Secondary menu
IHRP external news feeds
Indonesia: Police Disperse Papuans Protesting ‘Food Estate’ Project
(Tokyo) – Indonesian police unlawfully dispersed, beat, and detained 11 Papuan protesters in Merauke City, South Papua, on January 25, 2026, Human Rights Watch said today. The authorities should promptly and impartially investigate the incident, appropriately discipline or punish those responsible for abuses, and consult with Indigenous communities to address longstanding grievances.
That morning, members of the Voice of Catholic People of Papua (Suara Kaum Awam Katolik Regio Papua) had gathered at the St. Francis Xavier Catholic Cathedral to call on church officials to protect Indigenous people harmed by the government’s massive Merauke food project. They also expressed opposition to the bishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Merauke for backing the government project. The police arrived and forcibly dispersed those gathered inside the church courtyard and arrested 11.
“Indigenous Papuan communities have the right to protest the government’s Merauke food project without having to worry about being beaten, arrested, and jailed,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Police and military personnel who commit abuses against local communities should be held to account and appropriately punished.”
Protesters allege that the police broke up the peaceful protest with unnecessary force. Stenlhy Dambujai, 30, said that the officers “choked and beat” him, and hit two others, Maria Amote, 24, and Angel Gebze, 22, on the head with batons.
The police took those detained to the Merauke Traffic Police Station, where the officers again beat them, and then transferred them to the Merauke police precinct for further questioning. All the protesters were released without charge after midnight, but their legal counsel, Arnold Anda of the Merauke Legal Aid Institute, said that the police had refused to disclose any legal basis for their detention.
“The police also forcibly seized a smartphone belonging to one of our friends, which was only returned after the photos and videos had been deleted,” Dambujai said. “I feel unsafe because it feels like I am constantly being monitored by the authorities.”
The Indonesian government’s Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate project aims to convert nearly three million hectares of forest and swampland to grow rice, sugarcane, and other crops for national food self-sufficiency. Then-President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono initiated the project in 2010, but it stalled. His successor, Joko Widodo revived and expanded the plan in 2023, giving it National Strategic Project status, which increased deforestation in Merauke. Since succeeding Widodo in October 2024, President Prabowo Subianto has accelerated expansion of the food estate, saying he wished to transform Indonesia into the “granary of the world.”
The Merauke food project risks the customary land rights of over 40,000 people from the Indigenous Malind, Maklew, Yei, and Khimaima communities, who depend upon the forest and swampland for their livelihood and traditional practices, Human Rights Watch said. The communities allege that the project is displacing Indigenous communities, forcibly taking customary lands, logging traditional forests, threatening biodiversity, and using the military to suppress dissent.
The government asserts that no one has applied for the designation of customary forests in the Merauke project area and that the project has complied with applicable national laws and regulations, including those related to upholding Indigenous rights, environmental protections, and human rights.
The civic group Solidarity for Merauke says the project has exacerbated human rights violations and forced displacement. President Prabowo has deployed the Indonesian military to support agricultural programs in the Merauke regency, including to plant and harvest food crops, but also to discourage protests.
Norton Kamuyen, a Marind resident of Nakias village, Nguti district, told Human Rights Watch that he and his family were forced to flee to a neighboring village in January due to a land dispute. “We once lived safely and without fear, free to forage in our forests,” Kamuyen said. “But since we disagree with the National Strategic Project, we are considered to be opposing the government. The military makes us afraid, so we have to leave our villages to find safety and protect our lives.”
Indonesian authorities regard Merauke as an important symbol of nationalism, signifying the unity of the vast Indonesian archipelago through the “From Sabang to Merauke” anthem, referring to Sabang Island, Indonesia’s westernmost tip, and Merauke, which is Indonesia’s easternmost regency. Protests by Indigenous Papuans are unusual in Merauke because of the heavy military deployment. A Malind tribal leader in Merauke said that “Bulldozers here are always guarded by soldiers with semi-automatic weapons.”
On February 5, the Communion of Churches in Indonesia, the umbrella organization of 105 Protestant denominations, issued a joint statement in Merauke, calling on the Indonesian government to “[end] land grabbing of Indigenous Papuans, even in the name of National Food Security,” in the six Papuan provinces and to have “honest, equal, and dignified dialogue with Papuan Indigenous communities” in reviewing the food estate.
