroad, raising serious concerns about the safety of diaspora communities.
Azerbaijani authorities should immediately drop all politically motivated charges against exiled journalists, bloggers, and activists, revoke in-absentia convictions, and cease the misuse of extradition and security mechanisms to target critics abroad. Foreign governments should refuse to act on politically motivated requests lacking credible evidence of ordinary criminal conduct and take steps to protect residents and refugees from intimidation, harassment, and irregular transfers.
European Parliament Tries to Bury the Right to Seek Asylum
The European Parliament voted today to usher in changes to European Union asylum rules that jeopardize the right to seek asylum.
It adopted an EU-wide list of “safe countries of origin” which means citizens from these countries will face an automatic presumption that they do not need protection and will be channeled into accelerated procedures that could overlook their individual circumstances; raising concerns about hasty and poor-quality decision making. In its World Report published last week, Human Rights Watch detailed human rights abuses in every country on the EU’s “safe countries of origin” list: Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco, Tunisia, and EU candidate countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Serbia, and Türkiye.
The “safe country of origin” concept is also problematic because it imposes a higher burden of proof on people fleeing persecution, who already often face difficulties providing evidence of the harm they are escaping. It raises a concrete risk that people will be sent to places where they face human rights violations.
Additionally, Parliament approved another measure to allow member states to send asylum seekers to “safe third countries” which they have no connection to without assessing their individual claims.
The EU has already shown its willingness to overlook authoritarian repression, as well as abuses against migrants and asylum seekers, in its cash-for-migration-control deals with Egypt and Tunisia, as well as Libya. It has likewise failed to challenge Georgian authorities amid their brutal crackdown.
The Parliament’s vote to expand the “safe third country” concept is potentially even more consequential. It paves the way for member states to abdicate their own responsibilities, deny people the chance to apply for asylum in the EU, and strike arrangements with willing countries where asylum seekers would be sent. It would mean dumping people in places where they have no cultural ties, family or community, and where their prospects for a fair asylum procedure and support for rebuilding their lives could be in doubt.
These measures are part of sweeping changes to EU asylum and migration policy geared to make it easier to reject asylum applications swiftly, shift responsibility to countries outside the EU, and increase deportations.
At a time when the rules-based international order is under threat, we need an EU that upholds core principles of international law such as the right to seek and receive asylum. Instead, we are witnessing the EU erode the international human rights infrastructure.
Tunisia: Prominent Lawyer Arbitrarily Detained
(Beirut) – A Tunisian lawyer and human rights defender, Ahmed Souab, who was sentenced to prison on terrorism-related charges, will face a new trial on appeal on February 12, 2026, Human Rights Watch said today. The Tunisian authorities should immediately drop the unfounded charges and release him, and stop retaliating against critics and the lawyers defending them.
Tunisian authorities prosecuted Souab, 69, for statements he made outside of court while representing defendants in a notorious case of “conspiracy against state security.” On October 31, 2025, a Tunis anti-terrorism court sentenced him to five years in prison and three years of administrative supervision. His trial lasted just minutes; Souab was not present, and journalists were reportedly barred from attending.
“Ahmed Souab, a lawyer, former administrative judge, and fierce advocate for judicial independence, is behind bars simply for his defense work and outspoken views,” said Bassam Khawaja, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “His abusive prosecution for defending others from abusive prosecution shows the sheer extent of the Tunisian authorities’ crackdown on any dissent.”
Anti-terrorism agents arrested Souab in his home on April 21, following comments he made after the “conspiracy case” verdict on April 19. That day, 37 people, including lawyers, activists, and opponents, were sentenced after a sham trial for terrorism and security-related offenses to prison terms ranging from 4 to 66 years.
Standing outside the headquarters of Tunis Bar Association, Souab reportedly said: “It seems that it is not the detainees who have a knife turned on them, but rather, it’s the president of the chamber who has a knife [at his throat].” Video excerpts of his statement circulated widely on social media. Souab’s defense committee explained that he was referring to pressure exerted on judges.
Human Rights Watch has documented the authorities’ repeated attacks on the judiciary in Tunisia, including President Kais Saied’s dismantling of the High Judicial Council in February 2022. The attacks have severely undermined the rule of law, allowed the executive to weaponize the judiciary for political ends, and jeopardized Tunisians’ right to a fair trial, Human Rights Watch said.
