Secondary menu
IHRP external news feeds
Action Needed to Confront Domestic Violence in Central Asia
December 10 marks the end of the annual 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. The global statistics are alarming, and the situationis deeply concerning for women across Central Asia, where domestic violence remains a serious and pervasive issue.
Deeply ingrained patriarchal norms hinder survivors’ access to justice and aid across the region, and impunity for family abuse is the norm. Although governments have made some important strides in recent years, including changes to legislation, women across Central Asia continue to face violence – and are even killed – by their partners on a regular basis.
International human rights law mandates that states take effective measures to prevent and respond to domestic violence, but most Central Asian countries do not view domestic violence as a distinct criminal offense.
In April, Kazakhstan adopted legislative amendments that advanced women’s rights and strengthened protections for women and children, including domestic violence survivors. But the laws still failed to explicitly criminalize domestic violence as a stand-alone offense.
In July, Kyrgyzstan enhanced protections in law for women against rape, sexual assault, and bride kidnapping. However, laws still fail to ensure equal rights and opportunities for women and girls with disabilities who are victims of domestic violence.
Tajikistan has no legislation explicitly criminalizing domestic violence, and although some legal protections exist in the criminal code, lack of state services and shelters blocks women’s access to support and safety.
Turkmenistan does not have a domestic violence law, and family abuse is mainly addressed through the country’s criminal and administrative codes, and other laws that experts say “lack adequate protection for victim-survivors of domestic violence”.
Uzbekistan made domestic violence a stand-alone criminal offense in April 2023. However, gaps remain and the authorities need to do more to stop widespread victim blaming and to bring perpetrators to justice.
The lack of sufficient state support for victims across Central Asia, including shelters, especially in rural areas, exacerbates the challenges for survivors of domestic violence. States should also invest in specialized training for police and judiciary in survivor-centered response.
Improving, strengthening, and enforcing laws is paramount to ensuring accountability and creating safe environments for women and girls, as is more action to challenge social stigma.
Only through a comprehensive approach can governments make real breakthroughs to truly end the scourge of domestic violence in Central Asia.
Niger: Prominent Civil Society Activist Arbitrarily Arrested
(Paris) – Niger’s military authorities should immediately drop all charges and release a prominent civil society activist and critic of the government, who is detained solely for the peaceful exercise of his human rights, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (a joint programme of the World Organisation Against Torture and the International Federation for Human Rights, FIDH) said today.
The arrest and detention on December 3, 2024, of Moussa Tiangari, secretary general of the civil society organization Citizens’ Alternative Spaces (Alternatives Espaces Citoyens, AEC), in Niamey, Niger’s capital, appears linked to a pervasive crackdown by the Nigerien authorities’ on the political opposition, media, and peaceful dissent since Gen. Abdourahamane Tiani took power in a military coup in July 2023.
“Moussa Tiangari doesn’t belong in prison, and neither do several other Nigeriens unjustly arrested by General Tiani’s government, including former President Mohamed Bazoum and his wife,” said Drissa Traoré, secretary general of the FIDH. “Niger’s authorities should immediately release Tiangari, drop all the charges against him, and stop targeting human rights defenders and activists.”
At about 7:30 p.m. on December 3, at least three gunmen in plain clothes, who claimed to be policemen, arrested Tiangari, 55, at his home in Niamey, and seized his phone, laptop, and suitcase. “They violently broke into our home. My husband asked them if they had a warrant, but they replied that a warrant was not compulsory,” Tiangari's wife, who witnessed the arrest, said. “They ordered him [Tiangari] to follow them quietly as they did not want anybody to know what was going on.”
Tiangari had previously expressed concerns with his colleagues and friends about the risk of arbitrary arrest and detention looming over many Nigeriens, especially those publicly criticizing the military authorities, including himself.
“Tiangari told me that Nigerien civil society actors were worried, carefully weighting their words and actions to be able to continue defending human rights, despite the constant risk of arrest,” said Isidore Ngueuleu, head of the Africa unit at the World Organisation Against Torture. “Tiangari has been serving as a role model for many human rights defenders and his arrest is intended to intimidate them.”
For nearly two days, Tiangari’s whereabouts remained unknown. On December 5 at about 4 p.m., lawyers finally located him at the Central Service for Combating Terrorism and Organized Transnational Crime (Service Central de Lutte contre le Terrorisme et la Criminalité Transnationale Organisée, SCLCT/CTO) in Niamey and spoke to him. Rabiou Mamane, one of the lawyers representing Tiangari, said that his client was taken “hooded” to the office of the intelligence services, “which is not an investigative unit under the authority of the general prosecutor,” before being transferred to the SCLCT/CTO. Mamane said that Tiangari had been charged with “advocacy of terrorism, undermining state security and criminal association in connection with terrorism”.
“I had to fight to see my client and had to write several letters to judicial authorities denouncing the deplorable conditions in which Tiangari was arrested,” Mamane told Amnesty International. “I shouldn’t have had to do so, but there is no respect for the rule of law in Niger.”
Since the 1990s, Tiangari has been known as an activist working to advance human rights and the rule of law in Niger. He was first detained in May 2015 for four days, following an interview in which he expressed concerns about the arbitrary arrest of six people suspected of collusion with the armed Islamist group Boko Haram, and again in 2018 for participating in a peaceful protest.
Tiangari recently criticized the November 12 decision by Niger’s interior minister to withdraw the licenses of two humanitarian nongovernmental organizations, as well as the establishment on August 27 of a terrorism database.
On November 28, Alternatives Espaces Citoyens (AEC), Tiangari’s organization, convened a meeting to discuss the October 10 presidential decree provisionally removing Nigerien nationality from nine people linked to former President Bazoum. Human Rights Watch also raised concerns about the decree and called on the authorities to revoke it.
The charges against Tiangari, including advocating terrorism and criminal association in connection with terrorism, fall into the broad list of offenses that could lead to citizens being deprived of their citizenship even prior to conviction, according to the August order establishing the terrorism database.
Tiangari’s arrest has resulted in a public outcry. International, regional, and Nigerien human rights organizations, including Transparency International Niger, have called for his release.
Amnesty International, FIDH, Human Rights Watch, and the World Organisation Against Torture have extensively reported on the Nigerien authorities’ severe restrictions on the human rights of activists, journalists, opposition party members, and dissidents since the coup.
“Moussa Tiangari is the latest victim of the Nigerien government’s campaign to crush criticism of its policies and practices,” said Ilaria Allegrozzi, senior Sahel researcher at Human Rights Watch.
Authorities have arbitrarily detained former President Bazoum and his wife, and at least 30 officials from the ousted government, including former ministers, members of the presidential cabinet, and people close to the deposed president, denying them fair trial rights and due process of law. They have threatened, harassed, arbitrarily arrested journalists, suspended media organizations, and have rejected oversight of military spending, contrary to claims to combat corruption.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which Niger is a state party, protect the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, association, and peaceful assembly.
“All recent actions, including Tiangari’s arrest, show that Nigerien authorities should immediately release Tiangari and stop using terrorism-related charges to silence dissent,” said Samira Daoud, Regional Director for Amnesty International West and Central Africa. “Regional and international partners to Niger should condemn this targeting of those who speak truth to power.”
Planned UK-Gulf Trade Agreement Risks Implicating the UK in Labor Abuses
As the UK draws closer to finalizing a Free Trade Agreement with Gulf countries, Prime Minister Keir Starmer is visiting Saudi Arabia to boost domestic investment. Without concrete rights protections, the new British government risks furthering abuses rooted in Britain’s colonial past.
Widespread labor violations against migrant workers are effectively state policy in Gulf countries, where migrant labor is entrenched in local economies. A trade agreement with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states risks contributing to abuses against migrant workers, by further facilitating wage abuse, employer exploitation, and situations that amount to forced labor.
The UK should insist that a free trade agreement with Gulf countries includes concrete labor and other rights improvements, particularly for migrant workers.
During its colonial past, Britain held significant influence over a number of Gulf countries. The kafala (labor sponsorship) system, prevalent across the Gulf, was largely a British creation during the protectorate period. The new UK government should work to address the legacies of British imperialism. Unless the trade agreement requires all parties to address the abuses inherent in the kafala system, making improvements based on concrete benchmarks, the UK government could risk complicity in labor abuses.
Human Rights Watch recently released a report detailing how Saudi Arabia’s migrant workers – subject to the kafala system – face widespread abuses, including at high-profile “giga-projects” funded by or linked to Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, the Public Investment Fund.
We found that Saudi authorities fail to protect migrant workers including by failing to enforce Saudi laws intended to protect migrant workers. Also, compliance with Saudi laws alone is insufficient, as many of these laws fail – by design – to meet the country’s obligations under human rights instruments.
During his visit, Starmer will likely seek investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, a near trillion-dollar Saudi state investment vehicle effectively controlled by one person: Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Human Rights Watch has documented the fund’s links to human rights abuses.
British businesses should conduct due diligence prior to engaging with Saudi’s Public Investment Fund and refrain from doing business when serious negative human rights impacts are considered unavoidable. The British government should also investigate links between the fund’s investments and rights violations and consider sanctions against the fund until violations are addressed.
Argentina: Don’t Name Supreme Court Justices by Decree
(Washington, DC) – The government of Argentina should refrain from appointing Supreme Court justices by presidential decree and should nominate candidates based on their qualifications, experience, diversity, and integrity, Human Rights Watch said today.
In November, President Javier Milei’s chief of staff said that the administration was considering naming two Supreme Court justices by decree. Argentina’s five-member Supreme Court has had a vacancy since 2021 and is expected to have another one starting late December, when one of the judges retires. In April 2024, President Milei proposed Ariel Lijo, a federal judge, and Manuel García-Mansilla, a scholar, to fill the vacancies. The government has so far failed to obtain the two-thirds vote needed in the Senate to approve the nominations.
“Ahead of his first year anniversary in government, President Milei should show that his administration upholds judicial independence by following the congressional process for the appointment of Supreme Court justices,” said Juanita Goebertus, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “Instead of appointing his current nominees by decree, President Milei should nominate candidates with the strongest qualifications and record of integrity and work with the Senate to get them approved.”
A provision in Argentina’s constitution allows the president to “fill employment vacancies that require Senate approval and that occur during a congressional recess.” While courts have not ruled on how this provision applies to Supreme Court justices, many scholars question whether Supreme Court justice vacancies fit the category of “employment” mentioned in the constitution. In their view, the provision refers solely to ambassadors, members of the military, and other executive branch officials. The provision also appears not to apply to vacancies that occur before the congressional recess in which the appointment by decree is carried out.