In March 2025, nine United Nations special rapporteurs raised concerns in a letter that Indigenous peoples living in 40 villages within and around the project area would lose their livelihoods and traditional rights. They reported systematic human rights and environmental violations, including the denial of customary land rights, deforestation, severe environmental degradation, minimal meaningful participation by Indigenous peoples in decision-making, and the military’s alleged intimidation of Indigenous peoples and others.
“The Indonesian government has a responsibility to improve food production in the country,” Ganguly said. “But it should be clear that the Merauke food project cannot be pursued by trampling on the rights to liberty, land, and livelihoods of the Indigenous Papuan population.”
Italy’s Harsh Immigration Bill Puts Lives at Risk
Before she was elected prime minister, Giorgia Meloni threatened to impose a naval blockade in the Mediterranean Sea to stop boats carrying migrants and asylum seekers from reaching Italy. Her government has now proposed draft legislation that will allow it to do just that.
The bill, approved by the cabinet on February 11, would allow the government to prohibit boats from entering Italian territorial waters “in cases of grave threats to public order or national security.” The bans could be imposed for 30 days, renewable for up to six consecutive months. The grounds for triggering the ban are expansive: a concrete risk of acts of terrorism or infiltration of terrorists on national territory, “exceptional migratory pressure,” a global health emergency, or high-level international events that require extraordinary security measures.
Under the legislation, Italy would interdict boats and return everyone on board, apparently without any assessment of their protection needs, vulnerabilities, or physical and mental health, to third countries with which Italy has such an agreement. The European Parliament recently approved changes to EU asylum rules to allow member states to send asylum seekers to “safe third countries.”
The plans would further constrain and sanction nongovernmental organizations performing lifesaving search and rescue at sea. Violations of the ban would be punishable by fines up to 50,000 euros and boat seizure for repeated offenses. The Meloni government already severely limits rescue capacity in the central Mediterranean, one of the deadliest migration routes in the world, through various means including regularly fining rescue groups and detaining their ships on various grounds.
Other measures in the bill relate to the implementation of harsh new rules included in the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum due to enter into force in June, including the creation of an accelerated border procedure designed to facilitate the swift deportation of people from so-called “safe countries of origin” or whose asylum claims are considered inadmissible on other grounds.
Meloni has called on parliament to approve the bill quickly. Instead, it should debate each article carefully, strike every measure designed to undermine humanitarian efforts at sea and improperly shift responsibility to other countries, and ensure that new EU asylum rules are implemented in Italy in the least harmful way and in full compliance with international human rights and refugee law.
Global Leaders Should Speak Out on Ethiopia Crisis
This week African and other international leaders and actors arrive in Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa, for the annual African Union (AU) summit.
The 39th meeting of heads of state and governments is taking place amid Ethiopia’s deteriorating human rights situation and the apparent unravelling of the fragile peace in the country’s Tigray region. Tigray’s population is still reeling from the 2020-2022 armed conflict and a man-made humanitarian disaster. The United Nations secretary-general, AU leaders, and international partners attending the summit should speak out about the threats to the population unfolding in the host country.
Most concerning were reports in late January of heavy fighting between the Ethiopian army and Tigrayan forces in the central and southern parts of the region causing widespread displacement. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk on February 10 expressed concern about the region’s “already precarious human rights and humanitarian situation.” He said that “[a]lleged serious violations or abuses must be promptly and independently investigated, irrespective of the perpetrators.”
In addition, Ethiopian authorities have again accused neighboring Eritrea of supporting armed groups in the Amhara region, where hostilities have been ongoing since 2023.
AU leaders should not fear alienating the host of the summit and a perceived ally. During and since the 2020-2022 conflict, the AU as well as the UN failed victims of killings, widespread sexual violence, abductions, and ethnic cleansing. The current situation provides a critical opportunity to change tact.
The AU and UN leadership, should publicly call on all actors, including signatories and non-signatories to the November 2022 Pretoria Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, to protect civilians and prioritize the implementation of key provisions on civilian protection, aid access, access to basic services and transitional justice.