Judicial authorities charged Souab under the 2015 Counterterrorism Law, the Penal Code, the Telecommunication Code, and Decree-Law 54 on Cybercrime, including for allegedly “forming a terrorist organization,” “supporting terrorist acts,” “threatening to commit terrorist acts,” and “spreading fake news.” He was held in pretrial detention for more than six months before trial.
The court decided to hold Souab’s trial remotely, claiming a “real danger” without providing further details. Souab refused to attend remotely to protest the lack of fair-trial guarantees.
The Tunisian authorities are increasingly relying on remote trials for terrorism cases, especially for politically motivated trials against dissidents. The practice of remote trial by video is inherently abusive, including by undermining detainees’ right to be brought physically before a judge to assess their well-being and the legality and conditions of their detention.
On October 31, Souab was convicted of “endangering the lives of people entitled to protection by deliberately disclosing information that could reveal their identities” and of “making threats in connection with a terrorist offense,” his family told Human Rights Watch.
Souab’s family said he has a history of cardiac conditions and experienced a deterioration in his health in prison. He has suffered several nosebleeds, the cause of which was not determined, they said.
Over the past three years, the authorities have increasingly relied on an aggressive legal toolbox, including unfounded security and terrorism charges under the penal code and 2015 Counterterrorism Law, to target critics and lawyers with judicial harassment, abusive criminal prosecution, arbitrary detention, and travel bans for the legitimate exercise of their profession.
Tunisian authorities should stop prosecuting individuals for exercising their human rights, guarantee fair trials, and release all those arbitrarily detained, Human Rights Watch said.
The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers state that lawyers must operate independently without undue interference from authorities and explicitly prohibit retaliation against lawyers for fulfilling their professional responsibilities.
Tunisia is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which guarantee the right to freedom of expression and assembly, to a fair trial, and to not be subject to arbitrary arrest or detention.
“Souab’s trial showcased a litany of fair-trial failures that are becoming common in prosecuting dissidents in Tunisia,” Khawaja said. “The authorities should end both their practice of abusive prosecutions and interference in judicial proceedings.”
Italy, Hungary’s Snub of ICC Arrests Should be a Wake-Up Call for the EU
For the second time in less than a year, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has referred an EU member to its oversight body, the Assembly of States Parties, for failing to cooperate with the court.
On January 26, ICC judges asked the court’s member countries to hold Italy to account for refusing to surrender Osama Elmasry Njeem, a Libyan suspect who had been in its custody. That follows the referral of Hungary last July for failure to arrest and surrender Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wanted by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
The ICC relies on its own members to enforce its rulings and secure justice for victims and survivors of atrocity crimes.
Italian authorities arrested Njeem, wanted by the ICC for serious crimes committed in Libya, in January 2025, but released him and sent him back to Libya. Victims and survivors denounced Italy’s move as a stark denial of justice.
In November, Njeem was arrested by Libyan authorities but little is known about the case, let alone whether Libya will comply with its own obligations to surrender him to The Hague. Human Rights Watch wrote to the Libyan attorney general in December requesting information on the charges against Njeem, Libya’s cooperation with the ICC, and information on other ICC suspects believed to be in Libya, but has received no reply.
The Njeem affair set off parliamentary debates, governmental inquiries and legal proceedings in Italy. But the ICC asked the Assembly to step in because it was not convinced Italy would cooperate in future cases.
The judges were silent as to why they did not also refer Italy’s noncooperation to the UN Security Council, given that the Council had requested the Libya investigation.
The recent noncooperation by Hungary and Italy, and the, at best, mixed signals by other EU member states’ officials as to whether they would arrest Netanyahu have undermined the EU’s credibility to advance equal access to justice for all victims, regardless of where serious international crimes are committed and by whom.
Hungary and Italy have let victims and survivors down. EU institutions and member states’ leaders should at the very least have tough conversations with Hungary and Italy, acknowledge their own obligations, and unambiguously reaffirm their own commitment to cooperate with the court across all situations.
Hong Kong: Publisher Jimmy Lai Sentenced to 20 Years
(New York) – The Hong Kong High Court’s sentencing of Jimmy Lai, Apple Daily founder and democracy advocate, to 20 years in prison is a devastating blow to media freedom in the city, Human Rights Watch said today. It is by far the harshest sentence handed down under the National Security Law since the Chinese government imposed the draconian legislation on Hong Kong in June 2020.
Lai, a 78-year-old British citizen, was convicted on December 15, 2025, on two counts of “conspiracy to commit collusion with foreign forces” under the National Security Law and one count of “conspiracy to publish seditious publications” under the Crimes Ordinance. The Hong Kong government should immediately and unconditionally release Lai.