Argentina is party to human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, that require it to safeguard the independence and impartiality of its judiciary. The Inter-American Court on Human Rights has repeatedly said that judges should be appointed through an “adequate process” that protects their independence, including from the executive and legislative branches.
Under the Argentine constitution, presidential appointments made during a congressional recess should last until the “end of the following congressional period,” meaning in this case November 30, 2025. However, the Senate would be able to remove them before that period on any basis, which undermines their security of tenure and could undermine the judges’ real or perceived independence.
In December 2015, then-President Mauricio Macri cited the same constitutional provision to fill two vacancies in the Supreme Court by presidential decree. Human Rights Watch, other nongovernmental organizations, and scholars criticized the decision. However, the justices appointed by then-President Macri did not take office until they obtained the required two-thirds vote in the Senate, six months later.
Following President Milei’s nominations of Lijo and García-Mansilla in April, several rights groups, citizens, business associations, and scholars formally expressed concern over Lijo’s record as a federal judge and García-Mansilla’s views on reproductive and sexual rights. Lijo has five pending disciplinary investigations in the Council of the Judiciary, the body charged with investigating and removing federal judges. According to one study, he has faced 29 other disciplinary proceedings that were closed, including 16 held without any pretrial processing. Some proceedings were based on evidence that Lijo allegedly delayed and manipulated investigations into corruption.
Critics have pointed out that if Lijo and García-Mansilla are appointed, there will be no women on the five-member court, making it the only high court with such a composition in Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Iberian Peninsula. Under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which Argentina has ratified, governments must “take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in [...] political and public life.”
An all-male Supreme Court risks perpetuating systemic barriers that hinder women’s access to leadership roles in the judiciary, undermining broader efforts toward gender equality and diversity in public institutions.
UN: Deploy New Haiti Mission to Restore Security
(New York, December 9, 2024) – The United Nations Security Council should urgently authorize and rapidly deploy a full-fledged United Nations mission to Haiti, Human Rights Watch said today in publishing a briefing paper on the subject. The mission should ensure a human rights-based response to restore security, the rule of law, and democratic governance.
Haiti’s crisis has reached catastrophic levels as a result of criminal groups intensifying their large-scale, coordinated attacks on the population and key infrastructure, overwhelming the Haitian police and the UN-authorized Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission. The briefing paper outlines the key components and human rights safeguards needed for a successful new UN mission, and to prevent the failures and abuses associated with past international interventions in Haiti.
Haiti Position Paper Calling for a UN mission.pdf“Haitians say that the fear of attacks by criminal groups has taken over their daily lives, and millions struggle to find food, water, and health care,” said Ida Sawyer, crisis, conflict and arms director at Human Rights Watch. “A new, full-fledged UN mission that respects rights and builds on the initial UN efforts could provide the Haitian people a genuine opportunity to reconstruct their lives with hope and dignity.”
In a letter dated November 29, the UN Security Council asked UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to present “strategic-level” recommendations for the role the UN could play in helping address the security, economic, and humanitarian crisis in Haiti. Guterres should offer clear and comprehensive recommendations for the swift transformation of the MSS into a mission that advances human rights and accountability to promote security and the rule of law in Haiti, Human Rights Watch said.
The MSS, authorized in October 2023 and initially deployed in June 2024, raised hopes for improved security. Despite its largely United States funding and Kenyan leadership, it remains in pre-deployment status due to funding and personnel shortages. Only US$97.4 million of the $600 million needed for its first year has been allocated, and just 400 of the expected 2,500 officers are deployed. While they have supported Haitian National Police anti-crime operations and developed human rights safeguards, the mission has not obtained enough resources to make it effective or fully operational.
Meanwhile, Haitians are at the mercy of increasingly organized and coordinated criminal groups involved in arms, drug, and human trafficking, which could have significant consequences for peace and security across the entire region. Criminal groups now control around 85 percent of the capital, Port-au-Prince, and its metropolitan area, and have expanded their control into the Ouest and Artibonite departments. Between January and mid-November, criminal groups killed about 4,544 people, and 4,000 girls and women reported sexual violence, including gang rape, according to the UN. Over 700,000 Haitians – 25 percent of them children – are internally displaced, while half of Haiti’s population struggles to afford food, making it one of world’s most acutely food insecure countries.
Since mid-November, Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders, or MSF) – a lifeline for survivors of attacks and sexual violence – and other local organizations have had to suspend their activities because of insecurity from criminal groups and threats by government security forces. UN agencies are adjusting their operations to continue their work, while many diplomats and staff from international organizations have been relocated to safe areas or evacuated from the country, disrupting their activities.
The police are under-equipped, under-staffed, and undermined by officers implicated in serious abuses or who have links to criminal groups, while the transitional government has fallen short of restoring the rule of law, rooting out corruption, and planning for credible elections.
The Haitian government in September formally requested the transformation of the MSS into a full-fledged UN mission. The US, Kenya, members of the Organization of American States (OAS), the Group of Seven (G7), other Security Council members, and the UN independent human rights expert on Haiti have supported this request.
The UN Secretary-General should act swiftly to address the request from the Security Council and, based on this, the UN should take prompt and concrete actions in support of Haiti.
In Haiti in July and remotely since then, Human Rights Watch has interviewed scores of Haitian victims of abuses, human rights activists, humanitarian and health workers, government officials and others. They have consistently called for a strong international response to help restore basic security, but stress the need to avoid the failings of past interventions and for it to be part of a comprehensive response that also addresses the root causes of Haiti’s instability.
“Criminal violence is becoming increasingly brutal,” Pierre Esperance, the director of Haiti’s National Human Rights Defense Network (RNDDH), told Human Rights Watch. “If urgent action is not taken, it will be too late for the millions of Haitians whose lives are at risk. A robust UN mission, including guarantees for human rights and accountability for past interventions, can make the difference and help us address all aspects of the crisis.”
Pastor Jean Enock Joseph, an educator and human rights activist in Cité Soleil, Port-au-Prince, expressed the need for “a UN mission with a mandate to restore peace” that also has “the capacity to address the structural causes of the crisis, while leaving it to Haitians to democratically choose their leaders.”
Lionel Bourgoin, the Port-au-Prince government commissioner, said that “a UN mission could provide increased resources, expertise, and international coordination to strengthen judicial and security institutions, while ensuring a human rights-based approach.” He however underscored that “transparency and consultation with civil society actors, judicial authorities, and affected local populations must be at the heart of the process to ensure its effectiveness and legitimacy.”
A 15-year-old girl told Human Rights Watch in late November that she now lives on the street in Port-au-Prince with her 5 and 7-year-old sisters, after criminal group members shot their parents during an attack on their neighborhood in late October: “I was sleeping when my dad woke me up. There were gunshots everywhere. He told me, ‘We have to flee....’ We left our house, but as we were running, a bullet hit my dad in the head, and another hit my mom in the chest. My mom was bleeding a lot. She told me, ‘Run, run away.’ I had no choice but to leave her there.... I haven’t heard from her since.... I ran away with my little sisters, not knowing what to do. I’m scared, very scared, that something might happen to us, that we might be raped at night.”
Like others whom Human Rights Watch interviewed, she went on to describe the dire need for a meaningful international response: “The police alone can’t do it; we need urgent help. We need someone to come and save us from the bandits, to bring us food, water, medicine, clothing. We can’t take it anymore. Someone has to stop them [the criminal groups]; someone has to tell them they must stop killing us.”
“The Haitian people have endured so much and waited so long for a meaningful international response to the crisis,” Sawyer said. “The UN has the opportunity now to get it right – by authorizing a strong new human rights-compliant UN mission and mobilizing the necessary resources so it can effectively work with the Haitian people to restore security, ensure access to basic necessities, and address the root causes of instability.”
Haiti Position Paper Calling for a UN mission.pdfColombia: Labor Violations, Sexual Exploitation in Webcam Studios
(New York, December 9, 2024) – Webcam models in Colombia report serious abuses by studios producing content for the billion-dollar adult webcam industry, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Models report unhygienic conditions, 18-hour shifts without breaks, and coercion to do sexual performances they find degrading, traumatizing, or physically painful.
December 9, 2024 “I Learned How to Say No”The 175-page report, “‘I Learned How to Say No’: Labor Abuses & Sexual Exploitation in Colombian Webcam Studios,” exposes working conditions in webcam studios in Bogotá, Cali, Medellín, and Palmira, where models record content that is broadcasted by adult platforms and streamed around the world. Webcamming is a global industry in which studies estimate that platforms keep between 50 and 65 percent of what viewers pay. People interviewed said that studios retain as much as 70 percent of what is paid out by the platform, reducing the pay of workers. Adult webcam platforms based in the United States and Europe should immediately address labor abuses and sexual exploitation in Colombian webcam studios.
“Sex workers deserve the same labor protections as all workers under international human rights law, but the billion-dollar webcam industry has largely avoided scrutiny for abuses in its supply chains,” said Erin Kilbride, researcher at Human Rights Watch and report author. “Webcam platforms have a responsibility to identify, mitigate, and prevent human rights abuses by studios and should carry out reforms in line with international human rights responsibilities.”
In collaboration with sex worker rights organizations, La Liga de Salud Trans and Corporación Calle 7 Colombia, Human Rights Watch researchers spent 18 months investigating adult webcam studios in Colombia, including interviewing 55 sex workers with experience in the industry.
Workers report streaming from small, confined cubicles with a lack of ventilation, and bedbug and cockroach infestations. Some identify verbal, physical, and sexual abuse by studio management, and coercion to perform sex acts to which they did not consent. Labor conditions include wage theft, fines for taking breaks to eat and use the bathroom, and computer keyboards, mouses, and furniture covered in bodily fluids from other employees. Workers developed rashes and infections and had a lack of mental health support.
A 29-year-old transgender Bolivian woman who worked at a studio in Bogotá said that when she asked her manager to end a penetrative performance due to extreme pain, “[he] said if I stop, I will hurt the rating, so I had to keep going.” Another model told researchers of an experience in which they were terrified that a glass bottle they were pressured to insert inside themselves would break.
Most said they want to save money to buy their own equipment and stream from home where they could better control their hours and performances. Yet, models report studios often refuse to cede control of accounts, forcing models to start from scratch if they want to leave the studio.
While all those interviewed were adults, several report that studios enabled them to begin working as children and violated platforms’ age restrictions by “recycling” accounts that were registered to former adult models. Platforms should review, revise, or adopt robust and responsive processes to ensure that workers retain full ownership of their own accounts, to help prevent the circumvention of age restrictions that lead to children’s involvement in the industry.
Forty-nine of 50 models interviewed said they had neither seen nor signed the terms of service from any platform on which they streamed. Most said the studios created their account for them, which they believed included “accepting” the terms of service on their behalf. This left models without essential information to ensure they were paid fairly, and they could not make informed decisions about their work hours, breaks, and which client requests to accept. In some cases, this contributed to models experiencing wage theft, sexual coercion, and labor exploitation by studios.