They should call on Ethiopia to allow the AU monitoring mechanism, established as part of the 2022 peace agreement, to deploy more monitors. The AU Peace and Security Council and Commission should also consider strengthening the mechanism’s civilian-protection and human rights components, improving transparency, and ensuring regular public reporting on violations.
The AU summit presents a crucial opportunity for clear and concerted action from leaders to prevent further abuses against civilians in Ethiopia. By strengthening reporting, transparency, and accountability, the summit also provides an opportunity to stem the suffering of civilians in the region as a whole. There’s not a moment to lose.
Niger: Islamist Armed Group Massacres Villagers in West
(Nairobi) – An Islamist armed group has killed 30 civilians, including 4 children, and 5 captured combatants in two attacks in western Niger since January 18, 2026, Human Rights Watch said today. The attacks by the Islamic State in the Sahel (IS Sahel) are unlawful and apparent war crimes.
On January 18, IS Sahel fighters rounded up and executed 31 men and boys in Bossieye village in apparent retaliation against residents for refusing to pay the zakat, or Islamic tax, it had imposed, and for joining pro-government militias. On January 26, in Alfaga Daweyzé Koira village, IS Sahel fighters killed four men and wounded five others who were attempting to protect a villager accused of collaborating with the military. The two villages are in the Tillabéri region, a focal point of IS Sahel activity and government counterinsurgency operations for a decade.
Click to expand Image © 2026 Human Rights Watch“IS Sahel is brutally targeting civilians in the Tillabéri region,” said Ilaria Allegrozzi, senior Sahel researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The recent killings fit a disturbing pattern of IS Sahel’s atrocities against civilians and show complete disregard for human life.”
Between January 21 and February 4, Human Rights Watch remotely interviewed 13 people, including 6 witnesses to the attacks and 7 local activists, journalists, and community leaders. On February 6, Human Rights Watch sent a letter to the junta’s cabinet, sharing its findings and requesting the government’s comments. Human Rights Watch did not receive a response.
IS Sahel did not claim responsibility for the attacks, but witnesses said they believed the attackers were IS Sahel fighters based on their turbans with red bands seen during previous attacks.
In November 2025, IS Sahel fighters had arrived in Bossieye on six motorbikes and ordered villagers to pay the zakat within a month. A resident, 45, said the village chief told residents to stop paying the armed group and to contribute instead to the pro-government militia. “For the chief, it was unacceptable to continue giving our cows and millet to a few individuals arriving on six motorbikes,” he said. “That day, I stood up and told the village chief to be careful. I said, ‘It’s not the elephant’s trunk that’s scary, but where the trunk comes from.’ The chief did not listen to me. And the elephant came.”
In late 2025, some Bossieye residents, most of them ethnic Zarma, received training and weapons from the military and formed a militia to fight IS Sahel.
Witnesses said that around noon on January 18, armed assailants arrived in Bossieye on at least 100 motorbikes, prompting many villagers, including the village chief, to flee. They said the fighters rounded up men and teenage boys, going door to door, and apprehending those who attempted to flee or who were at the mosque for the 1 p.m. prayer. Five of those taken into custody are known to have joined the militia but were unarmed. A woman said she saw the fighters rounding up men between the mosque and the village chief’s house, but spared women and small children. She later heard gunfire.
Two men from Yatakala, a nearby village, said that late on January 18, the son of Bossieye’s village chief arrived in Yatakala carrying his father’s body. The son said that armed men had attacked Bossieye, killing his father and several other villagers. They said they helped him bury the body, then alerted the military and requested assistance.
The following day, Nigerien forces taking part in “Operation Borkono,” a campaign against the Islamist armed groups that begun in January, came to Bossieye with militiamen. They secured the area and allowed villagers to bury the victims.
A 42-year-old man from Yatakala who went to Bossieye on January 19 said he found 31 bodies near the mosque. “The attackers had really sprayed them with bullets,” he said. “Some were hit in the head, feet, legs, back.” Another man, 65, said: “We dug four mass graves: in the first one, we put 9 bodies; in the second, we put 9 more, and in the third and fourth, we put 6 and 7 bodies respectively.”
Human Rights Watch reviewed a list, compiled by residents, with the names of 27 men, ages 19 to 71, and 4 children, ages 15 to 17.