“Hong Kong’s pretrial detention and baseless prosecution of Jimmy Lai since his arrest in 2020 have been marked by unrelenting cruelty,” said Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The 20-year sentence for 78-year-old Lai—effectively life in prison—shows the Chinese government’s determination to crush independent journalism and critics of the Communist Party.”
Six former Apple Daily executives and editors, who previously pleaded guilty to similar charges in the same case, also received severe sentences ranging from 6 years and 9 months to 10 years in prison. Three of them testified against Lai in exchange for reduced sentences.
Two activists linked to the campaign group Stand with Hong Kong, Andy Li and Wayland Chan, also pleaded guilty earlier to “conspiring” with Lai to commit “foreign collusion” and testified against Lai in exchange for lighter sentences. Li and Chan were sentenced to 7 years and 3 months and 6 years and 3 months in prison, respectively.
In its sentencing decision, the court ruled that Lai’s role as the “mastermind and the driving force” behind the “conspiracies” constituted an aggravating factor justifying a longer prison term. The court granted a slight, but inconsequential, sentence deduction due to Lai’s “old age, health condition, and solitary confinement,” but said his “serious and grave criminal conduct” warranted the 20-year sentence.
In response to the ruling, Chief Superintendent Steve Li of the Hong Kong Police Force’s National Security Department said officers were “still investigating some matters” regarding Lai’s case but offered no further details.
Hong Kong authorities deployed a heavy police presence outside the courthouse. On the eve of the hearing, police removed a person from the line outside the court because they had an Apple Daily keychain. Officers searched courtgoers and confiscated items including a UK-flag bandana and Lunar New Year decorations. On the day of the hearing, police separated journalists from the general public and reportedly prevented reporters from speaking to people waiting to attend the proceedings.
Lai’s prosecution was marred by multiple serious violations of fair trial rights, including being tried by judges handpicked by the Hong Kong government, being denied a jury trial, facing prolonged pretrial detention, and being barred from having counsel of his choice. In 2023, the High Court upheld the government’s decision to bar a British lawyer, Timothy Owen, from representing Lai. The authorities also denied Lai consular access from the United Kingdom, in violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which China is party.
Lai is already serving a sentence of 5 years and 9 months on charges of “fraud” and “participating in an unauthorized assembly.” He suffers from diabetes and has been held in prolonged solitary confinement, a form of torture, since December 2020. His family has repeatedly raised concerns about his deteriorating health, including heart problems and signs of physical decline.
Prosecuting someone for exercising their right to freedom of expression violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is incorporated into Hong Kong’s legal framework through the city’s de facto constitution, the Basic Law, and expressed in the Bill of Rights Ordinance. Hong Kong’s national security legal regime is incompatible with these human rights guarantees.
Foreign governments, leaders and parliaments have expressed concerns over Lai’s case and called for his release. Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, as well as the European Union have issued statements criticizing the sentencing, with the EU, US, and UK calling explicitly for Lai’s release.
In recent months, however, many government leaders visiting China have largely avoided raising human rights issues as they seek to expand trade with Beijing. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is expected to visit Beijing in late February, and US President Donald Trump plans to visit in April.
Since 2020, Hong Kong authorities have arrested at least 365 people and convicted 174 people under national security laws, according to official figures; nearly everyone charged is eventually convicted.
Few governments have taken concrete actions in response to Hong Kong’s rapidly deteriorating rights and freedoms. The US imposed sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials in 2020, 2021, and 2025 for abuses linked to the National Security Law, but has been the only government to do so. Australia, the UK and the EU—each of which has a human rights sanctions regime—should impose targeted sanctions on the Chinese and Hong Kong officials most responsible for serious rights violations, Human Rights Watch said.
“Jimmy Lai’s outrageous sentence is a test of the international community’s resolve to defend fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong and China,” Pearson said. “Governments should ensure consequences for the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities responsible for imprisoning a prominent advocate of free speech and democracy.”
US: Cluster Munitions Plan a Deadly Regression
(Washington, DC) – The reported plans for the United States Department of Defense to purchase cluster munitions from Israel further weaken global norms that protect civilians from the widely banned weapons, Human Rights Watch said today. If used, these weapons would put civilians at grave risk.