Models said that studio managers use the threat of account bans or decreased traffic to put intense pressure on them to work long hours without food or water, and to perform sex acts they had not consented to.
Human Rights Watch reviewed platform policies from BongaCams, Chaturbate, LiveJasmin, and Stripchat, four of the webcam platforms commonly used by interviewees. Based on this review, these platforms may need more extensive human rights due diligence protocols to address risks related to occupational health, safety, sanitation, and working conditions in studios.
Human Rights Watch contacted the four platforms for comment. BongaCams, Chaturbate, and Stripchat provided policies and steps they take to identify and prevent human trafficking and child sexual abuse but denied responsibility for other labor abuses occurring at studios in their supply chains such as unhygienic conditions and denial of right to rest. Responses from BongaCams, Chaturbate, and Stripchat are annexed to the report. LiveJasmin declined to respond on the record.
All models interviewed said that they chose to work as webcammers and were not forced or coerced into doing so. At the same time, all report that they felt surprised, deceived, or misled about several conditions of their employment, including what they would be paid, sex acts they were expected to perform, or studio sanitation. For some, the inability to take their account with them, compounded by small amounts of debt they accrued at the studio store or while living in the studio, also made it more difficult to leave.
Human Rights Watch does not call for criminalizing the webcam industry or studios. Instead, researchers work with sex worker organizations and sex worker rights defenders to identify concrete steps that platforms, studios, and the government should take to address abuses and root out exploitation.
“Sexual exploitation is not inherent to webcam modeling, but our research indicates that the risk of exploitation in Colombian studios is extremely high,” Kilbride said. “Platforms have the power and responsibility to address abuses by studios. They need to review their policies and implement comprehensive standards for the studios with which they work, based on the expertise of sex workers themselves.”
A New Dawn for Syria
(Beirut) - The government of Bashar al-Assad was overthrown on December 8, 2024 by a coalition of armed opposition groups, marking an end to over 50 years of Baath Party rule in Syria.
Assad’s government committed countless atrocities, crimes against humanity, and other abuses during his 24-year presidency. These include widespread and systematic arbitrary arrests, torture, enforced disappearances and deaths in detention, use of chemical weapons, starvation as a weapon of war, and indiscriminate and deliberate attacks against civilians and civilian objects. Non-state armed groups operating in Syria, including Hay’et Tahrir al Sham and factions of the Syrian National Army that launched the offensive on November 27, are also responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes.
The following quote can be attributed to Lama Fakih, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch:
“The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government offers Syrians an unprecedented opportunity to chart a new future built on justice, accountability, and respect for human rights. For Syrians scattered across the globe, the dream of accountability for years of crimes and brutality is closer to becoming a reality. Whoever emerges as Syria’s new leadership should make a full and determined break from the repression and impunity of the past and establish a system that respects the human rights and dignity of all Syrians regardless of background or political views. They should swiftly move to preserve and protect evidence of crimes and abuses by the former government and ensure fair, impartial justice going forward. Armed opposition groups should send a strong and unequivocal message to factions and fighters that unlawful attacks, including those targeting individuals based on perceived ties to the former government, will not be tolerated. They should commit to ensuring the humane treatment of all individuals, including former government officials and soldiers, affiliated fighters, and loyalists.”
Yemen’s Houthis Still Detaining UN, Civil Society Staff
Over the past six months, the Houthis in Yemen have arbitrarily detained and disappeared at least 17 United Nations staff as well as scores of employees of nongovernmental, civil society organizations, and private companies.
Despite calls from the United Nations and governments for their release, the Houthis continue to detain these people without charge and, in most cases, without adequate access to lawyers or family members.
The Houthis who control Yemen’s capital Sanaa and much of northern Yemen, launched this arrest campaign on May 31. The Houthis raided detainees’ homes and offices in Sanaa, Yemen’s largest city, and other northern governorates without presenting arrest or search warrants. While at least two individuals have been released, those remaining in detention have mostly been denied access to legal representation, family visits, and other essential rights. A former employee of Save the Children and two former Education Ministry officials have died in Houthi detention since the fall of 2023.
Yemenis are already living in “one of the largest humanitarian crises in the world,” according to the UN: a crisis that requires increased funding and greater collaboration between national and international actors to deliver essential aid, including food, water, and medical supplies. Currently, “24.1 million people – 80 per cent of the population, in need of humanitarian aid and protection,” according to the UN.
The detentions are worsening the situation.
For example, on November 26, the Swedish government decided to “phase out” its development assistance to Yemen. Benjamin Dousa, the minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade, said that this decision was made “against the background of the Houthis’ increasingly destructive actions in the northern parts of the country, including the kidnappings of UN personnel.”
The Houthis should release all UN and civil society staff, lift restrictions on humanitarian aid, and engage in productive dialogue and collaboration with humanitarian actors to address the country’s multiple crises, while also fulfilling the people’s economic rights. They should also end all arbitrary detentions. Some of the detainees have died.
Although the UN has repeatedly called for the release of its detained staff and civil society workers, both the UN and the international community should strengthen their demands on the Houthis to release the detainees, and better coordinate their efforts in this shared goal. UN agencies should also redouble efforts to protect and support their remaining staff in Yemen.
The Need to Continue Protecting Syrian Refugees
The sudden escalation of fighting in Syria, as armed groups make serious advancements, carries an important lesson about refugee protection. For the past several years, governments in Europe and the Middle East have increasingly been itching to send Syrian refugees home, arguing that the fighting is over and it’s safe for them to return – despite international legal obligations and the reality on the ground in Syria.
While most host countries maintained temporary protection as the Syria conflict dragged on, the cracks have been growing. Human Rights Watch has documented both deportations and coerced “voluntary returns” of Syrian refugees.
Human Rights Watch has warned repeatedly that Syria is not safe for returns. Our 2019 report, “Our Lives Are Like Death,” documented the grave abuses and the harsh economic realities Syrians faced upon returning from Jordan and Lebanon, including arbitrary arrests, torture, and extra-judicial killings at the hands of Syrian security agencies. More recently, we documented the arrests of four Syrian men fleeing the war in Lebanon to Syria, and we reported that at least two Syrian men deported from Lebanon and Türkiye to Syria since 2023 had died in Syrian government detention in suspicious circumstances.
The 1951 Refugee Convention includes a “cessation clause” that says a refugee no longer needs protection when the circumstances that caused the person to become a refugee “have ceased to exist.” The UN Refugee Agency states that the changed circumstances must be fundamental and durable. That the same repressive government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, unreformed in its brutal practices, remains in power is the most obvious indication of lack of fundamental change. But the recent escalation of violence in Aleppo and elsewhere also proves that a long, unresolved, simmering conflict can erupt into full hostilities, a caution against premature returns.
While refugees often make significant contributions to their host communities, hosting them can feel like a strain, especially when their numbers are large and the conflicts protracted. But sending refugees back to destitution and danger is not an option that can be squared with the basic principles of humanity and human rights law. As the violence in Syria spikes again, host societies that have tolerated Syrian refugees should be thankful that they did not send them back before it was safe to do so.
Kyrgyzstan: Defense Lawyer Held, Charged in Apparent Retaliation
(Bishkek, December 6, 2024) – Kyrgyzstani authorities should immediately release Samat Matsakov, a criminal defense lawyer known for representing government critics and opponents who have been politically targeted, Human Rights Watch said today. Matsakov was detained on November 29, 2024, and the following day a district court in Bishkek ordered that he be held in pre-trial detention for a month on charges of “large-scale fraud and document forgery.” Observers cited numerous procedural violations in his detention and court hearing.
Matsakov has represented former and current journalists of the Temirov Live investigative reporting outlet, including Makhabat Tajibek kyzy, Azamat Ishenbekov, Aike Beishekeeva, and Aktilek Kaparov, who the Bishkek city court found guilty of “calls to mass riots” in October. He also represented the poet, Azamat Jetigen, who was sentenced in July to three years prison for “public calls to violent government overthrow,” and Imamidin Tashov, a businessman in pre-trial detention since April on similar charges.
“It is hard to believe that Samat Matsakov’s detention is anything but related to his professional activities as a lawyer representing critics and opponents of the government,” said Syinat Sultanalieva, Central Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Matsakov’s arrest targets the independence of the legal profession and undermines confidence in Kyrgyzstan’s justice system, and he should be released immediately.”
A coalition of human rights defenders and civic activists have spoken out forcefully against Matsakov’s detention. Officers believed to be from the State Committee for National Security went to his home on the evening of November 29 and searched it without a court order. They arrested Matsakov and confiscated his voice recorder and DVDs from the Tashov case, materially irrelevant to any allegations of forgery.
Matsakov was not provided with documentation related to the arrest or search setting out the legal basis and scope for the arrest or search, or how the search was conducted.
Matsakov’s legal team has not been given any evidence of his alleged crimes, nor have investigators organized a required session, in which he would face the alleged victim of the crime. During the November 30 judicial hearing on pre-trial detention, his defense team sought access to the case documents, specifically evidence of Matsakov’s alleged document forgery, but were refused, as the investigators invoked “investigative secrecy.”
The investigators would only say that they accuse Matsakov of forging an agreement with an unnamed client. The judge refused all defense motions, including that according to law, the charges did not warrant pretrial detention, before sending Matsakov to jail.
The Kyrgyzstani Council of Lawyers issued a statement on December 2 reminding the authorities that, among other things, according to law, only the prosecutor general or their deputy has the authority to initiate a criminal case against a lawyer in connection with their professional activities. They called for an inquiry into the legality of the national security committee bringing a case against Matsakov, for due process to be fully respected, and for an end to any efforts to undermine the independence of the bar. Efforts to retaliate against lawyers for doing their job directly contradicts the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which codifies the norms for protecting the independence of the legal profession.
Matsakov’s detention is not an isolated event but part of a broader pattern of increasing repression in Kyrgyzstan. During 2024, the government has progressively narrowed civic space, with a Russia-style “foreign agent” law. Several journalists, bloggers, poets and writers have been found guilty of calling for mass riots, and, Kloop Media, an award-winning investigative outlet, was liquidated by court order.
Kyrgyzstan’s international partners should call on the authorities to release Matsakov, drop the charges against him or produce credible evidence of any wrongdoing, and ensure that there are strong protections for lawyers and human rights defenders against arbitrary interference or retaliation by authorities, in line with Kyrgyzstan’s international human rights obligations.
“Kyrgyzstani authorities should release Matsakov immediately and conduct a thorough and objective review of the legality of the actions of the national security committee,” Sultanalieva said. “Any and all actions aimed at undermining the independence of the legal profession need to end.”