On January 26 at about 4 p.m., IS Sahel fighters arrived in Alfaga Daweyzé Koira village on five motorbikes. They searched the market for a man they accused of collaborating with the military and recruiting for the local militia. When they did not find him, they proceeded to his house, where a crowd had gathered to defend him. A 35-year-old man who narrowly escaped death, said: “At this point, they [IS Sahel fighters] opened fire on the crowd, killing four men on the spot and injuring five others.”
After the fighters left, “we first helped evacuate the wounded and then buried the four victims in individual graves at the village cemetery,” a 37-year-old man said.
Troops came to Alfaga Daweyzé Koira on January 28 and urged the village chief to leave the area but did not ask about the situation for other residents, including those injured in the attack.
Human Rights Watch reviewed a list, compiled by residents, of the men killed, ages 23, 25, 34, and 43, and of the wounded, ages 34 to 60.
Niger has been ruled by a military junta since July 26, 2023, when officers led by Brig. Gen. Abdourahamane Tiani overthrew and detained President Mohamed Bazoum, pledging to combat the Islamist insurgency. Nigerien security forces have conducted large counterinsurgency operations, including airstrikes, in the Tillabéri region, some resulting in serious laws-of-war violations.
The nongovernmental group Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) has reported that in 2025 the Tillabéri region recorded the “highest number of fatalities from attacks on civilians” in central Sahel, caused first by IS Sahel, followed by the Nigerien military, and finally by the Al Qaeda-linked armed group Jama’at Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin (JNIM).
All parties to Niger’s armed conflict are bound by Common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law. The laws of war prohibit attacking civilians, mistreating anyone in custody including captured combatants, looting, and destroying civilian property. Individuals who order, commit, or assist serious violations of the laws of war with criminal intent may be prosecuted for war crimes. The Niger government has an obligation to investigate and appropriately prosecute alleged war crimes committed within its territory.
“IS Sahel’s unabated atrocities against civilians are deeply alarming,” Allegrozzi said. “Niger’s military authorities should urgently prioritize the protection of civilians, bring those responsible for abuses to account, and ensure that victims and their families receive adequate support.”
Nepal: Publish Reports on Violent Crackdowns on Protests
(London) – Nepal’s interim government led by Prime Minister Sushila Karki should release the Commission of Inquiry report into deadly violence during the “Gen Z” protests of September 2025, as well as all the previous judge-led inquiry reports on human rights violations and abuses which were not published by previous governments, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Commission of Jurists said today. All of the political parties participating in the March 5, 2026 parliamentary election should commit to end impunity for rights abuses and corruption by upholding the rule of law, including by successfully completing the transitional justice process.
At least 76 people were killed, most unlawfully, during the September 8-9 protests after police opened fire on young protesters demonstrating against government corruption and a social media ban. On the second day of the protests, there were killings by both the security forces and protestors as well as widespread burning of public and private buildings. On September 9, then-Prime Minister K.P. Oli resigned. Sushila Karki, a former chief justice, was appointed interim prime minister on September 12 with the mandate to conduct elections, and established a commission to investigate violations committed during September 8-9.
“Successive Nepali government have buried a series of reports with recommendations that could have led to justice and reform, and ignored the findings,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The Karki government has a unique opportunity to start dismantling the culture of impunity, by publishing all the reports documenting violations against protesters and those taking part in people’s movements.”
Since Nepal’s current democratic era began in 1990, several inquiry commissions have been appointed following serious violations and abuses. But none have published their findings, contributing to a culture of impunity that has fueled repeated human rights violations and widespread official corruption, the organizations said.
After the 1990 People’s Movement, the incoming democratic government buried the findings of the Malik Commission, which had been established to investigate lethal violence against protesters. In 2006, a second people’s movement ended a brief period of direct royal rule, but the Rayamajhi Commission report into violence against protesters, including the reported killings of at least 19 people, was buried once again.
In 2015, after about 45 people were killed in protests against a new constitution, the Lal Commission was established to investigate the incidents, but its report remains unpublished despite repeated promises to make it public. There have been numerous other unpublished official reports on rights violations since 1990.
Following the killings during the “Gen Z” movement in September, a commission chaired by former justice Gauri Bahadur Karki (who is not related to the interim prime minister) was formed to investigate, but on February 9 its deadline was extended beyond election day, for fear that its findings could be opposed by security forces or political actors and cause “friction” in the election environment.