The media reported that the Pentagon signed a deal worth at least $210 million to acquire XM1208 155mm cluster munition artillery projectiles produced by an Israeli government-owned manufacturer. Human Rights Watch and its partners have long documented the devastating and lasting impact of cluster munitions on civilians.
“The US government’s revival of indiscriminate weapons that the world has worked to ban puts civilian lives at risk,” said Sarah Yager, Washington director at Human Rights Watch. “The Trump administration is simply disregarding foreseeable harm to civilians, from children who pick up unexploded bomblets to communities forced to live with unmarked minefields long after a conflict ends.”
Cluster munitions can be fired from the ground or dropped by aircraft and typically open in the air, dispersing multiple submunitions or bomblets over a wide area. These submunitions cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians at the time of attack, putting civilians at risk. In addition, many submunitions fail to explode on initial impact, leaving unexploded duds that, like antipersonnel mines, can indiscriminately injure and kill people for years until they are cleared and destroyed.
The reported purchase signals a dangerous retreat by the United States from global norms that have helped reduce civilian harm. The 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, adopted in response to overwhelming evidence of humanitarian harm from these weapons, bans the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions and requires clearance of remnants and assistance to victims.
While the United States is not a party to the treaty, it has long benefited from the powerful stigma against these weapons and has not used cluster munitions in its own military operations since 2009. Reinvesting in cluster munitions weakens that stigma at a time when restraints on the conduct of war are already under severe strain.
Human Rights Watch has been documenting a broader pattern of the Trump administration’s systematic dismantling of policy guardrails meant to limit civilian harm and uphold international law. In December 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth rolled back restrictions on the US’ use of antipersonnel landmines, another inherently indiscriminate weapon banned by the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty.
The National Defense Strategy issued in January 2026 further entrenched this shift by removing human rights and civilian harm mitigation as explicit considerations in defense policy. The “America First Arms Transfer Strategy,” outlined in an executive order issued on February 6, 2026, reinforces this approach by reorienting US arms export policy toward prioritizing weapons sales to benefit US defense manufacturing without noting human rights considerations and risk assessments.
The Trump administration and Congress should halt any procurement of cluster munitions and recommit to policies that prioritize civilian protection in US defense decisions, Human Rights Watch said.
“US military forces have done important work in recent years to reduce civilian harm, with much more still to do,” Yager said. “The Trump administration’s decision to purchase cluster munitions shows that the Pentagon no longer considers protecting civilians a priority.”
Press Freedom Under Fire in Mali
Mali’s junta has jailed a prominent journalist, sparking renewed concerns over media freedom in the country.
Malian journalists confirmed national and international media reports that police arrested Youssouf Sissoko, editor-in-chief of the weekly newspaper L’Alternance, at his home in Bamako, Mali’s capital, on February 5.
Click to expand Image Youssouf Sissoko, Bamako, Mali, 2025. © PrivateThe police took Sissoko before a cybercrime unit prosecutor, who charged him with spreading false information and insulting a foreign head of state, among other offenses, and ordered him held in pretrial custody. Sissoko is in Bamako’s central prison, with his trial scheduled to begin on March 9 before the specialized anti-cybercrime tribunal.
The arrest followed the publication, on February 2, of an article by Sissoko in L’Alternance questioning public statements by neighboring Niger’s military ruler, Gen. Abdourahamane Tiani. The article examined Tiani’s remarks about a late-January attack on Niamey’s international airport, claimed by the armed group the Islamic State in the Sahel Province, and challenged his allegations that France, Côte d’Ivoire, and Benin were involved.
Sissoko was arrested under Mali’s 2019 cybercrime law, which has been criticized for blurring the line between preserving national security and suppressing free speech. Articles 20 and 21 criminalize “threats” and “insults” made via digital platforms and carry penalties of up to 10 years in prison, yet the law does not clearly define these terms, granting the authorities broad discretionary powers.
On February 5, the Malian Association of Private Print Media Publishers denounced Sissoko’s arrest, and on the following day, Reporters Without Borders called for his release.
Since seizing power in a 2021 coup, Mali’s junta has suspended media outlets, dissolved civil society organizations, abolished multiparty politics, and pursued criminal cases against critics.
In January, the Ministry of Territorial Administration issued a decree banning the circulation and distribution of Jeune Afrique, among the most influential news outlets covering African affairs.
Sissoko’s arbitrary detention highlights the fragile state of independent media in a country fraught with repression and shrinking civic space. The authorities should immediately and unconditionally release Sissoko and drop all charges against him.