US: Agents Block, Mistreat Mexican Asylum Seekers
(Tucson, Arizona, December 5, 2024) – United States Border Patrol agents are denying access to asylum to families fleeing violence in Mexico, in violation of US and international human rights law Human Rights Watch said today.
The agents have expelled asylum seekers to Mexico, where many said they feared persecution, as well as mistreated and ordered them to discard their belongings. US and international human rights law guarantee the right to seek asylum, and to humane treatment when in government custody.
“Once these Mexican asylum seekers turned themselves in, Border Patrol agents were often abusive and seemed unwilling to follow US and international human rights law,” said Vicki B. Gaubeca, associate US immigration and border policy director at Human Rights Watch. “Border Patrol agents either ignored asylum seekers concerns, telling them that asylum no longer exists in the United States, or bullied them into silence.”
In October 2024, Human Rights Watch interviewed 40 Mexican asylum seekers who had been involuntarily removed to Nogales, Mexico.
The Interim Final Rule on asylum, issued by the administration of US President Joe Biden in June 2024 and tightened in September 2024, suspends access to the US asylum process when more than 2,500 people per day over seven consecutive days cross into the United States without authorization. The suspension is lifted only when daily encounters between ports of entry fall below 1,500 over a 28-day period. Since the rule was implemented, the number of people encountered has averaged at about 1,800 per day, making it unlikely the suspension will be lifted any time soon.
Under the rule, most people apprehended between ports of entry are assumed to be ineligible for asylum.To invoke an exception, asylum seekers must describe the threats they face without being asked. And the standard is not the “well-founded fear of persecution” standard set forth elsewhere in US law, but one that is far narrower, requiring them to say they “face an acute medical emergency; face an imminent and extreme threat to life or safety, such as an imminent threat of rape, kidnapping, torture, or murder; or satisfy the definition of ‘victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons.’”
Furthermore, the rules don’t provide an exception for Mexican arrivals, as previous rules had, even though they are being returned directly to the country where they fear harm.
Of the 40 people interviewed, Border Patrol referred only two families – a mother and her teenage son, and another mother with a son and daughter in their teens – to an asylum officer, the process by which an asylum claim is started. Only the mother with a teenage son had reached a hearing by an immigration judge. Asylum officers and judges interviewed the families by phone. Both families were ultimately deported after being held in custody for about a week.
Of those interviewed, 29 said they had intended to seek asylum or spoke directly about the threats they feared and were either ignored by Border Patrol, told to be silent by a Border Patrol agent, or told that “asylum no longer exists in the US.” Asylum seekers who had a chance to explicitly tell at least one Border Patrol agent about the threats they faced at home were not given an opportunity to say anything more about their fears or pursue asylum claims. Some said that Border Patrol agents shouted insults and curses at them, ripped their clothing and removed shoelaces and drawstrings on their clothing, due to a US government policy to prevent self-harm, in a violent and degrading manner.
“Border Patrol is treating asylum seekers as if they were the biggest enemies of the state and are completely dehumanizing them,” said Dora Rodriguez, director of Salvavision, a nonprofit offering aid and support to immigrants and deportees. “I have never witnessed this level of cruel treatment. I think it is happening because Biden’s policies are giving them the impression that they need to be cruel. There is absolutely no accountability.… At a minimum, the US should provide compassionate treatment and deport people with dignity.”
President-elect Donald Trump and his intended “border czar” appointee, Thomas Homan, have indicated their intention to re-institute anti-asylum policies and conduct large-scale deportations, which would significantly worsen an already-bad human rights situation for immigrants and asylum seekers, Human Rights Watch said.
“The incoming Trump administration has signaled an intention to run roughshod over US laws enshrining the right to asylum,” Gaubeca said. “We encourage the incoming administration to instead focus on the humanity of asylum seekers; we challenge them to acknowledge that the US has been strengthened and made vibrant by immigrants, and that both US and international law affords people the right to seek asylum and to be treated with dignity.”
The Biden and upcoming Trump administrations should direct border officials to ensure that training for agents emphasizes that people have a right to seek asylum, and that agents are required to treat people humanely and communicate in a language they understand.
Click to expand Image Recently deported children putting on shoelaces given to them by volunteers from Good Samaritans from Tucson and Green Valley, Arizona. © 2024 Vicki Gaubeca/Human Rights WatchSelect Accounts of Border Patrol Mistreatment
The asylum seekers were interviewed in Spanish on October 22, 23, and 30. Individuals were not provided with compensation and were given the option of anonymity or not using their full names.
Human Rights Watch documented cases in which Mexican nationals were blocked by Border Patrol agents from accessing asylum procedures despite facing threats in Mexico and were then summarily returned to harm. Some also arguably fit within the exceptions to the June 2024 asylum rule, which allows for consideration of asylum claims whenever someone expresses or shows they “face an imminent and extreme threat to life or safety.” Some said they were intimidated into not speaking about the threats they faced, and that Border Patrol agents treated them inhumanely and then deported them.
Dora Rodriguez, the Salvavision director, who accompanied Human Rights Watch during two days of research, fled El Salvador during its civil war in the 1980s. She was one of 13 survivors rescued by the Border Patrol in July 1980 after they were lost for 5 days in the Arizona desert and nearly died. She has since worked with people immigrating to the United States and deportees in Mexico.
Border Patrol Agents Blocked People from Pursuing Asylum Claims
Human Rights Watch spoke to a family of six from San Miguel El Grande, Oaxaca, a region in Mexico that has experienced a sharp increase in violence. In the last two years, there have been hundreds of forced displacements and killings, including the assassination of the brother of a well-known Mexican actress. The family includes two sisters, Rocio C. and Sonya C., a sister-in-law who did not provide a name, boys ages 2 and 8; and a 10-year-old girl. They crossed into the United States near Sonoyta and were deported to Nogales, Sonora, within 24 hours.
“We left because criminals are engaging in massacres, kidnapping people, burning the forest and our homes,” Rocio said. Their intention was to ask for asylum in the United States. Rocio said she had brought documents that proved they had received threats. “The Border Patrol agents did not treat us very well; they shouted at us, used bad words, and wouldn’t let us speak.”
At one point, an agent asked her to sign a deportation order. She said she refused because she was afraid “of going back to Mexico because of the violence.” The Border Patrol agent then pointed to a bench and told her to “sit there” and averted his gaze; not looking at her again. She was then given a copy of the form that said “Refused to Sign” on the signature line. They were deported the next morning.
Marta G. (a pseudonym), is a 22-year-old pregnant woman from Ciudad Hidalgo, Chiapas. She said she crossed the border in the desert near Altar, Sonora. Border Patrol took her to an 80,000 square foot, soft-sided facility with tent-like structures on six acres in Tucson called, by asylum seekers, the “white tent.” Marta said she left Chiapas because her boyfriend wanted her to have an abortion, threatened to kill her, and tried to hit her.
Marta said she intended to ask for asylum. She told the Border Patrol agent, “I am afraid of going back,” but he did not allow her to explain further. As soon as she said this, the agent responded, “¡Enough! Go sit over there.” She never had another opportunity to explain the threats she feared and was deported less than 48 hours after turning herself in.
Human Rights Watch interviewed a mother, Carmen S., 26, with her son, Ian de Jesús, 3, who was from Chiapas. She said that in Border Patrol custody “treatment was very bad.” No one was allowed to speak, unless spoken to, she said. She said she asked for asylum, telling the agents that, “in Chiapas the situation is very difficult; a neighbor of mine was kidnapped and two of my cousins have been disappeared.” She told Human Rights Watch that she lived alone with her son and was afraid but that the agents did not allow her to explain further.
Margarita V., 29, and her son Jesus, 4, are from Tecate, Baja California. They crossed the border through Altar, Sonora, at around 10 p.m. on October 29 then waited 5 or 10 minutes for Border Patrol to show up. They were taken directly to the “white tent” camp in Tucson.
She tearfully said that she told Border Patrol agents that she was afraid to go back because her husband is threatening to take her son away, but that the agent was aggressive and rude. “He did not let us explain, he just said, ‘I don’t care about the problems that happen in another part of the world.’” She witnessed the agent saying similar things to other women, even if they were tearfully saying that they were afraid to go back.
“Then they told us nothing, that we sit over in that chair,” Margarita said. At about 6 a.m. on October 30, the agents told them they would be deported and made them sign a document. Margarita did not want to sign it. “Whether you sign it or not, you’re going to be deported,” the agent said.
Natalia G., 27, from Chiapas, who crossed the border on October 28 said that when she asked for asylum, Border Patrol told her that “they no longer receive people for asylum.… They didn’t want to listen to anything; they said they were going to send me to a judge, but they never did.” Then, Border Patrol told her to sign an “order of deportation.” Natalia said they told her, “It doesn’t matter if you sign or don’t sign, you are being deported.” So, she signed it. She said that agents took all of her belongings and threw them away. She could not understand why. Natalia was deported two days after she arrived in the US.
Beatriz S., 35, left Oaxaca with her daughters, Ailyn, 14, and Xarumi, 5. The family crossed the border near Altar, Sonora, on October 28 and turned themselves in to Border Patrol. They were taken to Tucson and were held in a cold place they called “an icebox.” Beatriz said she told Border Patrol agents she feared her daughters would be in danger if they returned to Mexico and the agent said, “asylum no longer exists.” She said she refused to sign any documents, and the Border Patrol agents told them they were going to be taken to their family in the United States, but instead they were deported the following day to Nogales.
A family of four from Guanajuato who crossed the border through Sonoyta on October 21 requested anonymity. They said they told border agents that they were afraid to return to Mexico, but were asked no follow-up questions. The family said they wrongly assumed that because they told the agents they were afraid, they would gain access to an asylum process. They said the agents would avert their eyes, pretend not to speak or understand Spanish, and would simply point at places they should go, a bench or holding cell.
Border Patrol Agents Silences Asylum Seekers
Carlos P., 25, and Jorge, 47, are from Culiacán, Sonora, an area that has experienced an explosion of organized crime violence following the arrest of a cartel leader by US officials in July. They said they were fleeing “narcos” that have overtaken the region. “After dark, Culiacán turns into a ghost town as people are afraid to go out on the streets because of all the shootings,” said Jorge, Carlos’s uncle.
Neither had an opportunity to express fear of being returned to Mexico. “The officials only spoke to us when they wanted us to do something,” Carlos sad. “Like when the officials wanted to take our photo, fingerprints, or DNA swabs, or told us to sign a document.”