In October, Prime Minister Karki said that the “Gen Z” movement that brought her to office “reflects people’s profound aspiration for good governance, economic opportunity and integrity in public life.” The protests arose in large part from the frustrations of young people over economic stagnation resulting from misgovernance and endemic political corruption.
“One of the reasons Nepal has been trapped in cycles of governance marked by weak accountability, and human rights violations, is that impunity has been hard-wired into elite politics, but Prime Minister Karki can take an historic step to reverse that trend by releasing all the reports,” said Isabelle Lassée, deputy regional director for South Asia at Amnesty International. “One of the greatest areas of ongoing impunity concerns abuses and violations committed during the 1996-2006 insurgency, and to address those, all parties standing in the election should commit to advancing the transitional justice process in line with international standards, including by addressing the concerns of victims around the accountability gaps in the law as well as political instrumentalization of the process.”
The internal armed conflict between Maoist rebels and security forces cost more than 20,000 lives, amid widespread abuses and violations by both sides. The 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement included a commitment to transitional justice, to hold perpetrators accountable, to provide reparations, and to reveal what happened to victims of enforced disappearance. However, justice has been repeatedly stalled by political interference that sought to shield those who may be responsible for crimes from accountability.
In 2024, Nepal’s parliament amended the law on transitional justice to remove some provisions that could have granted amnesty to people responsible for serious crimes under international law. Although some problems in the legislation remain, the amendments were accepted by some victims and survivors’ groups as a viable basis to move forward. However, in 2025 many victims’ representatives rejected appointments to the two transitional justice bodies as being flawed, unqualified, and lacking political independence. Little progress has been made since then, and the process once again appears deadlocked.
Victims and survivors of crimes committed during Nepal’s internal armed conflict are still awaiting justice and reparations. Impunity for these crimes has cast a long shadow over post-conflict Nepal. The repeated shielding of those suspected to be responsible by successive governments needs to end, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Commission of Jurists said.
“To break the cycle of impunity and help build a future based on the rule of law, the interim government should publish all of the reports by official commissions into past human rights violations before it leaves office,” said Mandira Sharma, Asia and Pacific Regional Director at the International Commission of Jurists. “All parties that aspire to lead Nepal after the election should publicly commit to fearlessly pursuing justice for corruption and human rights violations and abuses, including by successfully completing the transitional justice process taking victims and civil society’s voices into consideration.”
US Greenhouse Gas Deregulation Hurts Reproductive Rights
Today, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rescinded its 2009 endangerment finding: a drastic move even in the context of the Trump administration’s larger deregulatory and anti-climate agenda. Impacts on climate action and communities threaten to be extremely broad but also pose particular threats to increasingly beleaguered reproductive rights.
Because it is a vital legal tool for regulating climate-warning pollutants, both health and environmental organizations have fiercely challenged this rollback of the endangerment finding. Some protesting groups cited community experience and scientific and medical evidence pointing to pollutants’ harmful impact on health as well as the urgent need for regulation to combat climate warming: the cause of increasingly severe hurricanes, wildfires, and heat.
Less regulation of vehicle and power plants emissions, for example, will mean worse air quality, which not only harms human health, in general, but also has specific detrimental impacts on pregnancy health. The National Climate Assessment, which was released by the US government in November of 2023, explained that extreme heat exposure is associated with adverse birth outcomes and noted other threats to pregnancy health, such as wildfire smoke. These studies showed that women of reproductive age “disproportionately experience a (climate change) burden,” according to the report. Because women of color more often belong to underserved communities they were especially at risk, the authors noted.
National Climate Assessments are congressionally mandated. But that did not stop the Trump administration from pulling the 2023 report off government websites and firing the contributors working on the next one as well as another report that found a higher risk of climate harms for communities of color.
Other more overt, more dramatic attacks on women’s health since Trump retook office have garnered more attention than slower environmental violence. But undermining the experiences of communities hit hard by climate disaster, science and practices, policies and rules—established by decades of fierce struggle to protect environmental health and equity for all—is just another, quieter way that this administration continues to dismantle women’s rights.
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.