Carina, 30, her husband, José Miguel, 29, and their two sons, 5 and 8, from Salamanca, Guanajuato, crossed the border near Sasabe, Arizona on October 22, and waited to turn themselves in. Border Patrol took them to a nearby Border Patrol station where they took their basic data, fingerprints, and DNA swabs, and then to the “white tent” in Tucson. “They never asked us why we came,” Carina said. “In fact, I had with me several videos that showed how my home was all shot up by the cartels. We were victims of organized crime.” Guanajuato has experienced a major increase in organized crime violence in recent years. After she refused to sign a deportation order, she expected to be asked why she was refusing. Instead, the agent said, “Okay, that’s fine, go sit over there.” She and her family were deported the next day.
Jenny B. (a pseudonym), 38, from Jalapa, Veracruz, crossed the border alone on October 20, near Altar, Sonora. Jenny said she waited through the night to turn herself in and was picked up by Border Patrol early the following morning. In the Tucson “white tent,” officers took away all her belongings, including shoelaces and warm outerwear. She said that agents told her “Just grab what you need and throw everything else away.”
She said that agents never asked her why she had come to the United States. She said the agents never gave people an option to speak or explain, just shouted orders, and some pretended not to speak Spanish, though agents are taught basic Spanish as part of their training. She said she refused to sign a deportation order. The Border Patrol agent said, “Okay, you do not want to sign it? Go over there and sit.” She was deported soon thereafter.
Alma S. (a pseudonym), 51, and her partner Henry S. (a pseudonym), 50, said that they left Esquintla, Chiapas, because of high levels of crime there, “if they grab you, they will kill you; they force you to leave [Esquintla].” Both had expected to be asked why they came to the US, but “There was practically no conversation ... everyone seemed silenced.”
Inhumane Treatment
Rocio C. from San Miguel El Grande, Oaxaca, said that an agent came up to her with a large hunting knife and cut out the pull string of her hoodie. His aggressive manner scared her: “I could have pulled the string out and given it to him if he had just asked, but, instead, he tore up my shirt and cut it out, all the while smiling, as if he enjoyed scaring me.” Rocio was still wearing the hoodie and showed Human Rights Watch where it was torn.
Maria M., 37, and her children Carlos, 14, and Brenda, 17, were from Lázaro Cárdenas, Michoacan. Maria had been trying to get a border patrol (CBPOne) appointment for a year without success, so they crossed the border on October 16 near Nogales. When they were picked up by Border Patrol agents about 15 minutes later, the agents asked Maria why she had come to the United States, and she replied that she came because she was afraid of crime and threats. She said she was never asked another question and had no opportunity to talk about the threats she faced.
Instead, she said, the agents “were deplorable, they would call us ‘dogs,’ and they would say ‘fuck you’ all the time.”
Carlos said, “they kept calling us ‘bigheaded ones.’” He said he had witnessed a Border Patrol agent using a large knife in a threatening manner. He used it to cut the bracelets off a woman’s wrist. He ran it back and forth, saying he was going to cut her while exhibiting “an evil grin.” Then, the Border Patrol agent nicked the woman, and her wrist started to bleed.
Mariana, 37, and her son, Carmaleal, 15, from Orizaba, Veracruz, crossed the border on October 1 in a remote location north of Altar, Sonora, and waited for Border Patrol, who showed up within the hour and told them they would return to pick them up. They waited outside in 50-degree temperatures throughout the night. The next day they were picked up at approximately 7 a.m. The bus driver was verbally abusive, using profanity and saying things like “we don’t need people like you in the US,” and “you shouldn’t come.”
Agents Strip People of Belongings
Carmen S., with her son Ian, from Chiapas, said that immediately after arriving at the “white tent” camp, Border Patrol agents told them to throw their belongings into a trash can. The family had to throw away food, water, backpacks, toys, jackets, and their shoelaces. Carmen said the agents would not even let them keep their leggings for the cold.
Marta from Ciudad Hidalgo, Chiapas, said that at the “white tent,” she was forced to throw all her belongings away, including food, clothing, and vitamins she was taking because she was approximately four months pregnant. She was allowed to see a doctor, who refused to give her the vitamins and told her to seek medical care only if she “felt ill.”
Alberto T. (a pseudonym), 20, and Guadalupe T. (a pseudonym), 21, from Oaxaca, had crossed the border near Sasabe, Arizona, on October 19 and waited in the remote location to be picked up by Border Patrol. They said that the agents who picked them up treated them kindly, but that changed when they arrived at the “white tent,” where agents yelled at them constantly and treated them aggressively.
The agents told them to throw away their backpacks and allowed them to keep only the items they considered essential, such as phones and documents that fit into a gallon-size transparent plastic bag. They said they were not allowed to make any phone calls. Alberto said they were held “incommunicado” for three or four days.
Legal and Policy Background
Blocking access to asylum – US law states that anyone “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival) ... may apply for asylum.” US law also prohibits the return of people to countries where they may face persecution or torture. International human rights and refugee law also protect the right to seek asylum and protect against return to persecution or torture.
Contrary to these norms, the Biden June 2024 rule suspends access to asylum for asylum seekers who enter the United States without authorization when certain conditions are met. The asylum rule also does not exempt Mexicans or Canadians from its provisions, forcibly returning asylum seekers to the country of feared persecution, which violates the fundamental principle of nonrefoulement.
Intimidating asylum seekers – National standards established by US Customs and Border Protection, the US government agency that oversees the Border Patrol, state that all officers are expected to “treat all individuals with dignity and respect,” and “must communicate” to immigrants “all instructions and relevant information … in a language or manner the detainee can comprehend.” To invoke an exception, the June 2024 Biden asylum rule requires that asylum seekers articulate the threats they fear without being asked. Those interviewed said that even when they summoned the courage to speak up, Border Patrol officials ignored them.
Inhumane treatment – The requirement to “treat all individuals with dignity and respect,” echoes international human rights law to treat people in government custody with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. People interviewed said that Border Patrol is failing to uphold this basic human right.
Stripping people of belongings – In general, Border Patrol has broad authority to confiscate belongings deemed to be “health hazards” of people in their custody, and to ask people to “voluntarily” dispose of their belongings. In August 2024, Customs and Border Protection issued a new directive that states, “CBP remains committed to the handling, retaining, retrieving, and returning each detainee’s personal property...” However, the new directive also includes loopholes, stating, for example, that “Items required to be stored ... [include] articles of clothing (to the extent they can be feasibly stored at any CBP Short-Term Facility).”
Given that all Mexican asylum seekers interviewed, including children, were deported without extra clothing or warm outerwear, Border Patrol agents seem to have interpreted the directive to mean that all clothing, except for the clothes they were wearing, should be thrown away.
Human Rights Watch observed a similar pattern of adults and even young children deported without their backpacks, shoelaces, sweatshirt drawstrings, jackets, warm clothes, toys, medicines, food, water, or other personal items. Border Patrol agents allowed people to keep only those belongings that fit in a gallon-size plastic bag, which meant only some documents, cell phones, jewelry, and money, both US and Mexican currency.
Similar credible accounts gathered by other groups – Similar accounts of inhumane treatment and hostility to the right to seek asylum and requirements to throw away their belongings were also included in a February 2024 report by the ACLU, Kino Border Initiative, Protect AZ Health, and the Sikh Coalition; and similar findings in a July 2024 report by the Women’s Refugee Commission, the Kino Border Initiative, the National Immigrant Justice Center, Refugees International, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, National Immigration Law Center, the Hope Border Institute, the Florence Project, the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, and Human Rights First; and in an August 2024 report by Human Rights First, the Kino Border Initiative, Hope Border Institute, Raices, and the Immigrant Defenders Law Center.
Human Rights Watch made the following recommendations to the Biden administration and the upcoming Trump administration:
Direct the Department of Homeland Security and US Customs and Border Protection to ensure that training for Border Patrol agents emphasizes their obligations to treat people humanely, and communicate with people in a manner and language they understand.Remind Border Patrol agents that asylum seekers have the right to seek asylum “irrespective of ... status” as provided for in US asylum law, and that the way a person enters the United States or presents themselves to authorities is not relevant to the examination of their asylum claims.Revise guidelines for Border Patrol operations, to ensure that people are treated humanely. If people are deported, they should retain all belongings necessary for human dignity, health, identity, religious practice, and communication, including at a minimum outerwear, shoes with shoelaces, phones, phone chargers, medications, money, religious items, and all documents.Tanzania’s President Takes on Forced Evictions of Maasai Community
On December 1, Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan announced the establishment of two committees to address land disputes in the country’s northern Ngorongoro district, renowned for its wildlife. The first will investigate complaints made by residents; the second will examine the government’s “voluntary” relocations of residents from the Ngorongoro Conservation Area to Msomera village in Handeni, Tanga Region, more than 600 kilometers away. The government claims “conservation”as grounds for the relocations.
Since 2022, as Human Rights Watch has documented, the government has made life increasingly difficult for the estimated 100,000 Indigenous Maasai pastoralists who live in the conservation area by downsizing essential public services, including schools and health centers. This has forced many to relocate. Government rangers have also attacked and harassed residents who failed to comply with rules restricting movement in and around the conservation area.
The president set the stage for these investigations in August, when she pledged that education and hospital services be “fully provided” and polling stations be set up in the conservation area to enable residents to vote in local elections in November.
Since then, the government has set aside funds for building a school dormitory in the conservation area and removed a vehicle fee for area residents.
President Hassan’s steps so far are significant, but more needs to be done. The government should halt its plan to relocate people from the conservation area, prohibit all forced evictions of residents, and consult with the affected communities. These consultations should be meaningful and include women. The authorities should also hold to account, through appropriate disciplinary and legal actions, park rangers including commanding officers who have harassed, beaten and otherwise abused residents, who should promptly receive fair compensation.
Ultimately, the government should respect the human rights of the Maasai communities as an Indigenous group, and the legal systems, traditions, and practices they have employed to manage their ancestral lands for generations.
Nigeria Airstrike Victims Need Justice
A year after a devastating airstrike accidentally killed 85 people during a religious celebration in Tundun Biri, in Nigeria’s Kaduna State, the state government has begun, as part of compensation efforts, to disburse funds to victims and implement some promised social and infrastructural projects in the community, including the construction of a healthcare center. It’s a positive step but falls short of addressing the full scale of tragedy for the victims, some of whom suffered life-changing injuries.
While these compensatory measures may bring some benefits, they do little to address the need for genuine justice for the victims and for reform in military operations. Erroneous airstrikes have continued. In April, an accidental strike killed 33 people in Zamfara State, according to media reports. In September, another killed 24 people in Kaduna State.
Since 2014, hundreds of people have been killed in strikes that security forces claimed were intended against bandits or members of the Islamist armed group Boko Haram but instead hit local civilian populations.
True justice requires more than monetary handouts decided by government officials. It calls for a transparent and standardized compensation process that includes genuine consultation with victims and considers the scale of loss and suffering, offering victims fair restitution for their injuries and trauma.
While the military said that two army personnel are being court-martialed over the Tudun Biri airstrike, it has provided little information on the investigation or its progress.
The lack of meaningful action to hold perpetrators accountable, combined with the failure to reform military operations, raises serious questions about the authorities’ commitment to justice and oversight.
Until a clear, robust, and transparent process for compensating victims and preventing further erroneous airstrikes is established, the authorities’ efforts will do little to restore public trust or prevent more bloodshed.
Ukraine: Flawed Legislation on Collaboration
(Kyiv, December 5, 2024) – Ukraine’s anti-collaboration legislation allows for and has enabled the criminal prosecution of Ukrainian civilians for legitimate civilian activities under Russian occupation, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Some Ukrainian civilians, including volunteers, municipal workers, medical personnel, and education workers have been prosecuted for actions that had no criminal content and caused no public harm.
December 5, 2024 “All She Did Was Help People”The 45-page report, “‘All She Did Was Help People’: Flawed Anti-Collaboration Legislation in Ukraine,” analyzes Ukraine’s anti-collaboration laws’ impact on rights and their broader consequences on Ukrainian communities during and after Russia’s extremely abusive occupation. While these laws were adopted to deter collaboration with occupying forces, the practical impacts of some aspects of the legislation go much further, Human Rights Watch found. Some provisions do not distinguish between collaboration to undermine state security and situations in which Ukrainian civilians hold public service positions under the occupying authorities so that civilian life can continue or carry out other activities for the benefit of civilians.
“Russia's brutal war has shattered the lives of millions of Ukrainians, whom Russian forces subjected to daily horror, displacement, occupation, and a desperate struggle for survival,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “It’s therefore all the more concerning that many Ukrainians also risk being prosecuted by their own government for simply trying to survive under occupation.”
Human Rights Watch interviewed Ukrainian legal professionals, including sitting judges, defense lawyers, and legal experts, as well as human rights activists and other civil society representatives, representatives of international organizations, and Ukrainian civilians with direct experience of living under occupation. Human Rights Watch also analyzed current and draft legislation and court decisions.
In one documented case, a community leader helping to distribute humanitarian aid under occupation was sentenced to five years in prison; in another, a teacher served a 1.5-year prison sentence for working as a school director for one month; and a veterinarian was sentenced, in absentia, to 10 years in prison for performing an administrative role in the local veterinary service.
Some of the anti-collaboration provisions and the way they have been enforced do not sufficiently address the coercion and duress that civilians face under occupation, Human Rights Watch said. The report describes how the legislation enables the courts to unfairly punish civilians who were forced to engage with Russian occupying authorities to protect themselves and their families.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has wreaked devastation on the civilian population. Russian forces have committed numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine, including in occupied areas, such as torture, enforced disappearances, and killings of civilians. In Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine, Russian forces maintain an atmosphere of pervasive fear by severely repressing fundamental rights and retaliating against anyone who opposes Russia’s invasion.
In the weeks following Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukrainian authorities adopted legislation to punish those who collaborate with Russian forces. Under this legislation, more than 8,400 investigations have been opened, and Ukrainian authorities have prosecuted hundreds of Ukrainian civilians, sentencing some to prison terms, on charges of acts of collaboration.
The Ukrainian government is justified in adopting and implementing legislation to punish those who pose a threat to national security under occupation, Human Rights Watch said. Such measures can also help prevent a sense of impunity in society. However, some provisions are overly broad and vague, and lead to the criminalization of a wide range of public sector jobs and other activities essential to civilian life. These provisions cast too wide a net, capturing not only those who actively harm Ukraine’s safety and security, but also civilians simply trying to survive or those carrying out ordinary work for fellow civilians under occupation. The punishments imposed are also very harsh.
Human Rights Watch also documented instances in which local authorities returning to de-occupied areas have at times targeted some residents even after they underwent “filtration,” a compulsory security screening, and were cleared of any suspicion of violating anti-collaboration laws. These officials publicly signaled they will not be able to get a job again because they did not leave and continued to work during occupation.
The Fourth Geneva Convention sets norms to protect civilian life under occupation and protect civilians from abuse by occupying forces. It includes a legal framework under which adult civilians may be compelled to work under the occupation to maintain services essential to civilians, with particular focus given to the need for education and health services to continue. Civilians who perform work or cooperate with occupying forces in the circumstances provided for in the convention for the benefit of civilians should not be punished for it by their own government.
International human rights law requires legislation, particularly criminal legislation, to meet the criteria of “legality,” which means that laws cannot be overly broad or vague. Ukraine’s international legal obligations also require it to ensure due process and fair trial rights, with due consideration for duress or coercive circumstances, equal application of the law, and proportionate punishment. Some of the provisions of Ukraine’s anti-collaboration laws do not meet these tests, Human Rights Watch said.
Human Rights Watch found that the almost 100 percent conviction rate in collaboration cases, combined with the prevalence of plea bargains, the low rate of appeals, and the scarcity of lawyers willing to handle collaboration cases, raises concerns about whether individuals charged with collaboration have adequate access to due process. In absentia proceedings in many of the collaboration trials do not meet due process safeguards required to make those proceedings fair or legitimate under international law.
Many Ukrainian legal experts and others interviewed believed the legislation to be unjust. Some said it effectively encourages Ukrainians to abandon occupied communities, while causing those who remained to fear, rather than welcome, Ukrainian authorities’ return after de-occupation. Experts said this may make Ukrainian recovery of its territorial integrity and reintegration of de-occupied populations more difficult.
In May 2024, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine issued a directive to the heads of regional prosecutor’s offices, instructing them to comply with international human rights law and international humanitarian law during pretrial investigations and providing procedural guidance in criminal cases involving collaboration.
The instruction reiterated the prevalence of international human rights and humanitarian law over domestic law, while recognizing that some of the legislative provisions concerning collaboration do not explicitly differentiate between criminal collaboration and “necessary interactions” with the occupying power.
The instruction is an important and positive step that should be followed by concrete actions to address problematic aspects of the legislation, Human Rights Watch said. Prosecutors and courts should in each case carefully review and consider individual circumstances, such as evidence of intimidation, pressure, or threats of violence.
Prosecuting collaboration cases should be carried out in strict compliance with applicable human rights and humanitarian law, and carefully balance Ukraine's immediate state security needs with humanitarian concerns, and long-term interests of Ukraine in recovering and successfully reintegrating Russian occupied territories, Human Rights Watch said.
“These provisions have been placing many Ukrainian civilians in an untenable situation by making them vulnerable to prosecution for providing routine public services to their fellow Ukrainians, as they are expected to do under occupation,” Williamson said. “Ukraine’s state security concerns are paramount but do not require disregarding international law and the human rights of its citizens.”
Killer Robots: UN Vote Should Spur Treaty Negotiations
(New York, December 5, 2024) – The record number of countries voting in favor of the second-ever United Nations General Assembly resolution on lethal autonomous weapons systems, or “killer robots,” highlights the urgent need to open negotiations on a new treaty to ban them, Human Rights Watch said today.
On December 2, 2024, 166 countries voted in favor of Resolution 79/L.77 on lethal autonomous weapons systems, while 3 voted no, and 15 abstained. The resolution creates a new forum under UN auspices to discuss the serious challenges and concerns raised by autonomous weapons systems and what to do about them. These systems select and apply force to targets based on sensor processing rather than human input.
“The wide and growing state support for the General Assembly resolution on autonomous weapons systems shows there’s strong appetite for tackling fundamental concerns that come with removing human control from the use of force,” said Mary Wareham, deputy crisis, conflict and arms director at Human Rights Watch. “The challenge now is for states to move from talking about this challenge to negotiating a new treaty that provides the necessary framework to prevent a future of automated killing.”
The 2024 General Assembly resolution acknowledges the “negative consequences and impact of autonomous weapon systems on global security and regional and international stability, including the risk of an emerging arms race, of exacerbating existing conflicts and humanitarian crises, miscalculations, lowering the threshold for and escalation of conflicts and proliferation, including to unauthorised recipients and non-State actors.”
The resolution also notes “the repeated calls by the [UN] Secretary-General to urgently conclude negotiations of a legally binding instrument with prohibitions and regulations for autonomous weapons systems.” The resolution does not mandate treaty negotiations because a small number of states, notably the United States, vigorously opposed doing so.
Instead, the resolution approves holding “open informal consultations” in New York during 2025 “to consider the report of the Secretary-General” and to “further the international community’s understanding of the issues involved.” UN Secretary-General António Guterres prepared the report requested by the first General Assembly resolution on the dangers of lethal autonomous weapons systems in December 2023. A total of 152 countries voted in favor of the first UN resolution on lethal autonomous weapons systems in December 2023, while 4 voted no, and 11 abstained.
The secretary-general’s report, released in August 2024, addresses the challenges and concerns raised by autonomous weapons systems “from humanitarian, legal, security, technological and ethical perspectives.” It reflects 58 submissions from more than 73 countries, and another 33 submissions from the International Committee of the Red Cross and civil society groups, including Human Rights Watch.
The UN General Assembly provides an inclusive forum in which any UN member state can contribute. The 2024 resolution specifies that the informal consultations will be open to the participation of all UN member states and observer states, international and regional organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, nongovernmental organizations, the scientific community, and industry.
Tackling the autonomous weapons’ challenge under the General Assembly’s auspices would allow greater consideration of concerns that have been overlooked in discussions held to date, Human Rights Watch said. They include ethical perspectives, international human rights law, proliferation, and impacts on global security and regional and international stability, notably the risk of an arms race and a lower threshold for conflict.
Play VideoSome autonomous weapons systems have existed for years, but the types of targets, duration of operation, geographical scope, and environment in which such systems operate have been limited. Yet, advances in artificial intelligence and emerging technologies are spurring the development of autonomous weapons systems that operate without meaningful human control, delegating life-and-death decisions to machines. The machine, rather than the human operator, would determine where, when, or against what force is applied.
Most treaty proponents have called for prohibitions on autonomous weapons systems that, by their nature, operate without meaningful human control or systems that target people, as well as for regulations that ensure all other autonomous weapons systems cannot be used without meaningful human control.
The countries voting against the 2024 resolution were: Belarus, North Korea, and Russia. Those abstaining were: China, Estonia, Fiji, India, Iran, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Nicaragua, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Türkiye, and Ukraine. Many of these states have been investing heavily in military applications of artificial intelligence and related technologies to develop air, land, and sea-based autonomous weapons systems.
Austria put forward the 2024 resolution with 27 co-sponsoring states at the UN General Assembly’s First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, where it passed an initial vote on November 5, by 161 votes in favor, 3 against, and 13 abstentions.
Lethal autonomous weapons systems have been discussed in meetings of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) in Geneva since May 2014, but with no substantive outcome. The main reason for the lack of progress under the CCW is that its member countries rely on a consensus approach to decision-making, which means a single country can reject a proposal, even if every other country agrees to it. A handful of major military powers—notably India, Israel, Russia, and the United States—have exploited this process to repeatedly block proposals to negotiate a legally binding instrument.
“Explicit new international rules are needed to safeguard humanity from the threats posed by removing human control from the use of force,” Wareham said. “Governments genuinely wishing to address the concerns raised by autonomous weapons systems should participate in the New York talks next year with the goal of adopting a legally binding treaty.”
Human Rights Watch is a cofounder of Stop Killer Robots, the coalition of more than 250 nongovernmental organizations across 70 countries that is working for new international law on autonomy in weapons systems.
Film Crew Stopped and Questioned in Autonomous Republic of Uzbekistan
On December 1, police in Karakalpakstan, the autonomous republic of western Uzbekistan, briefly detained Russian blogger and film maker Aleksei Pivovarov, three members of his film crew, and their fixer, Feride Makhsetova, a local journalist at the independent news agency Hook Report. The group was escorted to the Nukus City Police station, where police questioned the group, confiscated their flash drives, and deleted their recordings.
Click to expand Image Aleksei Privovarov speaks to the camera in Nukus, Karakalpakstan, December 1, 2024. © 2024 PrivateIt’s been two-and-a-half years since security forces violently suppressed protests in Karakalpakstan. Since then, authorities have targeted independent voices, jailed Karakalpak activists, and sought extradition of Karakalpak diaspora activists on unfounded criminal charges. The group’s detention appears to fit this pattern.
The police claimed they were acting on the basis of a complaint but refused to provide any information regarding the group’s supposed wrongdoing.
The police demanded they hand over their mobile phones, despite no legal grounds to do so, and when Makhsetova asked to see a warrant, the police allegedly started shouting and behaving aggressively toward her. Makhsetova told Human Rights Watch that the police made her show them her phone’s photo gallery and asked her to delete a photograph she had taken earlier that day. They also examined her call and message history.
In a further violation of local laws, Karakalpakstan police confiscated the group’s two flash drives containing their recordings from Karakalpakstan. When they were finally returned, all of the recordings made during the visit had been deleted, Makhsetova told Human Rights Watch.
The Agency of Information and Mass Communications’ Karakalpakstan regional department issued a statement following the group’s detention saying that “foreign journalists” had been detained because they were working without accreditation, “a violation of current legislation.” But there is no such requirement for foreign bloggers or journalists unaffiliated with foreign mass media to do so. Uzbekistan’s Constitution also guarantees freedom of speech: Article 33 stipulates that “everyone shall have the right to seek, obtain, and disseminate information” and any restrictions shall be allowed “only in accordance with the law.”
Pivovarov and his crew were released without charge, but their detention and the deletion of their recordings is a clear breach of Uzbekistan’s own laws regarding freedom of speech and expression. Authorities in Uzbekistan should uphold its constitution and end the harassment of journalists and activists.
Syria: Civilians at Risk Amid Renewed Hostilities
(Beirut) – The outbreak of major hostilities in northern Syria beginning on November 27, 2024, raises concerns that civilians face a real risk of serious abuses at the hands of opposition armed groups and the Syrian government, Human Rights Watch said today. All parties to the conflict should abide by their obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law, including by only directing attacks against military objectives, taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties, and ensuring civilians can flee the fighting safely.
On November 27, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an Islamist anti-government armed group that controls most of Idlib province, alongside factions of the Türkiye-backed Syrian National Army (SNA), led a new offensive in northern Syria, quickly seizing control of large swaths of territory, including Aleppo city and the western countryside of Aleppo. The Syrian government has vowed to mount a counteroffensive and has carried out airstrikes across Idlib and Aleppo governorates alongside Russian forces.
“Given the conduct of the Syrian government throughout the nearly 14-year conflict, concerns are mounting that it may again engage in brutal and unlawful tactics that have caused devastating and long-term harm to civilians,” said Adam Coogle, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Anti-government armed groups have promised restraint and to uphold humanitarian norms, but they will ultimately be judged by their conduct not their words.”
As of December 2, the anti-government groups were advancing south towards the major city of Hama. Territorial losses have also been reported in areas under the control of the United States-backed Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces.
On November 30, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) described the situation in Aleppo as “rapidly deteriorating,” noting that the fighting had reportedly caused “massive” displacement in western Aleppo countryside and in Aleppo city. As of December 3, OCHA reported that attacks in Idlib and northern Aleppo, by both armed opposition groups and Syrian government forces, had killed 69 civilians, including 26 children and 11 women, and injured 228. By December 4, the Syrian Network for Human Rights recorded 149 civilian deaths. The UN said on December 3 that tens of thousands of Syrians have been displaced since the escalation of hostilities began on November 27.
On December 1 and 2, it reported that in the more than 50 airstrikes that struck Idlib, at least four health facilities, four school facilities, two displacement camps, and a water station were impacted. Another OCHA update on December 2 reported that over 48,000 people had been newly displaced with severe disruptions to services and aid delivery.
The Syrian Civil Defense, known as the White Helmets, said government airstrikes that struck the entrance of the University Hospital in Aleppo on December 1 killed at least 12 people and wounded 23, and that airstrikes in Idlib on December 1 killed 8 people, including a woman and two children, and wounded 63.
Formed in January 2017, HTS is a coalition of Islamist Sunni anti-government armed groups, led by the group previously known as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham or Jabhat al-Nusra, which was an al-Qaeda affiliate. In establishing the coalition, the group’s leader, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, publicly broke with al-Qaeda. In March 2017, the group claimed a twin bombing in Damascus that killed at least 40 people, the majority of them Iraqi Shia pilgrims. The US and Türkiye have long designated the group a foreign terrorist organization affiliated with al-Qaeda, while the UN sanctioned it in 2018.
On November 29, as HTS-led forces were entering Aleppo city, al-Jolani issued a statement calling on fighters “to show mercy, kindness, and gentleness to our people in the city of Aleppo.” The statement said anyone who refrained from hostilities or laid down arms would be “safe” and vowed to restore security in the city as soon as possible.
The opposition groups’ records on detentions raises serious concerns about the safety and wellbeing of those affiliated with the Syrian government or Syrian soldiers captured during the military offensive. The groups also have well-documented records of mistreatment of religious and ethnic minorities and women in areas under their control.
In 2019, Human Rights Watch documented that HTS had arbitrarily arrested scores of residents in areas under their control in Idlib, Hama, and Aleppo governorates, apparently because of their peaceful work documenting abuses or protesting the group’s rule. Six former detainees told Human Rights Watch that they were tortured while in HTS custody.
In February 2024, large protests led by civilian activists erupted in HTS-controlled areas, demanding detainee releases, governance reforms, and the removal of al-Jolani. According to the UN-mandated Syria Commission of Inquiry’s September 2024 report, protests, which continued sporadically for months thereafter, followed arrest campaigns targeting HTS members, rival groups, political parties, and civilians, including women and children as young as 7. It reported that detainees were subjected to torture and ill-treatment.
The Türkiye-backed SNA also has a poor human rights record. Human Rights Watch reported in 2024 how SNA factions and affiliated groups have arbitrarily arrested and detained, forcibly disappeared, tortured and otherwise ill-treated, and subjected to unfair military trials scores of people, especially Kurds, in areas under their control with impunity.
HTS and the SNA should refrain from attacks that target civilians and civilian objects as well as indiscriminate attacks, take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties, and ensure that civilians can flee the fighting safely. They should take steps to monitor and prevent fighters from mistreating detainees or engaging in revenge violence or extrajudicial killings; ensure that fighters do not harass, arbitrarily arrest, or mistreat residents who choose to remain in newly captured areas; and hold all who engage in violations accountable.
Türkiye should take immediate steps to halt human rights violations and potential war crimes committed by Syrian armed groups it supports and ensure that everyone under its control adheres to international human rights law and humanitarian law.
The Syrian government is responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes over the past 13 years of hostilities, including while fighting HTS. In 2020, Human Rights Watch found that Syrian and Russian armed forces’ repeated attacks on civilian infrastructure may amount to crimes against humanity. In 2023, Human Rights Watch also documented the Syrian-Russian military alliance’s use of cluster munitions and incendiary weapons on Idlib governorate. The Syrian-Russian military alliance should refrain from indiscriminate attacks as well as attacks that target civilians and civilian objects.
Since 2011, Human Rights Watch and others have extensively documented the arbitrary detention and torture of tens of thousands of people by Syrian government forces in what amount to crimes against humanity. Syria is facing scrutiny at the International Court of Justice in a case brought by Canada and the Netherlands alleging that it is violating the international Convention Against Torture.
“The bloody record of atrocities by all parties to the conflict in Syria is bound to persist until leaders go beyond words and support accountability efforts,” Coogle said. “Without credible justice, there will be no end in sight to the suffering Syrians have endured, no matter who controls the land."
Saudi Arabia: ‘Giga-Projects’ Built on Widespread Labor Abuses
(Beirut, December 4, 2024) – Migrant workers in Saudi Arabia are facing widespread abuses across employment sectors and geographic regions, including at high-profile giga-projects funded by or linked to Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. FIFA, the international football organization, is set to confirm Saudi Arabia as host of the 2034 Men’s World Cup on December 11, without requiring proper human rights due diligence and binding commitments to prevent labor and other abuses.
The 79-page report, “‘Die First, and I’ll Pay You Later’: Saudi Arabia’s ‘Giga-Projects’ Built on Widespread Labor Abuses,” documents widespread abuses against migrant workers, some of which may amount to situations of forced labor, including exorbitant recruitment fees, rampant wage theft, inadequate protections from extreme heat, restrictions on transferring jobs, and uninvestigated worker deaths. Saudi authorities have systematically failed to prevent or remedy these abuses, including at high-profile projects financed by its sovereign wealth fund, the Public Investment Fund (PIF).
“The human engine powering the construction of Saudi Arabia’s multibillion dollar giga-projects is the migrant workforce, who are facing widespread rights violations in Saudi Arabia without any recourse,” said Michael Page, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “FIFA’s fake evaluation process to award the 2034 World Cup without legally binding human rights commitments will come at an unimaginable human cost, including adverse intergenerational impacts on migrant workers and their families.”
The report is based on interviews with more than 155 former and current migrant workers and families of deceased workers across employment sectors and regions.
Migrant workers in Saudi Arabia face widespread labor abuses at every point in the migration cycle, Human Rights Watch found. The abuses start from the time companies recruit workers and illegally force them to pay exorbitant recruitment fees and continue with employers in Saudi Arabia violating their employment contracts by failing to honor the terms of employment and benefits stipulated in the contract.
“I was paid on time for the first two months, but never thereafter,” one migrant worker said. “When I asked my manager for payment, he would answer: ‘Die first, and I’ll pay you later.’”
Despite Saudi Arabia’s 2021 Labor Reform Initiative that claimed to make it easier for migrant workers to transfer to a different employer and leave the country freely, migrant workers continue to face barriers to mobility that abusive employers often exploit.
“I was told to take the exit permit, leave the country, and remigrate to another company,” one worker said. “They [the employer] said: ‘If we let you transfer sponsorship, we will have to let others do so as well.’”
Other employers forced workers to sign an agreement to pay their employer if they moved to a new job. Workers who did manage to change jobs also were forced to pay their former employers. One worker employed at a NEOM project—a PIF-funded giga-project that is being built in the northwest of Saudi Arabia—said he paid his previous employer more than 12,000 riyals (about US$3,200) to change jobs.
Many migrant workers also often lack the awareness and technical know-how necessary to navigate online employment contract management services. They struggle to understand their rights under the nuances of Saudi Arabia’s labor laws and cannot access support via Saudi authorities or their origin countries’ embassies.
The giga-projects often impose unrealistic, tight deadlines for projects, which translates to additional pressure on workers. Many workers are also isolated from support networks such as embassies or well-established migrant diaspora groups. One NEOM-based worker said: “We are in the middle of nowhere. Embassies are very far away. If something goes wrong, there is nowhere we can go. There is also fear. Where do we go? Who do we tell?”
The number of migrant workers in Saudi Arabia, 13.4 million, is expected to increase significantly, with planned mega- and giga-projects that will require massive new construction.
Employers also expose workers to serious dangers at job sites, including abuses linked to extreme heat for outdoor workers that are likely to increase as climate change accelerates. A worker employed at a NEOM project said: “Every day, one or two workers faint, including during mornings and evenings. Sometimes on the way to work. Sometimes while working.” Abuses linked to extreme heat can cause lasting and potentially lethal health harms to migrant workers, including organ failure.
According to government data obtained by Human Rights Watch, 884 Bangladeshis died in Saudi Arabia between January 2024 and July 2024, of which 80 percent of the deaths were attributed to “natural causes.” Many migrant worker deaths in Saudi Arabia are unexplained, uninvestigated, and uncompensated, leaving families of deceased migrant workers without financial support.
The wife of a deceased Indian plumber told Human Rights Watch: “He did not have any health issues. We do not believe that he died of natural death as is mentioned in the death certificate. The death was not investigated properly.” She added: “He used to send approximately $536 [KA1] every month to cover family expenses, education, and outstanding loans. After his death, we are in a state of destitution.”
Human Rights Watch also spoke to seven former migrant workers who had previously worked in Saudi Arabia who are now dialysis patients with end-stage renal disease. The wife of one patient told Human Rights Watch that her husband’s dialysis was covered by the Nepali government, but she was unable to afford medicine or pay for their children’s school fees in the last six months. She said: “The [Saudi] company did not provide any assistance beyond booking his [return] ticket.”
While Saudi authorities have the primary obligation to protect human rights, including labor rights, businesses also have internationally recognized responsibilities to respect human rights and avoid complicity in abuses. The pervasive enforcement gaps in Saudi laws intended to protect migrant workers require urgent attention. However, as this report documents, while noncompliance needs to be addressed, compliance alone is also not sufficient in Saudi Arabia’s context, where many laws themselves fail by design to meet international norms and the country’s obligations under international human rights instruments, Human Rights Watch said.
Saudi Arabia’s 2034 Men’s World Cup bid submitted to FIFA failed to adequately report and address rights abuses prevalent in the country and to offer any concrete assurances that the abuses will be addressed, despite the massive construction required, including 11 new and four refurbished stadiums; more than 185,000 new hotel rooms; and significant airport, road, rail, and bus network expansion.
FIFA has engineered the World Cup hosting process to ignore the blatant human rights risks, including a forced labor complaint against Saudi Arabia filed by the global trade union Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI) at the International Labour Organization (ILO) in 2024.
Human Rights Watch wrote to FIFA on November 4, 2024, sharing findings and documentation of widespread and serious labor rights abuses linked to mega- and giga-projects in Saudi Arabia. FIFA has not responded.
“Saudi authorities, who are spending billions to launder their abominable human rights reputation, would be better served by effectively implementing labor reforms they’ve promised but so far failed to deliver on,” Page said.
India: Police Raid Rights Group in Delhi
(New York) – Indian police in Delhi on November 29, 2024 carried out a politically motivated raid on the offices of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), Human Rights Watch said today. The action appeared to be part of the government’s crackdown against groups that criticize speech that could provoke violence against Muslims and other minorities.
The police claimed to be acting on a complaint over an exhibition by the group, that documents human rights abuses and incitement to violence against Muslims since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014. The police also attempted to detain Nadeem Khan, the group’s national general secretary.
“It’s perhaps unsurprising that Delhi police raided the offices of a group highlighting the BJP-led government’s appalling record of targeting Muslims and other minorities over the last decade,” said Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Instead of revoking harmful policies and prosecuting those responsible, the government appears intent on punishing the messenger.”
The exhibition highlighted politically motivated prosecutions of human rights defenders in India. It also documented mob violence by ultranationalist Hindus that has killed many Muslims, and hate speech by senior BJP leaders that has repeatedly incited violence against religious minorities, issues that have been well-documented by domestic and international rights groups.
The Association for Protection of Civil Rights said the Delhi police did not carry any notice or arrest warrant when they traveled to the southern city of Bangalore to arrest Khan, in violation of due process. The police said they were investigating Khan and the APCR for allegedly “promoting enmity” between various groups, and for criminal conspiracy. The police complaint is based on a video posted on social media of Khan showing the exhibit, discussing specific cases of violence against Muslims and relevant court judgments. The video, posted on X by a BJP supporter who called for police action against the exhibit, was posted separately by a BJP minister a day later.
On December 3, the Delhi High Court granted Khan interim protection from arrest for three days and instructed him to cooperate with the police investigation.
The Association for Protection of Civil Rights has provided legal aid in a number of human rights cases across the country. These include defending activists wrongfully prosecuted under India’s counterterrorism law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, in a case relating to communal violence in Delhi in February 2020 in which 53 people, mostly Muslims, were killed. “APCR is one of the few organizations in the country that is actively engaged in advocating for us and providing every help including legal aid,” an activist said.
The raid on the APCR is not an isolated case, Human Rights Watch said. Police in Uttar Pradesh state have accused Mohammed Zubair, cofounder of an independent fact-checking website, Alt News, of promoting enmity between different religious groups, as well as “endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India,” for posting a video of a Hindu religious leader making Islamophobic remarks. On December 3, the judges hearing Zubair’s case in Allahabad High Court recused themselves and directed that the case be listed before another bench.
Zubair had posted a video showing the Hindu religious leader Yati Narsinghanand making derogatory remarks against the Prophet Muhammad in a speech on September 29. Narsinghanand has repeatedly called for violence against Muslims, and in January 2022 was arrested for making Islamophobic and misogynistic comments and spent a month in jail.
The police added charges of “endangering sovereignty” that could lead to Zubair’s immediate arrest based on complaints. Zubair was previously arrested by Delhi police in 2022, on charges of hurting Hindu sentiments in a 2018 Twitter post. The police opposed bail, seized his electronic devices, and secured an order to hold him for 14 days in custody while they investigated. The Supreme Court granted bail saying that the “power of arrests must be pursued sparingly. In the present case, there is no justification to keep him in continued detention and subject him to an endless round of proceedings in various courts.”
In the recent case, Zubair told the BBC that while a number of journalists, politicians, and media channels had also shared the video of Narsinghanand’s latest speech on X, the police “are going after someone who’s reporting hate speeches, while people giving hate speeches are going free.”
“The Indian government appears determined to silence voices that speak out against its abusive practices as well as those who provide assistance to people facing malicious investigations,” Pearson said. “By punishing people for exercising their free expression rights, the government isn’t silencing their message but only adding to the mounting list of human rights abuses.”
Greek Surveillance Lawsuit Aims to Silence Journalism
On December 5, a court in Athens will hear a defamation lawsuit against journalists who exposed state surveillance by Greek authorities. The case, brought by Grigoris Dimitriadis, nephew of Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, fits into the category of cases referred to as “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPPs), whose primary purpose is to deter critical reporting.
Dimitriadis filed the lawsuit against the newspaper Efimerida ton Syntakton (Editor’s Journal, EfSyn), three of its executives, and journalists Nikolas Leontopoulos, Thodoris Chondrogiannos, and Christoforos Kasdaglis from investigative outlet Reporters United. He had previously brought a lawsuit against EfSyn, Reporters United, and Leontopoulos and Chondrogiannos, as well as journalist Thanasis Koukakis. The court dismissed that case in October, citing the public interest value and veracity of the journalists’ reporting.
Both cases stem from the journalists’ investigations into the “Predatorgate” surveillance scandal involving the use of spyware to hack the devices of political figures, prominent businesspeople, and journalists, allegedly by Greek intelligence services and on direct orders from the prime minister’s office. In the fallout from the scandal, Dimitriadis resigned as general secretary in the prime minister's office and from his role overseeing the National Intelligence Service (Ethnikí Ypiresía Pliroforión, EYP).
Now, despite the earlier case’s dismissal, Dimitriadis is back in court seeking €3.3 million in damages and the removal of articles implicating him in the surveillance scheme.
Dimitriadis’ legal actions against those who uncovered the scandal come amidst growing concerns around impunity in Greece for those responsible for illegal surveillance of citizens. Last July, the Supreme Court prosecutor cleared all Greek state agencies and officials of responsibility for the use of Predator spyware, despite documented evidence of their involvement, including findings from a European Parliament investigation. This raises serious concerns that Greek authorities prioritize protecting those in power over accountability.
Dimitriadis’ cases highlight the urgent need for the Greek government to take concrete steps to protect journalists from legal intimidation, including by enacting robust anti-SLAPP legislation. Such legislation has been agreed on at the EU level in November 2023. The government should also ensure transparency and accountability regarding the surveillance scandal.
Journalists in Greece and elsewhere play a vital role in uncovering the truth and holding those responsible for abuses to account. Attempts to deter them from doing their jobs through SLAPPs not only threaten media freedom but also undermine efforts to ensure justice and uphold the rule of law.